On Tuesday 3 March an announcement appeared in the Dundee Courier announcing an ‘Anti-Slavery Soiree’ in honour of Frederick Douglass, Henry Clarke Wright and James Buffum, to be held in George’s Chapel, School Wynd on the evening of Tuesday 10 March.

Douglass and Buffum had addressed meetings at the church at the end of January, although the invitation of its United Secession minister George Gilfillan had displeased some of his managers.¹ According to one source, the Soiree was originally planned to be held in Ward Chapel, but while the deacons approved the request, its Independent minister David Russell advised against it.²

On 2 March the managers of School Wynd met to consider a request for a Soiree to be held there. The request was approved, although not unanimously. The Soiree duly took place – as did a later anti-slavery meeting in the autumn – but these events pushed eight managers to resign in February 1847.³

Clearly, there were some in the dissenting churches who were nervous, and unwilling to antagonise the Free Church of Scotland which was then in some turmoil in Dundee following a resolution put forward by Rev. Islay Burns of St Peter’s Free Church calling on its parent body to withdraw fellowship with the American churches ‘until they be brought to an acknowledgement and renunciation of their sin.’  No doubt the abolitionists took this as a sign that their earlier speeches in the town were beginning to have some effect.

The resolution was debated at a meeting of the Free Church Presbytery at St David’s Church on 11 February, the proceedings of which are referred to repeatedly at the Soiree – especially the contributions of Rev. George Lewis (St David’s Church) and Rev. John Roxburgh (St John’s Church), who spoke against the resolution.⁴ George Lewis was the particular target of remarks by Douglass and Buffum at the Soiree, not least because he was a member of the controversial fund-raising mission to the United States in 1844 and wrote a book-length account of his experiences.⁵

Of the three abolitionists honoured by the Soiree, Henry C. Wright was not present. He was on a speaking tour of the Borders, where he had  been since the beginning of March, and would remain there until the middle of April.⁶

The 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.⁷ Other speakers at the Soiree included George Gilfillan and Thomas Dick.

An extensive report of the Soiree was carried in the Courier on 17 March, although some of the speeches are only summarised. The newspaper published a full account in a separate booklet which appeared a week later later and is reproduced below, followed by the shorter review of proceedings in the Northern Warder, which was rather less impressed by the speakers’ denunciations of the Free Church.

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

---

ANTI-SLAVERY SOIREE

(In consequence of a very generally expressed desire to obtain a full report of the interesting proceedings at the Soiree held on the 10th March, in honour of Messrs. Douglass, Wright, and Buffum, and as a demonstration in favour of the abolition of American slavery, the following, which is believed to be a faithful account, is now published.)

***

On the evening of Tuesday the 10th March, a soiree in honour of Messrs Douglass, Wright, and Buffum, the advocates of the abolition of American Slavery, was held in George’s Chapel, School Wynd. The anxiety to obtain tickets for this demonstration was so great that the number issued were all disposed of on the previous day, and consequently the chapel was filled in every part at an early hour, upwards of 1200 being present. Alexander Easson, Esq., occupied the chair; and on the platform we observed the Rev. Dr Wood, Broughty Ferry, Mr Marshal, Lochee, and Mr Gilfillan, Dundee; Thomas Dick, LL.D., Bailie Moyes, Councillor Murdoch, Messrs John Laing, W. Christie, R. Christie, O.J. Rowland, George Rough, Thomas Saunders, John Whitton, William Halkett, jun., M. M’Lean, Alexander Leask, Dr Gray, Dr Mudie, &c. &c.

Dr Wood of Broughty Ferry asked a blessing on the proceedings of the evening; and after a service of tea and other refreshments, and the performance of a piece of music by the Dundee Harmonic Society,

Mr Easson said – Ladies and gentlemen, this meeting is held expressly for the purpose of showing that we approve of the object and labours of our friends Messrs Douglass and Buffum. I am sure that these gentlemen will be satisfied that the inhabitants of Dundee have manifested that they entirely approve of their labours and the object which they have in view. (Applause.)

These gentlemen profess that their object in appearing amongst us is to point out the evils of slavery, and particularly the evils of slavery as it exists in America; but, besides this, they have in view also to tell us of the error into which the Free Church of Scotland has fallen in going to America and seeking money for the Free Church, and having communion with slaveholding Churches. (Applause.) Their object is farther to ascertain whether the inhabitants of Scotland approve or no of the course taken by the Free Church. (Cries of ‘No! no!’)

Slavery as it exists in America appears in its very [4] worst form. In America the flag of liberty is hoisted everywhere, and in every place there is a profession of Christianity; but, notwithstanding the loud cry that Americans make for liberty, and notwithstanding the profession of Christianity that is made in that land, yet there we see slavery in its very worst form. Now, if slavery is a hateful thing under despotism, if it is a hateful thing where there is no profession of Christianity, it is much more so in a land where the inhabitants profess to be the foremost in calling out for liberty, and where they profess Christianity. It must be evident to every one that slavery is completely opposed both to the one and to the other.

Efforts have been made in America by a large number of citizens opposed to slavery for its suppression. A few ministers from the Free Church went out to that country, and went into the slaveholding States, and held fellowship with those who advocate the cause of slavery – thus indirectly supporting slavery, and at the same time injuring the cause of the abolitionists in that country. The object for which Messrs Douglass and Buffum have appeared amongst us is to endeavour to undo as far as possible what has been done for the support of slavery by the Free Church. (Applause.) While we lift up our protest against the Free Church for giving support to slavery to any extent, it should be shown by our whole conduct in reference to this matter that we entertain nothing like ill-will to the Free Church, but that we express our opinions on this subject with the view that we wish to be clear of guilt in regard to that support of slavery, and that we wish that the Free Church may come to a right mind on this subject – that she may be led to send back the money. (Applause.) It does appear to me that the shortest way to get out of the scrape is at once to admit they have done wrong – to declare that they will have no further fellowship with slave Churches, and to send back the money. (Cheers.)

Our friends Messrs Douglass and Buffum profess what they want to do is to stir up public opinion in Scotland, and bring about this result. They have had exceedingly successful and most excellent meetings already in Aberdeen and in Montrose, and are everywhere exciting the indignation of the people against slavery, and calling forth public opinion against what has been done by the Free Church. It is hoped their labours will have such an effect as to make the Free Church ashamed of what they have done, and join with others to do all they can for the suppression of American slavery.

I am exceedingly sorry that Dr Ritchie did not find it possible to be present. He was exceedingly anxious to attend, but by a letter received from him it appears that circumstances entirely unconnected with the subject of slavery, have made it impossible for him to do so. (Mr Easson read an extract from the Dr’s letter to the above effect, and sat down amid cheering.)

Dr Dick, after mentioning that he was not aware he had been expected to address the meeting until he saw the bills that day, said he would make a few remarks on the general subject.

He continued – Of all the evils that have ever afflicted humanity in any age of the world, I have considered the system of slavery to be the most execrable and abominable. It has a tendency to debase the image [5] of God in the soul of man, and to degrade rational and immortal beings even beneath the level of the beasts that perish; and in no nation or country whatever can the system of slavery be vindicated on any rational, humane, just, or religious principles. It appears, however, the most contradictory, the most inconsistent thing in the world, when supported by nations which boast of their liberties, and which consider themselves as advanced to a high degree of science and civilization.

In this point of view I consider the inhabitants of the Southern States of North America as the most inconsistent people who dwell on the face of the whole earth. (Applause.) In the front of their constitution stand the following words, – ‘We firmly  believe that all men are created equal – that God has given certain unalienable rights to every man – that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ The declaration of independence of which these words form the frontispiece, was signed on the 4th day of July 1776. There was engraven on the great bell of Philadelphia, at the time of its being subscribed by the delegates of the various States, ‘PROCLAIM LIBERTY TO ALL THE INHABITANTS OF THIS LAND;’ and on every coin which has ever been issued from the United States mint since that time, the word ‘LIBERTY’ has been engraved in capital letters, of which I could show a specimen at the present moment. (Applause.)

On the the 4th day of July every year there is a solemn and universal commemoration of this event, in which all the inhabitants seem to join with enthusiasm. yet, strange to tell, after seventy years have elapsed since that period, the system of slavery still exists in the Southern States of America with the same rigour and the same atrocity as it did at that time, or ever did in any nation under heaven. At this moment three millions of rational beings are subjected to the chains of slavery without the least hope of ever enjoing the privileges, rights, or liberties of human beings. Be astonished O ye heavens at this! I know not if an instance of this kind can be found in the history of any nation that ever dwelt on the face of the earth; or any nation that now exists, even the most barbarous and uncivilized. There are, indeed, certain tribes and nations which still give countenance to slavery, but I defy any man to select any one of these nations in the front of whose constitution are engraved these words, that ‘every man is born equal, and has an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and therefore, if the inhabitants of the Southern States of America were to be consistent with themselves, they would at once either abolish this atrocious and abominable system of slavery, or call a meeting of delegates from all the States of America, and eraze for ever these words from the front of the declaration of independence, or they must stand convicted in the eyes of all nations as liars, hypocrites, and deceivers. (Great cheering.)

I need not dwell on the details of the atrocities connected with slavery, as most of you will have read accounts respecting them. The details connected with slavery are apt to make the ears of every one who hears them tingle, and some of them could scarcely be exhibited to a public audience. There is flogging till the blood runs down in streams, and the flesh is torn and gashed by the infernal weapon [6] which inflicts the stripes. They chase the runaway slave with blood-hounds, when they are sometimes either worried or torn to pieces. There are fixing them in the stocks, and chaining them in dark apartments; and what is worst of all is what is called cat-hauling – that is, the claws of a live cat are fixed on the shoulders, and it is torn down by the tail to the lower parts of the body, till it  brings along with it the skin, flesh, and blood. (Sensation.)

These atrocities every one of three millions of human beings are liable to, at the will of an imperious master; and though they should die under the torture no notice is taken unless there happen accidentally to be white men present, for a slave is not considered a rational being, and cannot give evidence; although a hundred slaves were present and were to give their testimony it would not be taken. The laws respecting slavery are rather worthy of the most barbarous nation under heaven than one which  boasts of its civilization and its science. The slaves are held to be incapable of obeying the laws of conscience and of God. They are degraded below the ranks of rational creatures and numbered among chattels. Marriage and the family relations are virtually annihilated among them. The law takes no more notice of the marriage of slaves than of brutes; and as to the parental relation, a slave has no more right over his children than a cow has over her calf, and therefore children may be sold to the highest bidder, and the two different individuals – the parent and the child – may be taken 1000 miles distant from each other, where they will never have an opportunity of beholding one another’s face on earth.

But what is the worst of all and the most horrible is, that as the slave laws condemn the slave to misery on earth, so they interpose a barrier to his eternal happiness in the life to come, by debarring him from instruction and religious education, by debarring him from reading the Bible, which points out the knowledge of the true God, and shows to men the only way of salvation. These things only require to be stated to show you that the system of slavery, in every point of view, is one of wickedness, inhumanity, and irreligion. This system is attempted to be upheld by assertions that the negroes are a degraded race of men, who have faculties scarcely at all superior to the brutes.

In oppposition to this I could bring you manifold examples to prove that the negro race is capable of all the finest sympathies of our nature – that they possess all those intellectual faculties requisite for the pursuit of knowledge of every description, even the most abstruse. I need not perhaps go beyond the limits of these walls to prove this. (Applause.) I need only point out our talented friend who sits on the right hand of the Chairman – (renewed applause) – who has manifested himself a man endowed with high moral, Christian, and intellectual powers, that would be an honour to any race or any tribe of men. (Cheering.)

But, did time allow, I might tell you of some who, after being kidnapped in Africa, and having been slaves for some time, had attained their freedom and had been crowned with the honour of Doctor of Philosophy and Dr of Divinity – who had engaged in the most abstract metaphysical and mathematical studies. I might tell of one – Gustavus Vasa – [7] who, having been kidnapped on the coast of Africa at the age of 33, afterwards went to London, wrote his adventures and published them in the form of letters, which went through a considerable number of editions, and were read by a great portion of the community. The son of this man was the librarian of the late Sir Joseph Banks, and secretary to a great number of societies.⁸ I might tell you of another – Mr Amo – who was brought to America, gained his liberty, and went over to Germany, attended the college of Wittemberg, was made a Doctor of Philosophy – delivered a course of lectures, made great progress in the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and was made at last a Professor of one of the most abstract departments of mathematical science.

There are many such instances; yet men such as these are considered in the southern states of America, by the planters, by preachers, by doctors of divinity, as unworthy to belong to the human species – are denominated chattels, sold by auction – whenever the masters please, bought and sold like cattle or sheep in the market, and afterwards degraded and subjected to the severest punishments. What then can we think of the Christianity of those men who hold the human species in the chains of slavery? Can we for a moment suppose that these men are the true and sincere followers of the meek and lowly Jesus, whose religion is a religion of benevolence?

It would be an insult upon the genius and spirit of that religion we profess, for a moment to entertain such a thought. What should we think if we were told of thieving Christians, of robbing Christians, of murdering Christians, of unjust Christians, of inhuman Christians, of Christians that would sell their own offspring to the highest bidders, for the sake of filthy lucre? Is there any society in this country that would admit of such Christians into their community? (Cheers.)

While men pretending to Christianity hold fast these abominations, and stand forth in a systematic course of prosecuting and vindicating them, what are we to think of those persons in this country who shall give them the least countenance? To such men I would say that so long as those parties whom they support are resolved to perpetuate slavery, they must be considered as giving at least indirect countenance to one of the most abominable systems that ever existed in our world. (Cheers.)

In saying this, I am far indeed from insinuating that the Free Church of Scotland, as a body, gives countenance to such men and to such practices. I am firmly convinced that they do not. So far from having an antipathy to that body, I always rejoiced in giving them that countenance which I considered consistent with the denomination to which I belong. I am fully convinced, from all the intercourse that I have had with the ministers and people of that church, that the great body of the Free Church will never rise up to vindicate any such conduct. (Applause.)

Sir, the continuation of slavery, either in the southern states of America or any other nation, has a tendency to retard the improvement and the moral regeneration of the world at large. While such a system of slavery continues, millions of our fellow-men will be held in a rank below that of the inferior animals, and will never be able to rise to the dignity of their moral and intellectual nature; but I trust slavery [8] will soon come to an end. It is decreed in the record of Heaven that slavery and all other abominations of unrighteousness shall ere long cease to exist; and I trust the period is rapidly approaching when slavery, with all its atrocities, will be for ever banished from the nations of the earth, notwithstanding all the efforts of its abettors to perpetuate it. Their violent dealing will come down upon their own heads; and when it does I have no doubt that a bloody retribution may be the punishment inflicted on its supporters by divine justice.

When slavery is once abolished, then wars will soon cease to the ends of the earth. (Who are the supporters of war in America at the present moment but chiefly the slaveholders?) Then we may expect the tribes of Africa and other nations will be led to live in harmony, in love, and peace, when no feuds are fomented among them for the purpose of acquiring slaves; and then these nations, so long involved in darkness and disorder, shall be visited with the day spring from on high, and the knowledge of salvations and ‘righteousness and praise will spring forth before all the nations.’ (Cheering.)

The Rev. Mr Gilfillan said, Sir, it is with great pleasure inded that I rise to take a part, however humble, in the proceedings of this interesting meeting; and I do so, Sir, with not the less pleasure that, along with my excellent brother Mr Marshall of Lochee, I stand in the character of a representative, – Mr Marshall and I representing what I believe to be the feeling of the Dundee Presbytery – what, I say, I sincerely believe to be the sentiments of the other members of the Dundee Presbytery; and who, although they be not here to-night, have, by the tacit language of their absence, elected Mr Marshall and me to represent them. (Cheers and laughter.)

Time was, to use the language of the immortal Shakespeare, that when the brains were out the man would die. (Applause.) Time was that when you had annihilated in argument or withered with sarcasm a bad cause, you were sure to hear no more of it for ever. That time, however, I am sorry to say, has gone by. There, for example, is the question of slavery. I thought in my simplicity that the question was dead and buried ten years ago. (Applause.) I thought it was not only killed, but killed thrice – that Lord Brougham had given it its mortal blow – that Dr Andrew Thomson had driven the blow home – that George Thompson had dug its grave – and that Dr Ritchie, whom I am sorry not to see here to-night, officiated with a dry eye as chief mourner at its funeral.⁹ (Great laughter and cheering.)

I thought in my simplicity that the old rhyme of, Who killed Cock Robin? (laughter) might be parodied, Who killed Slavery? I, said Lord Brougham. Who dug its grave? I, said Andrew Thomson. (Laughter.) Who wove its shroud (and a beautiful shroud it was)? I, said George Thompson. And who put it in its coffin, and walked after it to its grave? I, said Dr Ritchie. (Continued laughter.)

But, Sir, it seems in this I have been altogether mistaken. Slavery is alive still. Not only does the hideous thing exist in America still, but it is still defended, and defended too, forsooth, on Scriptural principles. (Applause.) Yes; slavery – driven long [9] ago off the ground of justice, of humanity, of policy – has taken refuge under the shield of Christianity (hear, hear), and is there trying, but trying in vain, to hide its hideous visage. (Cheers.) This connection, Sir, between slavery and Christianity – shall I call it rather this marriage between slavery and Christianity? – may I not, to use the language of Pitt on the coalition of Lord North and Fox, when he rose up in Parliament and said, ‘I forbid the bans:’ So in reference to this marriage between slavery and Christianity, may I not say, I forbid the bans? (Applause.)

This connection between Christianity and slavery has two aspects – first of all a bearing on slavery, and then a bearing on Christianity.

It has a bearing on slavery. Its object is to prop up the cause of slavery; but, Sir, it will not be able. Though I am no prophet or a prophet’s son, it will not be able to prop it long. No, Sir, it is not a few perverted texts of Scripture that are now able to support a system which the Providence of God himself is hurling down to the ground. It is not a few perversions of the letter of Scripture that are able to support a system which the spirit of Christianity has long doomed to destruction. But it is said, the object of this defence is not to perpetuate the existence of slavery, but to break its fall. Why, Sir, I think that if the thing deserves to fall, the sooner it falls the better; if it deserves to fall, the more violently it is cast to the ground the better. (Applause.) Or is it to consecrate and whitewash certain monies which have come over from the other side of the Atlantic that these texts are quoted? (Cheers.) Why, Sir, if this be the case, it won’t do. (Great cheering.) It is the old story of Lady Macbeth, who, trying to get the blood off her hands, cried ‘Out, horrible spot!’ but had to add, ‘All the perfumes of Arabia cannot sweeten this little hand.’ So they are saying, ‘Out, out, horrible spot!’ but they will have to add as well as she, ‘All the perfumes of Arabia cannot sweeten, Lewis, thy little hand.’ (Loud and long-continued cheering.) No, Sir; sophisticate as they please – pervert Scripture as they please – they will not be able by a single hour to protract the death or sweeten the death-bed of American slavery, which, in the language of Dr Chalmers, is the biggest, blackest outrage ever put upon man by man.

And now, Sir, what is the bearing of this connection between slavery and Christianity on Christianity itself? It is most pernicious. Look what a handle it gives to the enemies of Christianity – to the infidels, many of whom are saying this – If slavery and Christianity be identified, we identify ourselves with neither the one nor the other; if slavery and Christianity embark in the same boat, we will embark with neither. Look again to its effect on the minds of Christians, how it divides them; see how it has divided us already. Look how the frost of slavery has nipped the opening buds of Christian union in this country and in this town.

Who are to blame for this? Is it our eloquent guests who are to blame? No: they have come the disinterested advocates of freedom and enemies of slavery. They have come in that capacity, and who dares hinder them?

Who are to blame? Is it the Dissenters of Dundee? No: for even although they had rallied [10] more unitedly than they have done around this cause, who, I ask, had a right to hinder them? Who had a right from the Vatican of Small’s Wynd west the way¹⁰ to say to the ministers and managers of dissenting chapels – ye shan’t open your doors to these disinterested philanthropists – to these eloquent orators and advocates of one of the noblest causes on earth – not open your doors under the pain of my displeasure. (Applause.)

In my simplicity I did not know that this decree had gone forth, and therefore when these gentlemen called on me some weeks ago, without consulting my managers, without consulting anything but my hatred of slavery, I gave them the use of this place, and I stand here to bear in their stead the thunders of the Vatican of Small’s Wynd. I am not afraid of the wielder of them in the press, or the pulpit, or the platform, either in Small’s Wynd or School Wynd. (Cheers.)

Who is to blame for the disunion which has taken place in Dundee? Is it the Free Church people? No; the heart of the Free Church people is with us to a great extent upon this question. Is it the Sessions of the Free  Church who are to blame? No; a part at least of one Session is with us. Is it, then, the ministers of the Free Church who are to blame? No; I do not say that either; I want to give them their due, although they have made me the object of personal abuse, although I have seen sometimes a preternatural elongation of face, and sudden adverting of eye, and strange fits of absence and abstraction when they met me in the street, instead of the condescending smile and patronizing nod they were wont to bestow on me and my brethren since the disruption.

Who are to blame? Not so much the ministers as the leaders of the party, and not so much the leaders as the position which they hold; and not so much the position as the atrocious thing slavery, which poisons and pollutes whatever comes even in the remotest contact with it. Like Dr Dick, I am no enemy to the Free Church. I never was an enemy to the Free Church. I respect many of its members. While in Edinburgh two Sabbaths lately, I heard services twice in a Free Church, and I preached once, at the request of a number of Free Church gentlemen, to a society composed mostly of Free Church young men, in Dr Candlish‘s church.

Because I respect the Free Church highly, is that a reason why I should shut my mouth and become silent when I see her commit – I will not say commit – but when I see her participate in a most enormous crime under which earth groans, and the cry of which is gone up to God’s own throne. Because I respect a person highly, is that a reason, if I see him apply the poisoned cup to his lips – is that a reason I should not dash it down? The more I respect him the more I am bound to do him all the good in my power, although I should make him an enemy by telling the truth. I am not willing to disturb Christian union. Union is precious, but if it is to be had only at the price of the slave’s liberty – if blood money be the price of union, then say I for one, it may be bought too dear. (Applause.)

Remember the frogs in the fable, who, when the boys were pelting them with stones, cried out, it is sport to you but death to us. So the poor slaves may exclaim, ye Christians at home [11] are uniting, but your unity is purchased  by the robbery of our rights; ye are clasping each others hands, but your clasped hands are the knots of our bondage; ye are holding your friendly meetings together, this minister proposing this, and another seconding that, as if ye were a band of brothers, and all the while ye are celebrating this hollow truce over our massacred liberties. Oh! if ye will unite, unite in this way, unite in making one great effort to break our chains – one great general effort to discomfit our oppressors.

Sir, I had intended to say something on the difference between Jewish slavery and American slavery, but I refrain, and I will tell you why.

First of all, the question is stale. It is been settled, and contemptuously settled, ten years ago. Oh had any unfortunate wight proposed this question in the presence of Dr Andrew Thomson in the year 1831, I can conceive what a withering frown that mighty man of valour would have cast on him, and what a torrent of inflamed invective and intellect he would have poured on his hapless head. He would have treated him in the same way as he did a good old seceder minister now dead, who stood up on behalf of circulating Bibles with the Apocrypha attached. Dr T. replied with such tremendous effect that the poor old body began to greet, and said to a man sitting beside him ‘If I had time and talents I think I could answer him yet.’ So I leave Mr Lewis with his time and Mr Roxburgh with his talents to answer this prophet of their own, who being dead, yet speaketh. I refrain from it because the Jewish system is a past system – in the words of Paul, a beggarly element; and a beggarly element never looks so beggarly as when raked up from the ashes of the dead past to support a great living iniquity.

I refrain from it once more because I take higher ground than even the ritual of ancient Israel. Slavery in a mitigated form was permitted by God, as was polygamy, as was assassination, as was massacre. Am I to defend assassination, or polygamy, or massacre, because in one or two cases they were permitted by the Most High? No. I say again, I appeal from these temporary permissions of God to God himself. I appeal to eternal justice. I appeal to the original feelings of humanity. I appeal to the dread tribunal of conscience. I appeal to the revealed will and law and love of God. Slavery is diametrically opposed to all these.

And I close by denouncing in the name of the British law, which decides that the rights of all men are equal – in the spirit of the British air, which silently dissolves the chains of the slave, and wreaths an unseen crown of liberty round his head whenever he touches the soil – in the name of the American declaration of rights, which decides that all men are equal – in the name of the Jewish law which condemns the man-stealer – in the name of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which declares that all men are sprung from one blood, and are brought by one blood – in the name of the very mother’s milk a hatred of slavery into British babes – in the name of eternal justice, and of God who cannot sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty – in the name of all these I denounce slavery in general and American slavery in particular.

I [12] brand it with the deepest abhorrence. I would hold it up as a mark, if I could, to the lightnings of God’s indignation. I denounce those Churches who wittingly, and with their eyes open, defend it – who wittingly, and with their eyes open, uphold its enormities and partake of its plunder. I say of such – of such, I say again, as wittingly and with their eyes open do this – ‘O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united.’ (Great and continued cheering.)

Mr O. J. Rowland said – My presence on this platform in the character in which I now appear has already been accounted for incidentally by the Chairman. It is occasioned by the absence of one whose absence no one regrets more than I do. I refer to Dr Ritchie. The subject on which he was to have addressed you, and which I need hardly observe he would have handled in his usual masterly style, now devolves upon me. That subject is no less important a one than a review of the speeches of the Free Presbytery of Dundee touching the matter of American Slavery.³ For the reasons now stated, I am not so fully prepared as I could wish. I must, therefore, claim the indulgence of this meeting if I make more copious use of my notes than what otherwise I would have occasion for.

The first speech of the Presbytery on the question in hand is that of Mr Burns; but as Mr Roxburgh has observed, and as I fully concur with him in the correctness of that observation, that his amiable  brother of St Peter’s did not touch the merits of the question, it is not necessary that I should occupy the time of this meeting with any comments on it. I shall therefore pass it by, with only the following remark, – that he has made more abundant use of such epithets as ‘mean,’ ‘unworthy,’ and ‘discreditable,’ as applicable to the present agitation, than any of his brethren.

Mr Lewis’ speech, though not next in order, shall now command our attention. The most prominent and prevailing feature in Mr Lewis’ speech, in my apprehension, is a vein of extreme self-complacency. The first sentence of his speech will fully bear me out in this statement. It is the following: ‘I understand, Moderator, that I stand before you to-day somewhat in the character of a criminal accused of two very bad things – of having kept bad company, the company of slaveholders; and taken  bad money, even money-stained with the guilt of slavery. Nay, Moderator, it is even reported that with this bad money St David’s Church, and I believe my brother’s church of St John’s, has been built.’

No one can fail to perceive that under this sentence there lies a sly chuckle – the chuckle of one who fancies that he has uttered something exceedingly sprightly and jocular. Without stopping to inquire whether such lightness of speech is altogether in good keeping with that gravity and seriousness of tone which we naturally expect to find pervading the discussions of so reverend an assembly, I cannot, considering the magnitude of the interests involved in the question in debate, but regard such levity as not only out of place but exceedingly offensive.

The friends of human freedom in America, and many on this side of the water believe – whether they be right or wrong in doing so is another question – that Mr Lewis has compromised the interests of [13] the slave population of that country in his intercourse with the Churches there. He may feel that he has a clear conscience in that matter. Be it so. I conceive, nevertheless, that in entering upon his defence, it is not the less due to himself as a Christian man and a Christian minister, to the Christian public of this country, and to that portion of it, at least, on the American continent who feel so strongly on the question of slavery, and above all, to the outraged feelings of that oppressed race who groan under the yoke of an intolerable bondage, without hope of relief or deliverance  but what is afforded them by the prospect of their final exit to that land of forgetfulness, where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest, he should abstain from all such flippancy of tone and expression as may have a tendency to weaken in the public mind that sense of loathing and abhorrence with which they now regard the system of American slavery.

Mr Lewis, however, has mis-stated the counts of his indictment. Without derogating in the least his repectability or importance, I shall venture to say that he does not bulk so much in the public eye as that they would concern themselves so much about him were he but merely charged with the petty delinquencies which he is pleased to allege.

I shall endeavour to state more correctly than he has done the substance of the charges brought against him. It is, that in his capacity of accredited agent from the Free Church of Scotland, he merged the identity of the character of that Church with that of the slaveholding Churches in America, on a paramount question in Christian morals; – it is, that he has strengthened the hands of the slaveholders of that continent, and, in consequence, helped to rivet faster the fetters of the slave by a course of action, the attempt to screen which has issued in the enlistment of the venerated name of Chalmers, and other worthies of the Free Church, into the ranks, if not of abettors, at least to that of apologists for American slavery.

These are the counts of his indictment. He is not one whit more happy in his handling of that other text, which has now so universally become a bye-word and a reproach – ‘Send back the money.’ (Applause.) Hear what he says – ‘To return these moneys were no hard matter for the Free Church in the way of sacrifice, but it were inflicting the deepest injury and insult on some of the best men and women in the Union, who mourn and pray in secret over the evils in the midst of which they have been born and bred.’

It is not, then, that formidable difficulty which would so naturally suggest itself to a superficial thinker, that lies in the way of the Free Church’s compliance with this all but universal demand of the Scottish people, but one entirely novel, and one, to my mind, as flimsy as it is novel. Would not such an explanation as the following in the form of extracts from the minutes of the Assembly, if transmitted along with the money, give ample satisfaction to the parties whom Mr Lewis is so fearful of offending for this seeming act of discourtesy? viz., that –

Whereas the Free Church of Scotland, in a season of pecuniary difficulty, having received contributions from slaveholders and others in the Southern States of America; and whereas their messengers to whose charge said contributions were entrusted did not specify [14] under distinct heads the amount received from slaveholders and non-slaveholders – from pro-slavery and anti-slavery contributors – the same became merged into one common sum; and whereas the Christian public of this country, conceiving that the reception by the Free Church of said contributions does implicate them in the guilt of slavery – the money being deemed to be a pledge of amity and good fellowship between them and the slaveholders of America, to the great detriment and scandal of the Free Church – and whereas, the Free Church, on mature reflection, concur that the retention by them of said money does in a measure countenance this wrong impression, – and whereas, the Free Church, willing to make any sacrifice rather than lie under the imputation of countenancing or seeming to countenance so hateful an outrage on the dearest rights of man, – and whereas, for reasons already alleged, it is impossible to distinguish the sums received from the abettors from the sums received from the repudiators of slavery, so as to retain the latter. It hereby resolved to return, and that forthwith, the whole of the money received from the slaveholding states whence it came. (Great cheering.) The Free Church do hereby enter their most solemn protest against that most hateful institution, which they cannot but regard as a standing insult to the Majesty of Heaven, in that it degrades to the lowest depths of brutish debasement, and keeps him there, the Creator’s chief handiwork – immortal man. The Free Church cherish the confidence that their transatlantic brethren in bondage, and whose friendly contributions are thus unwittingly returned, will, in the exercise of that charity which thinketh no ill, liberally construe this procedure of the Free Church, – and will believe that by so much as it is trying and painful for the Free Church thus to decline the tokens of their Christian affection, do they in the present instance afford the strongest proof which it is in their power to offer of the sincerity of their sympathy with them in their efforts to break the oppressors’ yoke.

I would feel very much disposed to doubt the faithfulness of Mr Lewis’ description of the parties in question, if they did not feel something more than satisfied with an act indicating such magnanimity and self-denial on the part of the Free Church. But what would it be to the slave? It would thrill his soul like a blast from the great trumpet of jubilee. (Cheers.)

There is but one other particular in Mr Lewis’ speech which I shall notice before I proceed to take up Mr Roxburgh’s speech, and I do so only  because it goes to confirm what I stated at the outset as to the tone of self-complacency which breathes through the whole of that speech. I refer to the use he makes of the vulgar expressions, John Bull and Jonathan, as symbolical of the English and American nations. We feel no difficulty in excusing the use of slang terms in the oration of a pot-house orator, but we naturally expect to hear something more dignified from the lips of a reverend Presbyter addressing his Church Court.

I shall now address myself to Mr Roxburgh’s speech. But before I take up any of his arguments in detail, I may perhaps be permitted to give a passing sketch of that speech, as to what appears to my mind to be its [15] leading feature. (Hear, hear.) Doing so, may be of service afterwards in enabling us in some measure to account for those palpable contradictions with which it abounds.

Mr Roxburgh’s speech then, I would say, is a regular slasher, which sets fairly at defiance all those cumbering restrictions which logicians have vainly sought to impose on the erratic sallies of excitable and impetuous temperaments. It is a speech intent only on one object, which it is determined to secure at all costs and all hazards.  Doubtless, its dashing impetuosity cannot fail to secure to Mr Roxburgh a reputation for magnanimous intrepidity, whatever may be said of his tact and discrimination as a debater. Mr Roxburgh boldly challenges any reasonable man who has read the deliverance of the General Assembly of the Free Church to say whether she has in one single iota compromised herself in the matter presently at issue.

I have read that deliverance once and again, and I am as bold to declare as what Mr Roxburgh is to challenge, even at the risk of being accounted by him an unreasonable man, that, independently of, and apart from other sources of information on this question, the mere perusal of that manifesto would leave me in considerable doubt whether to class the promulgators of it in the category of apologists or in that of Jesuitical abettors of slavery.

As that document will come under review afterwards, I shall reserve my remarks upon it till then. Meantime, I shall take up some of Mr Roxburgh’s own positions.

In relation to the position of the American Churches, touching the institution of slavery, he utters the following sentiment, – ‘What reasonable man, looking to the requirements of Scripture and common sense – looking to all the circumstances of the case – looking to the position of those American Churches, placed amid evils and difficulties of a social system which they had not originated, and for the existence and continuance of which they were not responsible.’  And, by way of confirming the soundness of his own views, he quotes several extracts from the Assembly’s deliverance, of which the following is one, – ‘This Church entertains a very decided conviction that the Churches in America are called upon, as Churches, to take a very serious view of the responsibilities lying upon them, in regard to the continuance of this national sin of slavery, with its accompanying abominations.’

To my apprehension, there is something that looks very much like a contradiction between the view of Mr Roxburgh and the views of the Assembly, in so far, at least, as those views are expressed in their deliverance, to which Mr Roxburgh appeals with so much confidence, touching the responsibility of the American slaveholding Churches, in regard to the continuance of the national sin of slavery. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)

‘Tis a pity the Assembly of the Free Church were so blind ‘to the requirements of Scripture and common sense’ when they penned, or sanctioned the penning of a sentence which contumaciously sets at nought such high and hallowed behests, and thereby occasion the scandal which must necessarily ensue from a reverend presbyter’s thus becoming the censor of his brethren. And ’tis a pity too, for the same reason, that Mr Roxburgh did not temper his impetuosity with a little more discreet moderation.

Regarding the institution of [16] slavery, Mr Roxburgh says, ‘It is evident from the whole tenor of the New Testament that the Apostles did not set themselves to agitate against the system of slavery. They did not employ the discipline of the Church as a means to accomplish such an end.’ The Free church, then, is manifestly in the wrong, as far as Apostolic example affords to later Christians a proper rule of action, in having gone so far as to issue a deliverance on the merits of an institution regarding which inspired Apostles preserved a becoming silence. And more especially in presuming so far as to hold out something like a threat to withhold Christian fellowship from those who shall persist in supporting a system which the Apostles ‘did not’ dare to ’employ the discipline of the Church as a means’ to subvert.

Surely Mr Roxburgh is less considerate towards his erring brethren of the Commission than Mr Lewis can find it in his heart to be towards the slaveholders of America; for even to them he (Mr Lewis) would administer only ‘that excellent oil of reproof which breaks no head.’ This, however, should awaken no surprise, when it is borne in mind the high estimation which Mr Lewis has formed of the moral worth and Christian benevolence of these modern patriarchs during his late sojourn amongst them; for their ruling passion and besetting sin, if indeed it be a sin, is in Mr Lewis’ apprehension only such a one as ‘God permitted unrebuked in the best of his Old Testament saints.’

Mr Lewis, therefore, declares that American slavery is identical with that form of servitude which obtained under the Jewish and Patriarchal dispensations; for if it be not the same, then it will follow that the fact of that form of servitude having been ‘permitted unrebuked by God in the best of his Old Testament saints’ has about as much to do with the question of American slavery as has the fact that Jubal Cain was the first hammerman. We have some light thrown on the system as it existed amongst the ancient worthies to whom Mr Lewis refers in Genesis xv. 3. In the case of this venerable character, we find that, failing issue of his own body, a slave born in his own house became heir of all his master’s possessions to the exclusions of a host of nephews. Under auspices, then, which admit the possibility of such a happy contingency, it cannot but appear to be a step of very doubtful policy on the part of Mr Douglass to forego such bright prospects to become a fugitive and a wanderer in a strange land. (Applause.)

But I have already spent too much time on Mr Lewis. I must now notice the means which Mr Roxburgh condescends to employ to lessen the credit of the Abolitionists of America with the people of this country; concerning which I would say (and I use the most modified form of expression that can indicate my meaning), that it is peculiarly un-English. Respecting the Abolitionists of America, Mr Roxburgh says, ‘It is said that their extreme views and violent measures have done incalculable injury to the cause which they profess to have at heart.’ Indeed! And by whom is it said, pray? It is a pity but Mr Roxburgh would condescend to name his authorities; for we all know that fame is a lying jade, and for ought that appears to the contrary, so far as Mr Roxburgh’s allegation is concerned, I suppose we are at liberty to assume tha[t] [17] she is at her old pranks again.

It is said, is it? Why, it has been said that Paul and his companions were pestilent fellows, who turned the world upside down. But do we therefore believe it? Does Mr Roxburgh therefore believe it? Sir, anonymous insinuations, as weapons either of defence or attack, are unworthy a noble and generou mind to employ. I do not stand up to deny the allegation that the American Abolitionists may have acted rashly and imprudently on many occasions. Neither do I appear to vindicate rashness or imprudence in any shape, or by any parties. This, then, I would only say, that other nations besides the American have, ere while, groaned under an incubus surcharged with such untold iniquities, that he who knowing the magnitude of the grievance could address himself to the task of its overthrow with that insipid equanimity which the Free Church so much admired in the merely sentimental Abolitionists of America, would prove himself to be either more or less than a man or a patriot.

There are men to be found at this time of day who believe that there was a very considerable spice of Vandalism in John Knox, of glorious memory; and that Pym, Hampden, and Sir Harry Vane, were very rude gentlemen indeed. What of it, then, if there should be found in America some zealous practical abolitionist, who, witnessing daily the tyranny and abominations of that accursed system, should feel his spirit stirred within him, and his Saxon or Celtic blood aroused to that pitch of excitement so that his judgment should for a time fail to control the impulses of his indignant scorn within the strict rules of conventional propriety. It would be an infirmity, ’tis true; but still an infirmity leaning to virtue’s side.

Mr Roxburgh is not prepared to stake the issue of this conflict on the heavy artillery of reasons; but he must needs employ those subtle weapons which lie concealed under imaginative similitudes. He says that the reception given to Messrs Buffum and Douglass by some of us Dissenters, reminded him of what he read in 2 Sam. xx. 9, about the treachery of Joab to Amasa. You all know the incident, so I need not repeat it. All I would wish to say in reply is, that the strange anomaly involved in the alliance of the Free Church of Scotland with American slaveholders, has a tendency to awaken old associations of imagery in other minds besides Mr Roxburgh’s. I am subject to such vagaries myself occasionally; and with your permission I shall state one of the similies which the perusal of that deliverance of the Free Church suggested to my mind. The incident is not so bloody, but I believe it to be fully as expressive and applicable as the one to which Mr Roxburgh refers.

It refers to a certain noble Lord, better known for his parsimonious habits than for his senatorial wisdom, who one morning met a little girl returning with a pitcher of milk from his own dairy. His Lordship was so struck with the interesting looks and graceful mien of his little protegé, that he condescendingly gave her a – kiss. But, lest his condescension should not be properly appreciated, he observed to her that, if she lived long enough, she would become a woman, perhaps a mother – if so, she would have it to tell her children, and they again to theirs, and so on for I know not how many generations, the mark of [18] distinction which had been bestowed on her, when a child, by the Earl of ___. ‘Ha,’ retorted the saucy little jade, ‘but you took the penny for the milk, though.’¹¹

Now, so long as the Free Church retain ‘the money,’ which is so generally held to be the pledge of amity and good fellowship between them and the slaveholders of America, they must needs excuse us if we put the same value on their high-sounding denunciations of the national institution of American slavery, as the pert little maid in question put upon his Lordship’s condescension while he kept the penny for the milk.

I had intended to criticise at length the deliverance to which I have already referred. But time will not permit. I must therefore conclude by observing, that notwithstanding all the declamatory appeals of Mr Roxburgh and Mr Lewis and other magnets of the Free Church, there is a growing conviction in the public mind that they have erred in the matter of their alliance with the slave-holders of America. Do I state this to damage the fair fame of the Free Church? Far be it; my conscience acquits me of any such intention. I believe in common with others that they have erred. To err, however, is human. Peter, though an Apostle, under the pressure of a sudden difficulty, denied his Lord. Nevertheless, he evinced the integrity of his character by his subsequent repetence. And, though I believe that the Free Church have erred in this matter, I am not so uncharitable as to forget the trying position in which they were placed when they formed this alliance. Neither am I so presumptuous as to overlook the fact that I am myself also in the body, and compassed about with many infirmities. It is not then their original error that constitutes the gravamen of the charge, so much as their dogged and pertinacious vindication of it after its pernicious effects have been so forcibly and clearly pointed out.

Let the Free Church, then, ‘Send back the money,’ and let them boldly repudiate all further connection and cease from all further tampering with the abettors and upholders of an institution the most accursed that ever polluted God’s earth; then shall their path be as the shining light; and then shall posterity, under the benign influence of Millenial rule, when slavery shall be deemed the most odious invention of the ‘powers of darkness’ to wreak their infernal malice in desolating the heritage of God – not only justify the founders in claiming for their ‘Zion’ the appellation of ‘the Free Chuurch,’ but shall joyfully accord to her that still higher and still nobler patronymic, – ‘The Church of the Free.’ (Great applause.)

Dr Mudie read, in an animated manner, the following Address to the American gentlemen, which had been drawn up by himself and approved of by the Committee:–

In presenting this address, permit us first of all to express the high satisfaction which, in common with our countrymen, we feel at your presence among us. We hail you as the friends of our race – as pre-eminently the friends of the slave. The Soiree at which you are now entertained you will receive at our hands as the fruit of our attachment to your persons – of our admiration of your character – and as a pledge not only of our unqualified approval of the object of your mission, but also of our firm determination to sustain this righteous cause until the principles which you advocate shall finally triumph [19] in securing the total and unconditional emancipation of the entire slave population in the United States of America.

Though like you, gentlemen, we have not  been personal spectators of the horrors of slavery, nor has any of our number been the subjects of its thefts and cruelties such as actually occurred in the painful experience of one of the loftiest in intellect, at the same time one of the most intrepid and philanthropic of your number, viz., Frederick Douglass, of immortal memory – but yet, in the absence on our part of all such experimental demonstration, you may believe us when we say there is no language we can command sufficiently emphatic to convey a just sense of that loathing and utter detestation with which we have always regarded American slavery, and more especially since we know that slavery, as legalised and maintained in that country, is associated with and gives birth to an amount of all sorts of wickedness, impiety, and crime, which, whether for their number, their magnitude, or the lewdness of their enormities, never have been equally in any other slaveholding country, whether in ancient or modern times.

Entertaining the deep abhorrence now expressed, and believing that a desolating flood of immorality and vice ever has and ever musut be the inseparable concomitants of slavery, pampering the lusts, corrupting the principles, and brutalizing the mind of the slaveholder on the one hand, and on the other despoiling the slave of every just and legitimate privilege, both civil and sacred. Such being our estimate of the nature and fruits of slavery, it may at once be perceived that we look upon slaveholding, however it may be modified or by whomsoever defended, as intrinsically a sin of the deepest dye, involving the slaveholder in the guilt of blasphemy against the Almighty himself, since, by man holding property in man he necessarily claims and he exercises that sovereign and uncontrollable authority over his fellow-creature which belongs only to God – a sin so daringly presumptuous as to start the inquiry, whether it be possible for a slaveholder to inherit eternal life? We firmly maintain that when man holds property in man he voluntarily perpetrates the most grievous wrong which it is possible for one human being to inflict upon another – from that moment the heartless plunderer occupies the place of a condemned culprit caught in a crime which humanity scorns, reason repudiates, and the word of the living God condemns.

With you, gentlemen, we cordially agree, and would insist upon the fulfilment of that fundamental principle of the American government, so happily expressed, yet practically so foully abandoned, and which it is the object of your prayers and labours to realize, – namely, that ‘all men are created free, and have an unalienable right to liberty,’ for we are all the offspring of God, and he hath made of one blood of nations of men for to dwell upon the face of the earth. With you we also entertain the position that every slaveholder is guilty of the double sin of theft and robbery in the highest and most aggravated form in which it is possible for these sins to be committed, – sins which under the law of Moses subjected the transgressor to the penalty of death. But, besides many other precepts condemnatory of slavery, which the slaveholder expunges from the oracles of truth, – he directly tramples under foot, spurns, despises, and in the exercise of a haughty and unblushing contumely which the reprobate only are equal to, he expunges from the divine record, as being wholly inapplicable to the government of his conduct, the golden rule of our blessed Lord – ‘All things whatsoever ye would that men should do [20] unto you, do you even so to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.’

Holding these sentiments, and remembering the law of our God, how that by express commandment he hath enjoined us to ‘hold no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them that they may be ashamed,’ we are bound, in obedience to divine authority, the dictates of conscience, and with a view to the eternal well-being of the slaveholder himself, to renounce – all Christian fellowship and communion with individuals or Churches found guilty, whether directly or indirectly, of upholding or defending slavery, wherever these individuals or Churches may be found, whether in America, in Scotland, or in any other quarter.

Brethren beloved, for such we call you – by what other title is it possible for us to address you, since, though the baptism of that charity which descendeth from above, by an act of self-denial you have consecrated your energies ‘to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, to break every yoke, that the oppressed may go free’ – from your lips, and we repose implicit confidence in your testimony, we have heard, with feeling of unmingled pleasure and of devoutest gratitude to God, of the progress which the principles of the Abolitionists are making throughout the States of America. In proportion as we hailed these blessful tidings so honouring to the patriotism and the Christianity of your country, we were startled with surprise, and roused to a feeling of indignation, on learning that certain parties from Scotland, who had recently perambulated the length and breadth of the land of your fathers soliciting the money, courting the fellowship, and forming an alliance with slaveholding seminaries and slaveholding churches, of whose doings Scotland knew nothing – whom she never recognised – whom she never delegated – to whom she gave no authority as the exponents of her principles: That this party, we say, had nevertheless assumed that importance and dignity which would necessarily belong to the representatives of Scotland’s feelings and principles on the question of slavery, thus hoodwinking the judgment and ministering to the delusions of the slaveholder, as if Scotland were not inimical to the diabolical abominations of slavery – as if she could tolerate, nay even embrace in the arms of her affection and Christian fellowship, slave breeders, baptised kidnappers, and sacramental traffickers in the bodies and souls of men. All this done, too, in the face of Britain’s renunciation of the horrid traffic – in the face, too, of the fact known and notorious, that a vast number, if not a decided majority of the immediate followers of these parties, reprobate the entire of their proceeedings in connection with American slavery; nor will they cease from that agitation which they have already so auspiciously commenced, until this covenant with death – this agreement with hell – shall be broken up, and the blood-stained dollars shall be wafted amid shouts of derision beyond the rolling Atlantic.

We are bold to pronounce that Scotland indignantly disowns all such representations. Her independence, her piety, her honour, never will be soiled by an alliance with manstealers. No; the voice that comes forth from her mountains, her glens, her villages, her cities, proclaims in accents loud as the roaring of seven thunders, that the blood-stained slaveholder shall never fill a place in her fellowship, nor find an avenue to her intercourse; that such are the unalterable sentiments of Scotland this great and enthusiastic assembly will [21] testify. Your own experience shall testify; your march through Scotland is being one of complete, of overwhelming triumph. Yes; let the slaveholder who clutches his victim hear it, that Scotland glories in your mission – she is touched with your story – she sighs over the poor, manacled, stricken, friendless slave – and she pants to plant her foot upon the neck of the oppressor.

In Dundee, comprising a population of seventy thousand souls, you have had five public meetings – all of them crowded with every sect and party of our community. Then and there, with that boldness which invariably distinguishes every worker of righteousness, did you arraign those parties who had promulgated in America that monstrous, but hitherto unheard of, heresy of Scotland’s connivances and friendship with slavery; you were cheered and sustained in the charge, by those great assemblies. You challenged their conduct – you unmasked their proceedings – you denounced their principles – you waited for their defence – their lips were closed – the silence of death overtook them – abashed, confounded, above all, unable to bear up under the frowns of an indignant and insulted auditory, they shrunk from your grapple.

At this stage of the address, we deem it but justice to ourselves in announcing that we utterly disclaim every feeling of party ambition or party jealousy; sectarian aggrandisement or sectarian discomfiture forms no element in our movement. We associate from other motives and for the accomplishment of other ends. We contend for principles not for parties. We ask that the men who peel with the whip and ulcerate with the fetters shall be denied the fellowship and placed beyond the pale of civilised society. In one word, we ask freedom for the slave – we ask no more. Let him walk in the liberty of a son of God, and the weapons of war shall perish from our hands. But till then Scotland, shall blow the trumpet, sound an alarm, keep her banners unfurled, her weapons unsheathed. And here all honour to our friends in the Church called Free, now buckling on their armour, collecting their energies, rushing forth as the bravest of the brave, in despite of the fetters wherewith priests have bound them, to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord [sic], to the slaughter of slavery. When that many-headed monster, already condemned, against which the axe of the Almighty is already uplifted, when the blow shall be struck which shall consign it to a tomb whence there is no resurrection, neither we, nor our friends in America, shall be found joining in the cry – rejoice over it thou heavens and ye holy apostles and prophets, and may we not add – ye millions of ransomed slaves, for God hath avenged your wrongs.

Brethren, in concluding this address, we say – God speed your errand – confound your enemies – give you the blessing of Joseph, who, though the archers may sorely grieve you, hate you, shoot at you, your bows shall abide in their strength, and the arms of your hands be made strong by the mighty God of Jacob.

The Chairman having put the Address to the meeting, it was at once and warmly approved of. The Chairman then handed it to the honoured guests of the evening.

Mr Frederick Douglass, who was received with enthusiastic and long continued cheering, said – I have to express my gratitude, Mr President, to you, and to the gentlemen of the Committee, and to this large audience for the address you have done us the honour to present. I can truly say I am proud to stand on this platform. It [22] is to me a pleasure and a privilege. I am thrilled with the deepest emotions of gratitude: And, as an introduction to the few remarks I am about to make, allow me to express my gratitude to those excellent friends, the Committee of the Anti-Slavery Society in Dundee, through whose energy and perseverance I am, in connection with my friend, permitted to stand before this brilliant and intelligent audience. (Applause.)

I wish to express my warm and heartfelt thanks also to the ladies who have interested themselves in bringing together this brilliant assembly, for such I must continue to call it. I do this with the more freedom and the greater pleasure because long experience has confirmed me in the opinion that, however cold and indifferent to human suffering, however dead and stone-like, the heart of man may, under the influence of sordid avarice, become, the heart of woman is ever warm, tenderly alive, and throbs in deepest sympathy with the sorrows and sufferings of every class, colour, and clime, over the globe. She is the last to inflict injury and the first to repair it. If she is ever found in the ranks of the enemies of freedom, she is there at the bidding of man, and in open disobedience to her own noble nature.

I next, Sir, take great pleasure in expressing my thanks to those gentlemen on the platform – those distinguished gentlemen. From all I can learn their very presence here is an all-sufficient assurance to the people of Dundee that we have gathered together for a worthy purpose this evening. Permit me also to express my thanks to you, Sir, for the readiness with which you have brought to the support of our cause that overwhelming influence which must ever be exercised by superior intellect and honourable conduct in a righteous enterprise.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am thankful to you all here, I feel under the deepest obligations to you. The honour which you have conferred on my friend and me this evening is one which we did not expect – the pleasure is one we did not anticipate.

The circumstances in which we came among you forbade us to expect any such attention or present at your hand. We came here in no insinuating spirit, softening down our words to suit the temperature of Dundee. We came here without compromise and without concealment. We proclaimed on the very threshold of our labours that it was our intention to attack and expose the conduct – the hurtful conduct – of a large and respectable body of professing Christians in your midst. I expected that this bold announcement would awaken the most bitter prejudice, and array against us the strongest opposition of that body. I had no doubt but that they would attempt to defend themselves; and from what I had seen of the writings and statements of members of their body on the general question of slavery, I confess I expected little scrupulosity in their choice of means. As a general thing, when any body of men commit a single wrong act in the name of religion, they almost invariably commit more sins in defending that action than the original one itself.

I think this has been singularly the case in the present instance. I think I never saw it more prominently illustrated than in the attempted defence of the indefensible conduct of the Free Church of Scotland. The opposition which I expected has been urged. For the purpose of disparaging my [23] mission and invalidating my testimony, the grossest misrepresentations and the darkest insinuations have been resorted to on the part of the great defender of the Free Church, the Northern Warder. The editor of that paper has put forth the most desperate efforts – he has left no stone unturned to overthrow our mission. I expected all this, and I would not have uttered a single word of complaint, had he done his best in any honourable way to defeat our mission, if he believed it to be wrong; but I am bound to complain of a want of fair dealing on the part of the editor of that paper. – I wish to call attention to the fact that he has assailed our character, impeached our motives, perverted our arguments, and peremptorily refused to permit us a single word of reply.

In America, and I believe in this country, it is understood as being but common fairness, when either a single individual or a body of individuals are attacked in their opinions or conduct in the columns of a newspaper, that he or they have an opportunity of reply through the same columns, so that the cup containing the poison, or supposed poison, may also contain its antidote. This in America is established etiquette: it is also common fairness and common justice. It is only where this etiquette is established in a community that it can be said to have any of the advantages of a public press, that it becomes the palladium of liberty as well as of purity.

But let the opposite principle prevail, and it is a curse rather than a blessing. No man is safe. He may be pierced through with a thousand poisoned weapons, and be totally without the means of defence or redress. An adroit editor may keep within the letter of the law and break its spirit in every line. Such is the present case. We have not been allowed a single word of reply. The chief excellence of a newspaper is frequently found in the candour and magnanimity of its editor. Candour, even in the absence of high intellectual acquirements, always commands respect; but what, I ask, must be thought of an editor who is not only destitute of high intellectual attainments, but is also destitute of common candour and magnanimity. (Hear, hear.)

Sir, I make these statements here because I had not an opportunity of making them where I should have had. I will not pronounce on that individual or that editor. I will suffer the community who know his good qualities best (laughter) to do so. The defender of the Free Church’s present position seems to be aware of one thing – that he has a bad cause to defend – that he is playing a very desperate game. It is pretty well established from all their discussions, from all their speeches, and from all their writing, that, to use the language of one of your own poets, ‘the De’il has business on his hands.’ (Laughter and cheers.)

The articles in the Warder all show this, and show farther that there must be great wear and tear of conscience somewhere. In order to vindicate their conduct, they must first upset the plainest principles of morality, and disregard the clearest precepts of Christianity. I pass over these points, as I have but a few moments to speak, and it would be wrong to detain you. (Great cheering, and cries of ‘go on,’ ‘go on.’) I will go on. (Renewed cheering.) I say that the present position of the Free Church can only be defended by upsetting the [24] plainest principles of morality, and by disregarding the clearest and purest dictates of Christianity. Both of these the Warder seems resolved to do, in defiance of the dictates of conscience and of common sense. At least this is my opinion, and you cannot punish a man for his opinion. (Cheers and laughter.)

Sir, it appears to me that the editor of the Warder, to judge from his writings, would deliberately stand by and see your wife taken from your bosom and sold on the auction block, and would strike hands with the robber after he did it, with the view of getting part of the money. Why not, Sir? The wives of other men have been sold, and the proceeds of their warm blood have gone into the treasury of the Free Church of Scotland; and the Warder comes forward, vouching its intellect – I won’t say its intellect, I won’t dignify it by that name, but a sort of cunning peculiar to the individual who edits that paper – and defends the taking that money to build up churches and pay Free Church ministers. (Applause.)

Sir, Heaven frowns when men build up churches by fraud, and chambers by the wages of unrighteousness. But to return: I am not disappointed in the course which I supposed the Warder would pursue; but I am surprised and delighted that the Warder and all who feel with him have been so ably met by the able, the eloquent, the intrepid, and the talented editor of the Dundee Courier, as well as their insinuations rebuked by this brilliant and intelligent meeting. I feel under the greatest obligations to the editor of the Dundee Courier, and I wish in my own name and the name of my fellow-countrymen – of my brothers and sisters, who are held in bondage by those calling themselves Christians – I wish to return my heartfelt thanks for the noble and able manner in which he has exposed the sophistries and denounced the base insinuations of those who stepped forward to the defence of this bad cause.

This meeting is a sufficient answer to all of the Warder‘s indirect slander – the more slanderous and hateful because indirect. The snake in the grass is tenfold more dangerous than one in an open road. The rattlesnake is dangerous, but a viper is more so. While both are poisonous, one is less cowardly than the other, and on that account to be greatly preferred.

But a snake is a horrible reptile viewed in any way you please, and I gladly turn from the disgusting spectacle to perform a duty which will be as agreeable to you as it is pleasurable to me. I am exceedingly thankful to the Editor of the Dundee Courier. He has done for me and my cause that which neither I or my immediate friends could do. We are strangers: He is not. We might be denounced as irresponsible persons: he could not be so denounced. He knew the character of our assailants: We did not. He was acquainted with their peculiar mode of warfare, and well understood with what arms they were to be met. And, Sir, I will do him the justice to say I have never seen a triumph more complete than the one achieved by him in the present instance. He has followed the enemy through all their windings, tracing them into every hole and corner, and with his scourge of small cords driven them from every hiding place. He has tripped up their heels at every turn, or, if I may so express myself, he has upset their premises, blown their logic into fragments, and brought their conclusions to the dust. This is what he has done [25] to the Editor of the Warder, as well as the members of the Free Church Presbytery. The Courier will be read on the other side of the Atlantic with the warmest emotions of gratitude by the Abolitionists; and while the Warder may congratulate itself on the support it gains to the Free Church from human fleshmongers, a more satisfactory compensation will be afforded to my excellent friend the Editor of the Courier by the warmest gratitude of three millions of bondmen. (Applause.)

Sir, for my own part, I would not like a compliment from men-stealers. I would look on their praise as the strongest evidence of my unfaithfulness to the Anti-Slavery cause. The slaveholders never praise or bestow money on the Abolitionists. The children of the slaveholding generation are as wise as the children of mammon ever were; and I say to the Editor of the Dundee Courier, he need never expect any compliment from the Slaveholding States of America.

But, Sir, I had as lief be complimented by the Devil as be complimented by a slaveholder; for I regard the slaveholder as his agent on earth to work out the destruction of all that is good, pure, and holy among men. – Sir, there are certain charges I am anxious to have plainly set before you. Although they have been to some extent stated here this evening, and in other places, I wish the charges I prefer against the Free Church distinctly understood; and I am the more anxious for this because I intend to leave this vicinity for some time. I do not intend, however, to leave Scotland – I mean to agitate! agitate! agitate! (Great cheering.)

I hope my labours have not been in vain. I have an earnest of the good I have effected already in the present overwhelming audience. There has been an attempt on the part of Mr Lewis and others to treat with ridicule the charges we make against them, as if they were a light matter. When I discovered that spirit in the man on reading his speech, it appeared to me to indicate a hardness of heart, more especially after what he had seen – what he had seen done and what he did in the midst of the slave states.

I mean to state as many charges against the Free Church as there are laws in the decalogue; and each of these, if true, is sufficient to render that Church unworthy of the Christian regard of all those who love God and their fellow-men:–

1st, I charge the Free Church of Scotland with fellowshipping menstealers, as the type and standing representatives of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth.

2d, I charge the Free Church of Scotland with accepting money from well-known thieves to build her churches and pay her ministers.

3d, I charge the Free Church of Scotland with sending a deputation into a community of well-known thieves to beg money which they had the best evidence was the result of the most foul plunder which has ever disgraced the human family.

4th, I charge the delegation of the Free Church of Scotland with going into a land where they saw three millions of immortal souls, for whom the Saviour poured out his blood on Calvary, reduced to the condition of slaves – robbed of their just and God-given rights – plundered of their hard earnings – changed from men into merchandize – ranked with the lowing ox or neighing horse – subject to the brutal control of rough overseers – herded together like brutes – raised like cattle for the market – without marriage – without learning – without God – without hope – groping their way from time to eternity in the [26] dark – left to be consumed of their own lusts  compelled to live in concubinage – punished with death, in some instances, for learning to read the word of God; and yet that delegation of professed ministers of the Gospel never whispered a single word of opposition to all this in the ear of the oppressor, or lifted up one prayer in the congregation for the deliverance of these wretched people from their galling fetters. The very idea is horrible, and ought to make every ear tingle and every heart quiver with terror.

5th, I charge the delegation of the Free Church of Scotland with having gone into the slave states and among men-stealers with a full understanding of the evils such a course must inflict on the Anti-Slavery movement, – they having been met and remonstrated with by the Committee of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, and appealed to by them in the most Christian and fraternal manner, in the name of Christ and the perishing slave, not to go into the South – that such a course would inflict a great and lasting injury upon the cause of emancipation.¹²

6th, I charge the deputation of the Free Church of Scotland with having taken the counsel and followed the bidding of slaveholders and their guilty abettors, whilst they turned a deaf ear to the bleeding and whip scored slave, and to the counsel, prayers, and entreaties of those who are labouring the most arduous manner for the immediate emancipation of the slaves held in the United States.

7th, I charge the delegation of the Free Church of Scotland with refusing to preach the truth against slavery, because by such preaching they would have failed in getting the price of human flesh to build Free churches, and to pay Free Church ministers in Scotland.

8th, I charge the delegates of the Free Church of Scotland with preaching such sermons only, while in the slave states, as would win for themselves the cordial approbation of man-stealers and their guilty abettors.

9th, I charge the distinguished leaders of the Free Church with apologizing, excusing, and defending slavery and slaveholding – with an attempt to show that neither Christ nor his Apostles had any objection to Christians trading in the bodies and souls of their fellow-men, and leaving the inference to be drawn that Christians may innocently do so now.

10th, I charge them with having adopted the name of ‘Free Church’ while they are doing the work of a slave Church, and have thereby disappointed the hopes and expectations of the perishing slave.

Sir, when the slaves in the United States heard of the formation of the Free Church – a free Church – accustomed as they were to nothing but slave churches, to a slaveholding Gospel, and to slave-trading Churches – what must have been their feelings? I for one used to exclaim, in what was wont to be a stereotype expression in my speeches in New England, What shakes nature just now? – Freedom, freedom! What shakes England? – The unwearied progress of political freedom! What shakes Ireland? – The progress of freedom! What shakes Scotland? – The efforts of the Free Church! This is what I used to say to my coloured brethren.

But little better than twenty months ago it was said that a delegation from the Free Church was come to our land. Strange emotions were excited. The Free Church was a somewhat different name from masters’ Church. In the slave states we used to be afraid of using the word liberty, and we called it for safety pig’s-foot; and in this way we could speak of it even in our master’s presence, without their knowing that liberty was the subject of our discourse. So when it was heard that the Free Church deputation was come, many a slave would be saying, ‘Well, pig’s-foot come at last.’ (Laughter.)

Freedom’s come! But look at the unutterable disappointment, and what a [27] reverse of feeling, when they found this Free Church meant nothing more to them than freedom for the deputation to clasp the hand of the slaveholder as a brother, and to neglect the poor bondmen! No word of sympathy for them, who were left to be treated by men as brutes, with the knowledge of the Gospel hid from them, deprived of the knowledge of the word of God by law, and groping their way from time to eternity in darkness. The Free Church delegation behaved in the South as if they believed there was no God – like Atheists. Money! money! was the entire actuating motive of their hearts. (Applause.)

With what utterable loathing we must look on men who dare to turn off attention from this matter with a laugh! Mr Lewis, so far from making light of this matter, should go down on his knees, acknowledge his offence, and seek forgiveness of his God, of the poor slave, and of the Christian people of Scotland for daring to compromise their character by striking hands with slaveholders to the utter neglect of perishing bondmen.

Sir, I can almost imagine I see brother Lewis calling on the slaveholder. I can almost go down south, and see him, when I was a slave, calling on my old master, Mr Thomas Auld (who would  be a very likely party to call on), with his subscription paper. When  brother Lewis knocks at the door, I answer, and he asks, ‘Well, my lad, is your master in?’ (Laughter.) ‘Yes, Sir.’

Well, he walks into the house, sees my master, and introduces himself thus (for my ear would be at the keyhole immediately on the door being shut) – ‘My object in making this call this morning is to see if you would do something for the cause of religious freedom in Scotland. We have been labouring some time back, and have undergone severe struggles, for Gospel freedom in Scotland, and we have thought it right to call upon you, as a benevolent man and as having means to bestow, to see what you can do for us.’

My master would reply, ‘Brother Lewis, I deeply sympathize with your efforts; and as I see the cause recommended by Deacon such-a-one, I would like to have my name down with his. I’ll tell you what I will do. I have a fine young negro who is to be sold, and I will sell him to-morrow and give you a contribution to the cause of freedom. (Applause and laughter.) If you will call, brother Lewis, and take your breakfast with me, I will then see what I can do; and as the slave is to be sold at Easton, I will feel happy if you also take a ride so far with me, as you may not have seen the capital of the county. Come about nine o’clock, brother, and I will see what I can do for the cause of freedom in Scotland.’ (Laughter and cheering.)

The morning comes, and the breakfast hour, and brother Lewis also (I have a son named Lewis, but I think I’ll change his name.) (Applause.) The Bible is given to brother Lewis, and he reads, ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit – Blessed are they that give to the poor,’ and so on. All goes on delightfully. Brother L. prays, and after prayer sits down and partakes of the bounties produced by the blood of the half-famished negro. (Applause.)

Brother Auld orders the carriage to be brought round to the door – I am tied behind the carriage and taken away, as I have seen often [28] done: I am on the auction block, and the auctioneer is crying ‘Who bids for this comely stout young negro? He is accustomed to his work, and has an excellent trade on his hands.’

Well, 500 dollars are bid. Oh, how brother Lewis’ eyes twinkle! (Laughter.) The auctioneer continues – ‘This is not half the value of the negro; he is not sold for any bad quality. His master has no desire to get rid of him, but only wants to get a little money to aid the cause of religious freedom in Scotland.’ (Laughter.) Another flame of light from brother Lewis’ eyes. 600 dollars are bid. Once, twice, thrice, is said  by the auctioneer, and I am sold for 600 dollars.

Brother Lewis and the master and there together, and they go home to dinner; and after prayer, brother Lewis, who has always an eye to the main chance, take out the subscription list, and brother Auld gives him part of the price of the bones and the blood of his fellow-man. Not a word from brother Lewis as to the sin of the action.

They then devote the money thus obtained to building these Free Churches; and brother Lewis daringly stands up here in Scotland and makes light of it. (Tremendous cheering.)

That man must be hardened indeed that could do such a thing. Disgorge the plunder! (Cheering.) Disgorge the plunder! (Continued cheering.)

The cry shall  be heard throughout Scotland. I shall not he silenced by an attempt to make light of it. I shall not be hushed by an attempt to excite ridicule – or an attempt to stand up before the world and blacken my character by their base insinuations. I defy them to point a single black spot in my character. As to defending it, I have not time – it is not worth defending it against the attacks of men whose hands are dipped in the blood of their brother and sisters.

But let not the Free Church of Scotland, while she holds the price of the blood and the bones of American slaves, think to stop me in my course by their reproaches. Their condemnation I hold to be the highest eulogy that can be given. I felt a thrill of delight when I came to town, and knew that the ministers of the Free Presbytery had been moved to enter upon a defence. I felt, in the language of Rev. Mr Burns, that ‘circumstances more or less had compelled them to open up this question.’ They did not want to do it, I know. ‘He had hoped that the solemn deliverance of the highest ecclesiastical judicatory of their Church had settled the matter, but agitators from abroad have come here and compelled us to open it up.’

Oh, what a confession of weakness was here! What an evidence that they felt deeply the truths we had brought forward! (Cheers.)

Sir, I hope to be here again  before I return to America. It was but the other day I was in Aberdeen. There it appeared at first as if the hearts of the people were as hard as the granite of which their houses are built; but we had been there only two evenings before they flocked out to know what was the matter – to learn the head and front of the Free Church’s offending; and we have the pleasure of informing you that, before we left, there was not a house which would contain the numbers that came. They saw, when I had read my charges against the Free Church, that I had business among them; and, instead of attempting to silence me, a petition signed by a large [29] number of most respectable citizens, wanting to hear more on the subject, was put into our hands previous to our departure. Many of these petitioners were members of the Free Church, and they declared they never appointed Mr Lewis to do what he had done – they never gave him liberty to form an alliance with slaveholders – they never authorised Dr Chalmers to write a fraternal letter to a slaveholder in South Carolina.¹³ In Perth we have swelled two or three feet above the Free Church, and the cry is – Send back the money. (Great applause.)

When the Free Church says – Did not Abraham hold slaves? the reply should be, Send back that money! (Cheers.) When they ask did not Paul send back Onesimus? I answer, Send you back that money! (Great cheering.) That is the only answer which should be given to their sophistical arguments, and it is one which they cannot get over. (Great cheering.) In order to justify their conduct, the endeavour to forget that they are a Church, and speak as if they were a manufacturing corporation. They forget that a Church is not for making money, but for spreading the Gospel. We are guilty, say they, but these merchants are guilty, and some other parties are guilty also. I say, send back that money! (Cheering.) There is music in the sound. (Continued cheering.) There is poetry in it.

They are not only guilty of keeping bad company, but they are making themselves a party to its actions while they remain in such a guilty connection. Their members will lift up their voice against the connection, and when they do so all will cry Amen!

We mean to go round this country and we hope to get some good men to go round Scotland, sounding our war cry to the public. Let not the cry of Send back that money drop when we leave here, but let every man feel delegated by Douglass and by his love of humanity to raise up his voie and proclaim the cry. If the Free Church of Scotland would only send back that money, as I wish and hope sincerely they will yet do, the effect would be tremendous in behalf of our cause. Let that money go back, and slavery falls reeling to the ground as if struck by a voice from Heaven – as if by a mighty effort shaking off the burden of the heavy laden and letting the oppressed go free. (Cheering.)

Sir, this act of the Free Church is indefensible. I defy them to justify their conduct. They can only do so when the onward progress of the race from the chains and fetters of slavery is arrested – when all hopes of freedom have fled – when all moral distinctions are obliterated – when truth, justice, and humanity have sunk out of sight – when the angel of love, and of mercy has winged her way from the abodes of men – when all thoughts of a pure, just, and righteous God have been exterminated from the human heart – when universal darkness and despair prevail – then, and not till then, will the Free Church stand justified in fellowshipping manstealers as Christians and in taking the reward of plunder for the purpose of building up churches for the worship of the living God. (Mr Douglass sat down amid great cheering.)

Mr Buffum, who was received with great cheering, remarked that in consequence of the lateness of the hour (it being now nearly twelve [30] o’clock) he would say but a very few words. He believed that when he wrote the people at home, shortly after his arrival in Scotland, he mentioned that he was somewhat disappointed he did not find that warm and cordial reception which he had met with in Old Ireland; but he also said to them that perhaps on a little experience, circumstances would change, and he would be able to speak differently.

Circumstances had changed, and he had formed a very different opinion of the people of Scotland from what had been warranted by his first impression. (Cheers.) He had found them something like the coal of his own country – difficult to kindle, but once kindled emitting a strong and continued heat. (Applause.) This was sufficiently evident from the warm and cordial reception they had met from the people everywhere during the last few weeks – a reception which had cheered his heart, and caused it to glow with bright anticipations of the success of his mission. (Applause.)

After thanking the meeting for the expression of their kindness, as manifested in the address, he continued, – Mr Douglass has made some charges against the Northern Warder, and if I had time, I could bring forward many more against it. The editor of that paper, contrary to the plainest principles of justice, has refused to admit a single word of reply from us to the charges he makes against us; and although he has repeatedly attacked Mr Wright, he has ever peremptorily refused to put in a single line from that gentleman.

I have, however, a graver charge to prefer against that editor. I have to charge him with putting words in my mouth I never used – with deliberately misrepresenting what I have said, and then arguing upon these words as if I had really spoken them. In referring to what took place at a previous meeting in Dundee, it was stated in the Warder that I made no charge against Mr Lewis, but that I recommended his book to the people – that I had preferred no charge against him except that he thought in some instances slaveholders might be Christians. That was an entire misrepresentation of what I did say, and I believe the people who were then present will bear me out in stating that I said no such thing. (Applause.)

I said then, what I repeat now, that so far as I had read Mr Lewis’ book, and I had read the greater part of what bore upon the subject of slavery, that it fully corroborated all I had previously advanced. Instead of excusing him, I stated that I could prove from Mr Lewis’ own book, that his sin in going into the Southern States of America, and holding fellowship with slaveholders, was greater than what I had previously supposed, as it was plainly shown that he had gone there with his eyes open to the enormity of the evil. (Applause.) And when he comes home here, he tells a great many facts, which are as horrible as anything I ever brought against slavery. He tells of murders committed while he was in the Southern States, and of dreadful occurrences which had taken place, all directly arising from the monster slavery; and yet he can make light of his conduct in holding fellowship with the defenders and supporters of such a system. (Applause.)

I will not detain you longer on this point, but will just call your attention for a few minutes to a statement which has been made to me since I came here last, – that some members of the Free Church deputation [31] declare that they never heard of any remonstrance against their going to the Southern States. I happen to have here a copy of the remonstrance, which was at the time published in all the New York papers, and otherwise widely circulated. I may state, previous to reading this, that when the friends of abolition in New York waited upon the deputation, they found their remonstrance was altogether in vain. The Free Church delegation, although they knew the true state of matters, were fully determined to prosecute their intended journey.

(At the request of Mr Buffum, Mr Douglass read the remonstrance referred to. In it the evil effects which would inevitably result from the deputation of the Free Church going to the Southern States were fully pointed out, and that deputation earnestly and affectionately beseeched not to injure the sacred cause of liberty, and to roll back indefinitely the prospect of slave emancipation, by holding fellowship and interchanging communion with slaveholders.)

Mr Buffum then continued by clearly pointing out that every possible means had been taken to make the deputation fully aware of the state of matters. As an instance that the Free Church were well aware of the evils of slavery, he also mentioned the case of John L. Brown, in South Carolina, who, for aiding a young woman to escape from slavery, was sentenced to death by Judge O’Neil. The announcement of that excited a great sensation in this country. Public meetings on the subject were got up, by the Free Church party among others, and remonstrances from all parties, denouncing such an infamous perversion of justice, were agreed to, and their united words rolled across the Atlantic with a voice of thunder, and the iniquitous sentence was not carried out. This was also an evidence of the powerful influence the expressed opinion of this country possessed over the people of America, and of the good which might be effected by an expression of that opinion in the present instance.¹⁴

Mr Buffum then shortly referred to the conduct of the Rev. Mr Nixon, Free Church minister, Montrose, to whom he had been favoured with a letter of introduction;  but who, so far from aiding them, had in the public street, taken to task the minister of another body for granting them the use of his church. Mr Nixon was said to be the Lion of the North, and a person who was ready enough to advocate a cause, if there was any good grounds on which to offer a defence, but he had never come forward to meet them manfully, although he had endeavoured privately to injure their cause.

Mr Buffum then concluded by an eloquent appeal to the meeting to aid by their efforts the cause of freedom to the human race, and sat down amid great cheering.

Votes of thanks were then proposed to the speakers, to the managers of the School Wynd Chapel, to the Chairman, to the musicians, and to the Dundee Courier, all of which were carried with acclamation.

The Dundee Harmonic Society lent its effective aid to promote the happiness of the meeting. The refreshments furnished by Mr Lamb were excellent, and were served by the stewards with an expedition and attention, which, considering the very numerous assembly, is worthy of remark. [32]

As a whole this noble demonstration in favour of the cause in which the gentlemen from America are embarked cannot but be productive of the best effects, in opening the eyes of the community to the real merits of the question at issue, and greatly furthering the object of their mission – the inducing the Free Church to renounce its connection with the Slaveholding Churches; by which a mortal blow would be dealt to the continuance of that foul blot on the American constitution – the avowed support of slavery as an institution, and its ultimate overthrow greatly accelerated.

Anti-Slavery Soiree: Report of the Speeches Delivered at a Soiree in Honour of Messrs Douglass, Wright, & Buffum, Held in George’s Chapel, Dundee, on Tuesday the 10th March, 1846 (Dundee: D. Hill, 1846).

ANTI-SLAVERY SOIREE

On Tuesday evening last a Soiree was given in School Wynd Secession chapel to Messrs Douglas and Buffum, the persons who have been for some time perambulating the country delivering lectures upon Slavery. The church was crowded. Mr Alexander Easson,  manufacturer, occupied the chair, and on the platform were the Rev. Messrs Marshall of Lochee, Gilfillan of Dundee; Dr Wood and Dr Dick, Broughty Ferry; Bailie Moyes; Messrs John Laing, W. Christie, R. Christie, O.J. Rowland, William Neish, George Rough, John Whitton, William Halket, jun., Dr Mudie, &c.

Tea having been finished,

The CHAIRMAN stated that the object of the meeting was to show that they approved of the object and labours of Messrs Douglas and Buffum. (Applause.) Besides seeking the abolition of slavery, these gentlemen had in view to shew the error into which the Free Church had fallen in going to America and asking money for her support, and holding communion with the slaveholding churches there. (Applause.)

After descanting a little on the evils of slavery, and the labours of the abolitionists, Mr Easson went on to say that the ministers of the Free Church, by holding fellowship with these churches, had indirectly supported slavery, and at the same time done a great injury to the cause of abolition. The object of Messrs Douglas and Buffum was to undo what had been done by the Free Church to support slavery. (Great applause.) While, however, the meeting was to hold up a protest against the Free Church for giving its support to slavery, they should by their whole conduct shew that they had nothing like ill-will at the Free Church, but that they expressed their opinions to show that they wished to be clear of the guilt of supporting slavery, and were anxious that the Free church should return to her right mind, confess that she was wrong, and, as they saw upon the walls, should ‘send back the money.’ (Cheers.)

After a little more in the same strain, Mr Easson concluded by reading a letter from Dr Ritchie of Edinburgh, expressive of the Dr’s regret that he was unable to attend this ‘interesting soiree.’

Dr DICK then addresed the meeting, denouncing in animated and forcible terms the system of slavery. The Dr confined himself entirely to this subject, with the exception of a very brief reference to the Free Church. In this respect, his address bore a marked contrast to those of most of the other speakers, who permitted themselves to indulge in the lowest and most disgusting personalities.

Mr GILFILLAN, who was the next speaker, introduced Mr Marshall and himself as representing there what he sincerely believed to be the feeling and sentiment of the other members of the Dundee Presbytery. His address was a lengthened one, but one or two of the reverend gentleman’s fooleries will sufficiently indicate its temper as well as that of the meeting.

Mr Gilfillan said that he had thought in his simplicity that slavery was dead and buried. He had thought that the story of Cock-robin might be parodied with regard to it. ‘Who killed American slavery?’ ‘I,’ said Lord Brougham. ‘Who dug its grave?’ ‘I,’ said Dr Andrew Thomson. ‘Who wove its shroud?’ ‘I,’ said George Thomson. ‘Who trysted its coffin and walked after it to the grave?’ ‘I,’ said Dr John Ritchie. (Laughter.)

He had been mistaken, however. Not only did it still live, but it was even defended upon ‘scriptural principles.’ ‘Yes, slavery driven from every ground of justice, humanity, and policy, is trying to shield itself beneath the mantle of Christianity. (Cheers.) *** Why is it that these texts of Scripture are quoted? Is it to prop up slavery? or is it to consecrate and whitewash certain monies that have come from the other side of the Atlantic? (Cheers, and cries of ‘That’s it.’) It will not do. It will be the old story of Lady Macbeth over again. Lady Macbeth tried hard to get the blood mark off her hand, and she cried ‘Out, out, horrible spot!’ but she was forced to add, ‘All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.’ So they are saying, ‘Out, out, horrible spot!’ but it will not do. They will have to add, ‘All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten, Lewis, thy little hand.’ (Laughter and rapturous applause.) Sophisticate as you please, pervert scripture as you please, you will not be able by one hour to protract the death or sweeten the deathbed of American slavery.

Referring, then, to the effects of the conduct of the Free Church upon Christianity, Mr Gilfillan remarked that it gave a handle to infidels. It also divided Christians. ‘It has divided us here. The frost of slavery has nipped the opening buds of Christian union in this country and in our own town. Who is to blame for this? Is it our eloquent guests? No. Is it the Dissenters of Dundee? No. Although they had rallied around our guests more unitedly than they have even done who had a right to hinder them? Who, from the vatican of Small’s Wynd west the way, has a right to say to the minister and managers of Dissenting chapels ‘You are not to open your doors to these disinterested and eloquent orators, under the pains and penalties of my displeasure?’ (Cheers.)

I did not know that this decree had gone forth from the vatican of Small’s Wynd, and three or four weeks ago, when these gentlemen called upon me, without consulting my managers or anything but the dictates of my own hatred of slavery, I granted them the use of my chapel; and I stand here in the stead of my managers to bear the utmost effects of the thunders of the vatican of Small’s Wynd, and to tell the man who wields these thunders that I am not afraid of him. I am not afraid of him in the press, or in the pulpit, or on the platform, either in Small’s Wynd, or School Wynd, or any where else. (Great applause.)

Who is to blame then? Is it the Free Church people? No; their heart is with us. Is it the kirk-sessions? No; part, at least of one session is with us. Is it the ministers of the Free Church? Not them either. I will give them their due, although they have heaped much personal abuse upon me – although I now remark a preternatural elongation of face, and a sudden averting of eye, and strange fits of absence and abstraction when they meet me on the street, instead of the condescending smile and the patronising nod with which they have honoured me since the disruption. (Laughter and cheers.)

Who then is to blame? Not so much the ministers as their leaders, and not so much the leaders as the position in which they stand, and not so much their position as that atrocious thing slavery, which poisons and pollutes whatever comes into the remotest contact with it.’ (Applause.)

Mr O.J. ROWLAND announced himself as having stood up to review the speeches lately made in the Free Church Presbytery. He would not make any remark upon Mr Burns’ speech, as the great orator himself had declared that it did not touch the merits of the question. He would proceed to Mr Lewis. Regarding his speech, Mr Rowland remarked that its most promiinent feature was extreme self-complacency. This he illustrated by reading the first sentence of the speech, the jocular tone of which he considered very improper.

He next remarked upon Mr Lewis’ statement, that to return the money would inflict a deep wound upon many of the best Christians in the States, who had no connection with slavery. To meet this, he would propose the simple expedient of accompanying the money with a minute of Assembly explaining that the Church could not consent to keep slave-holders’ money, and therefore as it could not be distinguished from the rest, they returned the whole. This would prevent them from taking any offence.

There was just one other particular in Mr Lewis’ speech worthy of notice. It was the use of certain vulgar expressions, such as ‘John Bull,’ ‘Jonathan,’ &c. Slang terms like these could only be excused in a pot-house orator.

He would now address himself shortly to the great speech, that of Mr Roxburgh. Its pervading feature was its palpable self-contradictions. It was a regular dasher, completely setting at defiance logical restrictions. He would notice, first, the assertion that every reasonable man, upon reading the deliverance of the Assembly, would be convinced that the Free Church did not countenance slavery. At the risk of being deemed unreasonable, he (Mr Rowland) must say, that when he read it he could scarcely tell whether it was promulgated by the apologists of the Jesuitical abettors of slavery. (Applause.)

It was his intention to criticise this deliverance, but time would not permit. Mr Roxburgh said that the Churches in the Southern States were not responsible for the origin or continuance of slavery. The Assembly, on the contrary, declared that the Churches ‘are called upon to take a more serious view of the responsibility lying upon them in regard to the continuance of this national sin.’ Here was a palpable contradiction. Again, he said that the Apostles did not assail slavery or any civil institution. If this was any use to the Free Church, it showed that she had done wrong in making such interference as she had already done.

Next, Mr Roxburgh endeavoured to lessen the credit of the abolitionists. ‘It is said they have done incalculable injury to the cause of abolition.’ Who says it? Fame is a lying jade, and she may have been at her old trade. In the absence of authorities, we must discard this assertion.

He would refer, finally, to what Mr Roxburgh said about the reception of these gentlemen by the Dissenters. In illustration of his opinion on this head, Mr Rowland told a silly story about a certain miserly nobleman, who met a little girl returning from the purchase of a penny-worth of milk at his dairy. He kissed her, and then sought to impress her with a sense of honour done her. The ‘saucy maiden’ replied, ‘Ah, but you have kept the penny for the milk.’ So Mr Roxburgh and the rest might say what they liked, but so long as they kept the money nobody would care.

This was the last of Mr Rowland’s observations. The latter portion of his very remarkable criticism seemed to be imperfectly committed, and notwithstanding frequent reference to his notes, was so obscure and verbose as to call forth very unequivocal expressions of disapprobation from the audience.

The next business was the reading of an address to Messrs Douglas and Buffum. This was done by Dr Mudie, who was himself the author. It was penned in a lofty style, representing Scotland as fully resolved ‘to blow the trumpet and keep the sword unsheathed’ till Slavery was extinct, and as ‘panting to set her foot upon the neck of the oppressors.’ It engaged the meeting to ‘renounce all fellowship and communion with any churches which directly or indirectly, in America or in Britain,’ gave any support to slavery. It awarded ‘all honour to those in the Church named Free, who had come to the help of the Lord against slavery,’ and its peroration was the prayer, ‘God speed your errand, confound your enemies, and give you the blessing of Joseph.’

This strange document read in Dr Mudie’s peculiarly forcible style of elocution, had an effect irresistibly ludicrous, and was greeted with an almost continuous roar of laughter. Having been unanimously adopted by the meeting, the address was duly presented by the Chairman to Mr Douglas.

Mr Douglas and Mr Buffum then successively addressed the meeting, treading, of course, in the old path of coarse and disgusting abuse of the Free Church. The former included the Warder, along with the Free Presbytery and the Church generally, in his denunciations.

The complimentary proceedings followed these addresses. Bailie Moyes proposed a vote of thanks to the speakers, remarking, while he did so that Mr Gilfillan did not represent the feeling of the Presbytery, for it was very much divided upon this question. Mr John Laing proposed a vote of thanks to the Chairman, Mr Gilfillan to the musicians, and a person in the body of the church to the Dundee Courier; all of which motions were carried with rapturous acclamation; and with cheers and shouts of ‘Send back the money’ this very remarkable scene closed.

Northern Warder, 12 March 1846.

---

Notes

1. Aileen Black, Gilfillan of Dundee, 1813-1878: Interpreting Religion and Culture in Mid-Victorian Scotland (Dundee: Dundee University Pres, 2006), p. 50.
2. Ian McCraw, Victorian Dundee at Worship (Dundee: Abertay Historical Society, 2002), p. 38. McCraw notes that Russell also blocked a lecture planned there by Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison in October later that year.
   
3. Black, Gilfillan of Dundee, pp. 50-1; Management Committee Minutes, 2 March 1846, School Wynd United Secession Church, Dundee, 1836–47 (Dundee City Archives CH3/93/10).
   
4. The Free Presbytery meeting was covered by the Dundee Courier, 17 February 1846. See also Free Church and Slavery; Being a Series of Papers and Reports in which the Free Church’s Union with the Slaveholding Churches of America, and its Guilt in Taking and Retaining the Slave-Money, are Exposed; and the Statements on these Subjects Made in the Free Presbytery of Dundee, on the 11th February, are Examined and Refuted (Edinbugh: Macphail, 1846).
5. George Lewis, Impressions of America and the American Churches: From the Journal of the Rev. G. Lewis (Edinburgh: W.P. Kennedy, 1845).
6. Henry C. Wright to William Lloyd Garrison, Selkirk, 15 April 1846 (Liberator, 8 May 1846).
   
7. 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).
8. This claim was first made in Henri Grégoire, An Enquiry Concerning the Intellectual and Moral Faculties and Literature of Negroes …[1802], translated by D. B. Warden (Brooklyn:Thomas Kirk, 1810), pp226-27. It was widely repeated, for example in Maria Lydia Child, An Appeal in Favor of that Class of Americans Called Africans (Boston: Allen and Ticknor, 1833), p. 169. However, it seems that Grégoire confused Olaudah Equiano / Gustavus Vassa with Ignatius Sancho, whose son ‘William (Billy) … was later to work as assistant librarian to the great botanist, Sir Joseph Banks’: ‘Introduction’ to The Letters of Ignatius Sancho, edited by Paul Edwards and Polly Rewt (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994), p.5.  Both Sancho and Equiano lived in London, but neither were ‘kidnapped on the coast of Africa at the age of 33’: Sancho was born on a slave ship; Equiano was enslaved as a child.
9. See Iain Whyte, Scotland and the Abolition of Black Slavery, 1756–1838 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006) for the roles played by Henry Brougham (pp. 130–6, 237–8), Andrew Thomson (pp. 190-8), John Ritchie (pp. 226–8) and George Thompson (pp. 230, 236, 237) in the abolitionist campaigns of the 1830s.
10. ‘The Vatican of Small’s Wynd’: a derogatory reference to Rev. John Roxburgh, who was minister of St John’s Church, Small’s Wynd, off Perth Road, Dundee.
11. An anecdote with wide circulation. See, for example, [Robert Chambers], ‘Down-Takings’, Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal, 22 August 1840. 
    
12. The remonstrance, dated ‘New York, April 2, 1844’ was addressed to the members of the Free Church delegation to the United States, and signed by the executive committee of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, repr. Liberator, 26 April 1846 (from the New-York Commercial Advertiser) and published as Letter from the Executive Committee of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society to the Commissioners of the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: Myles Macphail, [1844]).
13. Thomas Chalmers to Thomas Smyth, Edinburgh, 25 September 1844 (Witness, 18 December 1844; repr. Thomas Smyth, Autobiographical Notes, Letters and Reflections, ed. Louisa Cleves Stoney (Charleston: Walker, Evans & Cogswell Co., 1914), pp. 351–2.
14. One such protest meeting took place in Edinburgh’s Music Hall on 29 March 1844 (reported in Scotsman, 30 March 1844 and Caledonian Mercury, 30 March 1844). Among the speakers was the Free Church minister Robert Candlish, who wrote a letter to the Witness newspaper about it (Witness, 30 March 1844). There is a short account of the case in Eliza Wigham, The Anti-Slavery Cause in America and its Martyrs (London: A. W. Bennett, 1863), pp. 60-1.
    

Following their meeting in Dundee on Tuesday 10 March, Frederick Douglass and James N. Buffum made their second visit to Perth. On the afternoon of Thursday 12 March, according to a notice in the Perthshire Advertiser that day, Douglass was scheduled ‘to address the ladies of Perth … on the subject of American slavery.’  We have no record of his speech, but the ‘Anti-Slavery Soiree’ at the City Hall that evening attracted reporters from several newspapers.

It was announced as follows:

FREDERICK DOUGLASS, a fugitive slave from America, and JAMES N. BUFFUM, Esq. of Massachusetts, have accepted an invitation to be present at a SOCIAL ENTERTAINMENT, which is to be given in the CITY HALL, on THURSDAY (to-morrow) evening.

Chair to be taken at half-past seven o’clock. Ladies are respectfully invited to attend. Tickets one Shilling each, to be had of the Booksellers.¹

As at the Soiree in Dundee two days earlier, Douglass and Buffum shared the platform with local speakers – generally sympathetic to their cause, but not always concurring with their outspoken criticisms of the Free Church of Scotland. On this occasion, the chairman, the Rev. Dr David Young (the United Secession Minister of Perth North Church) ‘begged leave to say that he did not wish to mix himself up in the controversy betwixt their guests and the Free Church’, according to the report in the Northern Warder. It would appear that he left the room before Douglass spoke, forcing Douglass to rebuke his timidity in absentia.

It is worth noting that Douglass reprised the dramatic set-piece he had first tried out in Dundee.  Impersonating the Free Church minister George Lewis and his own master Thomas Auld in Maryland, he invites his audience to imagine an encounter between them, witnessed by the young Frederick, who finds himself next day sold at a slave auction in order to raise funds to provide a donation to the cause Lewis had come to solicit.²  The Perthshire Constitutional indicates that the performance was met with much applause, laughter and cheering, but the Advertiser found the ‘mimicry … in very bad taste.’ The Northern Warder, which had for some weeks derided the visiting abolitionists, goes much further, taking the opportunity to mock them at some length, choosing to portray them as ‘strolling players’, attracting an audience of Church of Scotland ministers and town councillors a little the worse for drink, and ‘ladies’ – whose numerous presence alone would appear to condemn the proceedings to triviality.

---

ANTI-SLAVERY SOIREE.- A soiree, at which about 400 persons attended, was held in the City Hall last Thursday – at which Frederick Douglass, the self-emancipated slave, was the principal speaker. We have no room for a full report. The Rev. Dr. Young also spoke on the occasion, and in condemnation of the American system of Negro Slavery – but expressed regret that the Transatlantic deputation did not oppose that system upon its merits, and without mixing up the Free Church people so much with it. Mr. Douglas in noticing this point of the Rev. Doctor’s speech showed good reason why they should: The countenance and fellowship of the Free Church were a great encouragement to that system, whereas a repudiation and a resolution to ‘send back the money,’ would operate as the heaviest blow and severest discouragement to the system ever encountered. We can spare no space for any portion of Mr. Douglass’s address until next week.

Perthshire Constitutional 18 March 1846

THE ANTI-SLAVERY SOIREE

The following is a part of Frederick Douglass‘s Address at the City Hall of Thursday week:-

There has been an attempt on the part of Mr. Lewis and others to treat with ridicule the charges we make against them, as if they were a light matter. When I discovered that spirit in the man on reading his speech, it appeared to me to indicate a hardness of heart, more especially after what he had seen – what he had seen done and what he did in the midst of the slave states.³ I mean to state as many charges against the Free Church as there are laws in the decalogue; and each of these, if true, is sufficient to render that Church unworthy of the Christian regard of all those who love God and their fellow-men:-

1st, I charge the Free Church of Scotland with fellowshipping men-stealers, as the type and standing representatives of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth.

2d, I charge the Free Church of Scotland with accepting money from well-known thieves to build her churches to pay her ministers.

3d, I charge the Free Church of Scotland with sending a deputation into a community of well known thieves to beg money which they had the best evidence was the result of the most foul plunder which has ever disgraced the human family.

4th, I charge the delegation of the Free Church of Scotland with going into a land where they saw three millions of immortal souls, for whom the Saviour poured out his blood on Calvary, reduced to the condition of slaves – robbed of their just and God-given rights – plundered of their hard earnings – changed from men into merchandise – ranked with the lowing ox or neighing horse – subject to the brutal control of rough overseers – herded together like brutes – raised like cattle for the market – without marriage – without learning – without God – without hope – groping their way from time to eternity in the dark – left to be consumed of their own lusts – compelled to live in concubinage – punished with death, in some instances, for learning to read the word of God; and yet that delegation of professed ministers of the Gospel never whispered a single word of opposition to all this in the ear of the oppressor, or lifted up one prayer in the congregation for the deliverance of these wretched people from their galling fetters. The very idea is horrible, and ought to make every ear tingle and every heart quiver with terror.

5th, I charge the delegation of the Free Church of Scotland with having gone into the slave states and among men-stealers with a full understanding of the evil such a course must inflict on the Anti-Slavery movement. – they having been met and remonstrated with by the Committee of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, and appealed to by them in the most Christian and fraternal manner, in the name of Christ and the perishing slave, not to go into the South – that such a course would inflict a great and lasting injury upon the cause of emancipation.⁴

6th, I charge the deputation of the Free Church of Scotland with having taken the counsel and followed the bidding of slaveholders and their guilty abettors, whilst they turned a deaf ear to the bleeding and whipscored slave, and to the counsel, prayers, and entreaties of those who are labouring in the most arduous manner for the immediate emancipation of the slaves held in the United States.

7th, I charge the delegation of the Free Church of Scotland with refusing to preach the truth against slavery, because by such preaching they would have failed in getting the price of human flesh to build Free churches, and to pay Free Church ministers in Scotland.

8th, I charge the delegates of the Free Church of Scotland with preaching such sermons only, while in the slave states, as would win for themselves the cordial approbation of man-stealers and their guilty abettors.

9th, I charge the distinguished leaders of the Free Church with apologising, excusing, and defending slavery and slaveholding – with an attempt to show that neither Christ nor his Apostles had any objection to Christians trading in the bodies and souls of their fellow men, and leaving the inference to be drawn that Christians may innocently do so now.

10th, I charge them with having adopted the name of ‘Free Church’ while they are doing the work of a slave Church, and have thereby disappointed the hopes and expectations of the perishing slave.

Sir, when the slaves in the United States heard of the formation of the Free Church – a free Church – accustomed as they were to nothing but slave Churches, to a slaveholding Gospel, and to slave-trading Churches – what must have been their feelings?

I for one used to exclaim, in what was wont to be a stereotype expression in my speeches in New England, What shakes nature just now? – Freedom, freedom! What shakes England? – The unwearied progress of freedom! What shakes Ireland? – The progress of freedom! What shakes Ireland? – The progress of freedom! What shakes Scotland? – The efforts of the Free Church! This is what I used to say to my coloured brethren.

But little better than twenty months ago it was said that a delegation from the Free Church was come to our land. – Strange emotions were excited. The Free Church was a somewhat different name from masters’ Church. In the slave states we used to be afraid of using the word liberty, and we called it for safety pig’s foot; and in this way we could speak of it even in our masters’ presence, without their knowing that liberty was the subject of our discourse. So when it was heard that the Free Church deputation was come, many a slave would be saying, ‘Well, pig’s-foot come at last.’ (Loud laughter.)

Freedom’s come! – But look at the unutterable disappointment, and what a reverse of feeling, when they found this Free Church meant nothing more to them than freedom for the deputation to clasp the hand of the slaveholder as a brother, and to neglect the poor bondmen! No word of sympathy for them, who were left to be treated by men as brutes, with the knowledge of the Gospel hid from them, deprived of the knowledge of the Word of God by law, and groping their way from time to eternity in darkness. The Free Church delegation behaved in the South as if they believed there was no God – like Atheists. Money! Money! was the entire actuating motive of their hearts. (Great applause.)

With what unutterable loathing must we look on men who dare to turn off attention from this matter with a laugh. Mr. Lewis, so far from making light of this matter, should go down on his knees, acknowledge his offence, and seek forgiveness of his God, of the poor slave, and of the Christian people of Scotland for daring to compromise their character by striking hands with slaveholders to the utter neglect of perishing bondmen.

Sir, I can almost imagine I see brother Lewis calling on the slaveholder. I can almost go down south, and see him, when I was a slave, calling on my old master, Mr. Thomas Auld (who would be a very likely party to call on), with his subscription paper. When brother Lewis knocks at the door, I answer, and he asks, ‘Well, my lad, is your master in? (Laughter.) ‘Yes, Sir.’

Well, he walks into the house, sees my master, and introduces himself thus (for my ear would be at the keyhole immediately on the door being shut) – ‘My object in making this call this morning is to see if you would do something for the cause of religious freedom in Scotland. We have been labouring some time back, and have undergone severe struggles for Gospel freedom in Scotland, and we have thought it right to call upon you, as a benevolent man and as having means to bestow, to see what you can do for us.’

My master would reply. ‘Brother Lewis, I deeply sympathise with your efforts; and as I see the cause recommended by Deacon such-a-one, I would like to have my name down with his. I’ll tell you what I will do. I have a fine young negro who is to be sold, and I will sell him to-morrow and give you a contribution to the cause of freedom. (Applause and laughter.) If you will call, brother Lewis, and take your breakfast with me, I will then see what I can do; and as the slave is to be sold at Easton, I will feel happy if you also take a ride so far with me, as you may not have seen the capital of the county. Come about nine o’clock, brother, and I will see what I can do for the cause of freedom in Scotland.’ (Laughter and cheering.)

The morning comes, and the breakfast hour, and brother Lewis also (I have a son named Lewis, but I think I’ll change his name.) (Applause.) The Bible is given to brother Lewis, and he reads. ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are they that give to the poor,’ and so on. All goes on delightfully. Brother Lewis prays, and after prayer sits down and partakes of the bounties produced by the blood of the slave, watered by the sweat and enriched by the blood of the half-famished negro. (Applause.)

Brother Auld orders the carriage to be brought round to the door – I am tied behind the carriage and taken away, as I have seen often done: I am on the auction block, and the auctioneer is crying ‘Who bids for this comely, stout, young negro? He is accustomed to his work, and has an excellent trade on his hands.’

Well, 500 dollars are bid. Oh, how brother Lewis’ eyes twinkle! (Laughter.)

The auctioneer continues – ‘This is not half the value of the negro; he is not sold for any bad quality. His master has no desire to get rid of him, but only wants to get a little money to aid the cause of religious freedom in Scotland.’ (Laughter.)

Another flame of light from brother Lewis’ eyes. 600 dollars are bid. Once, twice, thrice, is said by the auctioneer, and I am sold for 600 dollars.

Brother Lewis and the master are there together, and they go home to dinner; and after prayer, brother Lewis, who has always an eye to the main chance, takes out the subscription list, and brother Auld gives him part of the price of the bones and the blood of his fellow-man.

Not a word from brother Lewis as to the sin of the action. They then devote the money thus obtained to building these Free Churches; and brother Lewis daringly stands up here in Scotland and makes light of it. That man must be hardened indeed that could do such a thing. Disgorge the plunder! Disgorge the plunder! (Cheers.)

Perthshire Constitutional 25 March 1846

ANTI-SLAVERY SOIREE. – On the evening of Thursday last, a Soiree was held in the City-Hall, ostensibly of an anti-slavery character, but apparently more exclusively directed against the Free Church. Mr. William Taylor, flax-spinner, occupied the chair – and the meeting was severally addressed by Mr. James N. Buffum; Dr. Young; and Mr. Frederick Douglass, the fugitive slave from America. The address of Dr. Young was short, and confined to the professed object in view; but those of the others were rather lengthy, and were devoted principally to ‘show up’ the Free Church for having received, in the first blush of her difficulties, the contributions of American slaveowners. Mr. Douglass’s mimicry of the Rev. Mr. Lewis, Dundee, was in very bad taste. Mimicry, at all times say in a player, is contemptible; but when directed against a minister of the gospel, and indulged in by one in the prosecution of such a holy mission as Mr. Douglass, it is not only contemptible but disgusting, and is provocative of consequences quite different from those anticipated. The meeting was but thinly attended – below three hundred being present. We may add, that the proceedings of the evening were a good deal enlivened by the plaudits of some members of the Perth Presbytery.

Perthshire Advertiser, 19 March 1846

ANTI-SLAVERY SOIREE

On Thursday evening last, a ‘social entertainment‘ was given in the City Hall here, to Frederick Douglass, a fugitive slave from America, and James N. Buffum, Esq., of Massachusetts. These gentlemen had previously accepted an invitation to the ENTERTAINMENT, as was announced by hand bills, and by advertisement in some newspapers, the editors of these papers lending a helping hand to the success of the soiree, by commending it to their readers.

During some months, these two individuals, along with Mr Wright, of peace-tract celebrity, have been exhibiting in a great many towns and villages throughout the country. Like other strolling performers, they announced their entertainments by hand bills, couched in as attractive form as possible, in order that audiences might be brought together. The staple topic of their placards was of a very attractive kind, setting forth the exposure and denunciation of slavery, as the great object of their patriotic exertions.

But, like other itinerant entertainers of the public, they had two strings to their bow, at least, and we think it pretty clear they had three. The grand clap-traps about slavery were merely the filagree and tinsel employed to busk the dagger which was concealed behind. We have said that they had three strings to their bow, and in this respect these Yankees have fairly out-witted the itinerant demagogue of their fatherland. Strolling players and the mountebank performers at home, are well contented if they can manage to play so well upon one string, namely, the entertaining of the public, as to make the second vibrate to the necessities of their pockets; but the Yankees have additional strings, as well as additional keys. The first may be called the attractive, for gathering a gaping crowd; the second, the vindictive, for brutally assailing those who never injured them; and the third, the remunerative, by which the cash is attracted to their coffers. It is perfectly clear that these American gentry depended mostly upon their second string, as the chief feeder of their pockets.

Well enough did they know that the cause of freedom, and the emancipation of the slave, have, in numberless instances, been pled in this country, by men of reputation, in a style which certainly left nothing for them to do. But, laying hold of a practice which all religious and humane men abhor, they saw that no better screen could be employed, through which they might have a stab at THE FREE KIRK; and as this religious community has bulked somewhat largely in the public eye for two or three years back, an assault upon it might be gratifying to some, and remunerative to themselves.

Accordingly, the Free Church and Free Churchmen, have been the objects of the special vituperation and abuse of these American landloupers. This requires no confirmation. There is not an individual who knows any thing about their doings, and who has any regard for truth, who will deny that the blackguarding of the Free Church and Free Churchmen, has been the main and engrossing object of these transatlantic demagogues. It may then be a matter of curious and instructive inquiry, what has been their success and reward?

They have succeeded in calling forth a full explanation of all the dealings and intercourse of the Free Church with the Churches in the Slave States of America, which must satisfy every rational and sober thinking man, that the Free Church by that intercourse gave no encouragement to slavery; and that the aid she received from the American Churches had nothing to do with slavery, but was an indication of a certain amount of desire to do good, even in a land groaning under the sin of slavery.

These peace-making visitors have farther succeeded in being the occasion of a republication of THE TESTIMONY AGAINST SLAVERY, which has been borne by the Free Church; and which testimony is not only surpassed, but unequalled by any other Church on the face of the earth!

They have further succeeded in bringing out into overt acts, the latent feelings of hostility against the Free Church, which appear to have been lurking in the bosoms of some individuals, from whom other things might have been expected.

So much as to their success; now what has been their reward?

In a pecuniary point of view we cannot think that it has been very great. But then they have had a reward of honour both here and elsewhere, inasmuch as they have been invited to SOCIAL ENTERTAINMENTS!

We shall now attempt to give our readers such a description of the entertainment here as will enable them to form some notion of the value of this branch of the reward. We have already glanced at the mission and main object which the parties invited and to be entertained, namely, Douglass and Buffum, had in view. We shall now, that we may have both the entertained and the entertainers before us, give a specimen of the parties who entertained Douglass and Buffum in the City Hall last Thursday evening. We shall, of course, say nothing of the ladies, who formed two-thirds of the entertaining party.

There were present in all exactly 218. Amongst the gentlemen, there were, Mr William Taylor, millowner, chairman; Rev. Dr Young, Mr Thomas M’Pherson, Mr Reddie, Mr Morton, Mr Wm. Crichton, Mr James Whittet, Dr Halket, Mr David Turnbull, general agent. The latter gentleman deserves some credit, for he was heard to boast that by dint of activity he had been enabled to bring up sixteen ladies with him, large and small.

The CHAIRMAN rose and said that he had now the pleasure of exhibiting to them their two tried friends in the cause of freedom. He did not mean to say much to them; but he was very sorry to see such a thin meeting. He expected better things of Perth;  but he would just introduce to their notice Mr Buffum.

Mr BUFFUM rose and was proceeding to speak, when considerable noise was heard about the door. The meeting appeared to be all agitated, and a general rising took place to ascertain the cause of the noise, when the members of the Established Presbytery of Perth, along with some members of the Town Council, were seen entering the Hall. We understand they had been dining in a neighbouring tavern, and so anxious were they for freedom that they had left their potations, Jamaica rum and altogether, and had adjourned to the City Hall, that they might take a part in entertaining the illustrious strangers.

The most prominent members of the Establishment Presbytery whom we observed, were the Moderator, Mr Kirkwood, the Clerk, Mr Touch, Mr M’Lean, Kinfauns, Mr Murdoch, Middle Church, Mr Auld, Moneydie, Mr Black, Kilspindie. Along with them there were, Mr David Peacock, leader of the Psalmody in the East Church; Councillors Peter Imrie, Patrick Wallace, James Thomas, and Robert Macfarlane. These are specimens of the gentlemen who met to entertain the American revilers of the Free Church. The music was somewhat defective, as Mr Peacock was not in voice to sing the appropriate song which he printed in his paper the day before and announced as part of the entertainment.

After these gentlemen had been seated, Mr Buffum proceeded to lament the apathy which existed on this question, as exhibited by the thinness of the meeting, but there was enough to show him that there existed in Perth a hatred to slavery, and the abettors of it, the Free Church of Scotland. Mr Buffum seemed to be very much from home in the few rearks he made on the slavery question, but when he got at the Free Church he was quite in his element.

He commenced an attack upon the Northern Warder for certain articles which have appeared there, exposing the wanton and malicious attacks which he and his colleagues have been so indefatigably making upon the Free Church. This onslaught upon us was, of course, couched in his choicest slang, but it seemed to give great delight to Mr David Peacock, who, although unable to sing, was most active in making all the noise he was able to make with his stick on the floor. We are not a little gratified by the attention paid to us, and the bad names bestowed upon us by this high authority. It shows that our humble efforts have told upon him and his colleagues.

We do not know whether he attributed the thin meeting, which he bewailed, to any services of ours or no. But notwithstanding of all discouragements, he threatens not to leave the country until the Free Church gives back the money, and then very modestly adds, that he would go back in the same ship with it. Both conditions bid fair for a pretty long sojourn of Mr Buffum in this country. If he remains till the Free Church sends back the money, his stay will not be short, and if he waits till she send it back in the same ship with him, we should think his stay will be longer still.

Mr Buffum concluded by thanking the meeting for THEIR ENTERTAINMENT.

The Rev. Dr YOUNG said he had been requested to take a part in the business of the evening. He had not attended any of the previous meetings which had been held by their guests. He had read about them, and he begged leave to say that he did not wish to mix himself up in the controversy betwixt their guests and the Free Church. He came there merely to give his testimony against slavery along with the godly members of the Free Church, the State Church, the Secession Church, and all other churches. An opinion had got abroad that Scotland is in a state of apathy upon the question of slavery, but he did not think that was the case. He had intended to have brought forward a motion upon the subject in the Presbytery to which be belonged, but that he had been done by another member.

The Doctor then read a certificate of character from the Anti-slavery Society in Glasgow in favour of Messrs Douglass and Buffum, and so soon as he had finished he left the room.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS then came forward. He did not care a pin for the smallness of the meeting. The respectability of the meeting made up for the few that were present. (Tremendous cheers from the gentlemen to whom the compliment was paid, and waving of handkerchiefs by the ladies.)

He had no time that evening to enter on the question of slavery. It was the Free Church that he had to deal with – their conduct, and their conduct alone. Dr Young had said that he did not wish to mix himself up with them. What did he (Mr Douglas) care for that? Unless Dr Young and the seceders took a decided step against the Free Church, they were as bad as the members of it. (Loud applause.) Mr Douglass seemed to be very much displeased at Dr Young for his mild speech, and said that the Doctor and his Church were as much to blame as the Free Church if they did not renounce all fellowship with the Free Church; and that, if they went nearer to a Free Churchman than that they could touch him with a pair of tongs they were far too near him.

He had ten charges against the Free Church, amounting to this – that its members were men-stealers, blood-suckers, robbers, thieves, and a few such choice epithets, which appeared to put some of the members of Presbytery in a perfect extacy. The Rev. Messrs Murdoch and M’Lean vied with each other which of their stentorian voices should have the ascendancy. The Rev. David Black actually took his orange from his mouth that he might give a skirl; and the dominie brought up the chorus with his stick. The four sapient councillors were literally drowned in the uproar. The merriment was on two or three occasions directed towards the Rev. Mr Murdoch, who made himself exceedingly agreeable by his roars of laughter. Towards the close Mr Lewis and Mr Roxburgh of Dundee were brought in for a full share of abuse and impertinence; and at the conclusion

Friend FENWICK, jun., moved a vote of thanks to the two gentlemen of the deputation.

Mr BUFFUM came forward to read a letter, but the meeting seemed satiated, and broke up.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

There is but one incident connected with this ludicrous affair which is worthy of a serious observation, and it is this: how came Dr Young to be present at this ENTERTAINMENT? If he was not aware that it had been the chief business of the two individuals whom the meeting were entertaining to traduce the Free Church, that is wonderful. If he was aware of this fact, and attended the meeting to countenance them in their denunciations against slavery, which they used only as a stepping-stone to get at the Free Church, that is more wonderful still, for Dr Young does not require to be instructed as to the unwarrantabless of co-operating in even a good cause for a bad end. But the Doctor got his reward. Unless he goes the whole hog with Mr Douglass, he is as bad as the Free Church, and so there is an end of it. Dr Young’s appearance there is almost the only one we regret, and we dare say he may be somewhat of our mind before he is much older.

As to the entertainment itself, the thing was not so badly managed, for the benefit of the entertained. The price was a shilling a-head, excepting in the case of Mr Turnbull’s ladies; they would get in a fourteen to the dozen. For the shilling there was doled out at the door, upon entering, an orange, and a few almonds and raisins. The value of the fruits would not be more than threepence; so that there was threepence for fruit and ninepence for scandal. The ninepence would of course, go to the pockets of the scandalmongers, so that they would not be so badly entertained after all. But it is alleged that part of the fruit, at least, was slave produce, so that the liberty-loving divines, and liberal Councillors, may be called upon to ‘SEND BACK THAT FRUIT,’ a call which the reverend Mr Black of Kilspindie would have great difficulty in responding to.

Northern Warder, 19 March 1846

---

Notes

1. Perthshire Constitutional, 11 March 1846.
2. For a detailed consideration of this dramatic device, see Alasdair Pettinger, Frederick Douglass and Scotland, 1846: Living an Antislavery Life (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), pp. 56–60.
3. Douglass is referring to a speech made by Rev. George Lewis at a meeting of the Free Church Presbytery at St David’s Church on 11 February, much discussed (along with the speech by Rev. John Roxburgh) at the Anti-Slavery Soiree in Dundee on 10 March.  For Lewis’ account of his visit to the United States as part of the Free Church fund-raising delegation see George Lewis, Impressions of America and the American Churches: From the Journal of the Rev. G. Lewis (Edinburgh: W.P. Kennedy, 1845).
4. The remonstrance, dated ‘New York, April 2, 1844’ was addressed to the members of the Free Church delegation to the United States, and signed by the executive committee of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, repr. Liberator, 26 April 1846 (from the New-York Commercial Advertiser) and published as Letter from the Executive Committee of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society to the Commissioners of the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: Myles Macphail, [1844]).

The work here has benefited from local history research about the places Douglass spoke at in Greenock and Fenwick. as well as the expert sleuthing of Amy Cools in her Ordinary Philosophy blog. I am indebted in particular to the outstanding research of

• Hannah-Rose Murray, whose Frederick Douglass Map situates Douglass’ Scottish tour in a broader context, and
• Celeste-Marie Bernier and her colleagues on the Our Bondage and Our Freedom project, especially their work with the National Library of Scotland in producing the interactive maps showing the locations where Douglass and other black abolitionists spoke in Scotland.

For their encouragement and support, many thanks.

I am also grateful for the assistance of the staff of the following libraries and resource centres:

• National Library of Scotland
• Mitchell Library, Glasgow
• Glasgow University Library
• Paisley Central Library
• Dundee Central Library
• A K Bell Library, Perth
• Carnegie Library, Ayr
• Arbroath Library
• Montrose Library
• Heritage Hub, Hawick
• Burns Monument Centre, Kilmarnock

The final engagement of the abolitionists in Edinburgh was a lecture by George Thompson on ‘British India’ on Friday 30th October.¹ The following day he and William Lloyd Garrison headed south to Carlisle, on their way to Liverpool, from where Garrison was due to sail home on Wednesday 4th.²

Frederick Douglass, however, had other plans. He probably stayed in Edinburgh a little longer, for he – and James Robertson, the Secretary of the Scottish Anti-Slavery Society – addressed a meeting in Hawick on Monday 2nd November. Not for the first time, he found that the church they had planned to speak at was closed to them: a hastily-convened meeting of the Deacons of the Relief Church the day before had decided to rescind the invitation. Fortunately, the United Secession minister Andrew Rodgie was able to offer his West-End Chapel as a last-minute alternative.

This was the only meeting addressed by Douglass in the Scottish Borders as far as we know.  He did not even take the opportunity to visit Abbotsford, the baronial mansion that Walter Scott had built on the banks of the Tweed, as many other Americans did.³ The same month Margaret Fuller, reporting for the New York Tribune, implied that her ‘pilgrimage to Abbotsford’ was practically obligatory, and claimed that during the previous year, ‘five hundred Americans inscribed their names in its porter’s book.’⁴

Garrison, along with other delegates to the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London in 1840, had made the trip.⁵ And so had Douglass’ fellow campaigner Henry Clarke Wright, during his speaking tour of the Borders in the Spring. He was also pleased to note the existence of a ‘glorious motto’ over the entrance to Dryburgh Abbey, where Scott was buried: ‘No American to be allowed to enter here, if he is a slaveholder.’⁶

At the meeting James Robertson delivered the news, first broken in Edinburgh, that negotiations had begun to purchase Douglass’s freedom, and invited the audience to contribute to the funds already raised.  Robertson spoke the next night too, but alone, as Douglass was already on his way to bid farewell to Garrison in Liverpool, having taken the morning coach south.

This was Douglass’ last appearance in Scotland for fourteen years. Although he wrote from Carlisle on 2 January, he probably did not cross the border as this was but a stage on a tour of the North of England that took in Newcastle, Sunderland, and Hexham.⁷

---

MEETINGS ON AMERICAN SLAVERY. THE FREE CHURCH AND THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE.

[Monday Meeting]

The Rev. Mr. Robertson, Secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society, Edinburgh, and Mr. Frederick Douglass, arrived in Hawick, per coach, on Monday afternoon, to address the people on the above interesting subjects. The barouche of Walter Wilson, Esq., was in waiting to convey them to Orchard, where they spent the evening. The meeting was first advertised to be held in the Relief Chapel, which was granted by the office-bearers authorized to let it, but, lo! on Sabbath afternoon, a conjoint meeting of the Session and Deacons was hurriedly, and no doubt irregularly, convened, at which, as will be seen from the following elegant document which is given verbatim, the deed of those appointed to this particular duty (viz., the Chairman, Treasurer, and Clerk to the congregation), was set aside, by a majority, we understand, of ten to eight, and the doors shut against the meeting, thus affording a direct insult to their own official servants, and also to the public generally:–

HAWICK, November 1, 1846.

SIR.– We are desired by the Elders and Managers of the Church to acquaint you, that the use of the Church cannot be granted for the meeting, as advertised to take place in the Church to-morrow evening in connection with American Slavery. The meeting conjointly regret the granting of the house by the sub-committee without the concurrence of the other managers. In future the elders and managers have agreed that the Meeting-House cannot be granted for any meeting unless previous notice by given, and the same be complied with.

We are, &c.,
Yours respectfully,
Signed WILLIAM DOUGLAS. ALEXANDER GOOLD.

To Mr. John Cairns.

Fortunately there was one Church which was not shut against the fearless advocates of freedom to the slave. On the promoters of the meeting applying to the Rev. Mr. Rodgie, minister of the West-end Chapel, he most cheerfully consented, and even agreed to take the chair at the meeting. Notwithstanding the unfavourable circumstances above stated, by eight o’clock (the hour of the meeting) the Chapel was nearly filled with a most respectable audience. Among those present we observed the Rev. Mr. Thomson, Secession Minister, and his respected father, the Rev. Dr. Thomson of Coldstream, beside many of the most respectable and wealthy gentlemen of the place. The Rev. Mr. Rodgie, having been called to the chair, opened the proceedings by a few pertinent remarks on the evils of slavery, and passed a high eulogium on Mr. Frederick Douglas, whom he introduced to the meeting.

Mr. Douglas then came forward and spoke for nearly two hours, in a calm, cool, dignified, and impressive manner, that shewed him to be qualified above most men to command the attention of an audience, and to carry conviction in the minds of his hearers. The details he gave of the sufferings of his brethren the slaves of America, of which he was himself so long a witness and a sharer, were enough to arouse the just indignation of any man possessing common feelings, and were utterly repugnant to Christianity. From these harrowing details he passed on to the conduct of the Free Church in regard to the slave money: he spoke of the feelings of hope that came over him when he first heard that a deputation from a Free Church had arrived in America, and the bitter disappointment he was doomed to experience when he saw them enter the pulpits of slaveholding ministers, and there, with the image of God in chains before them, never utter a word of censure or rebuke for so horrid a crime against God and man. He pointed out the fallacious reasoning of Drs. Cunningham and Candlish in regard to the slave money and slave-holding in America, and succeeded in carrying conviction to his audience, that the worthy Drs., great though they may be, were kicking against the pricks. In the course of his address, Mr. Douglas took occasion to express his fears that the people of Scotland would fall away from the agitation which was now going on to abolish slavery. (‘Never, never,’ cried out several voices from different parts of the church.) Ah, said Mr. Douglas, look at your Relief Church, why are the doors of it shut against us; surely there is something wrong or this would not have been? During the course of his protracted address, Mr. Douglas was again and again cheered with an enthusiasm such as has rarely been witnessed here, and which shewed clearly that the very intelligent audience and he were at one on this most important subject.

The Rev. Mr. Robertson then addressed the meeting for nearly an hour. In the course of his address, he pointed to the Evangelical Alliance, on which he offered some strictures, but reserved himself to speak more fully on the subject on the following evening. Before retiring he submitted a resolution to the meeting, having reference to the subjects which had been introduced; this was seconded by a member of the Free Church. On suggestion, however, the resolution was not put, but was allowed to lie over till the following evening, so as to give an opportunity to the members of the Free Church to come forward and defend themselves if they choose. After the usual vote of thanks, the meeting broke up.

[Tuesday Meeting]

On Tuesday evening a second meeting was held in the West-end Chapel. The audience was addressed by the Rev. Mr Robertson, Mr Douglas having left for the south by the morning coach.

On this occasion Mr. Robertson dwelt at considerable length on the proceedings of the Free Church, or rather of its leaders, in regard to the slave money. He rebutted with much vigour and clearness the various arguments which, from time to time, have been brought forward by them to justify slavery in America, and their connection with man-stealers – pointed out the fallacy of a man being compelled to be a slaveholder, by throwing the blame on the Government – inquired if Dr. Cunningham himself would consent to be a slaveholder, were the Legislature of our country to pass a law condemning servants to slavery. He (Mr. Robertson) much doubted it, if we may judge from his conduct in regard to the Veto Act, which Government declared was opposed to the laws of the Church, but the Dr., rather than submit to these laws, left the Church. He then shewed that those who held communion with man-stealers might, with still more propriety, connect themselves with sheep-stealers and robbers. He produced evidence to shew that the slaveholding ministers of America and the Free Church of Scotland stood on the same footing in regard to the question of slavery. In speaking of the Evangelical Alliance, he clearly shewed where they had erred in admitting slaveholding ministers amongst them, but he hoped that body would yet be brought round, for he approved of union, though not with thieves and man-stealers.

At the conclusion of a most convincing speech, a resolution was submitted to the meeting, strongly disapproving of the conduct of the Free Church in their recent proceedings in connection with the slaveholding churches of America, and also of the Evangelical Alliance in receiving into their numbers ministers of slaveholding churches, and pledging the meeting never to cease agitating till the slaves were liberated, and the money sent back. On the resolution being put, it was carried without a single dissentient, though some time was allowed to elapse before asking for a shew of hands against it, but no amendment was forthcoming.

After the usual vote of thanks, a considerable number put down their names, with the view of forming an Anti-Slavery Society, and amongst them we noticed some most respectable gentlemen, who, if we may judge from the past, will act with determination and zeal whenever occasion requires it.

Kelso Chronicle, 6 November 1846

AMERICAN SLAVERY AND THE FREE CHURCH.– On Monday evening, a public meeting was held in the West End Meeting House, for the purpose of denouncing the intercourse of the Free Church of Scotland with the Slaveholding Churches of America. The house was well filled.

Mr Frederick Douglass, styled in the bills, ‘the eloquent and manly exponent of the wrongs of his suffering brethren in America,’ was the first to address the audience, which he did in a talented and eloquent speech, which occupied about two hours. He is a most excellent speaker, and an admirable mimic.

He was followed by the Rev. Mr Robertson* of Edinburgh, who blamed the deacons of the Relief Church for not granting them the use of their church after promising it. He went on to find fault with the Dundee Warder, the Edinburgh Witness, and the Border Watch newspapers, for hoodwinking their readers, and getting up a clamour about the Abolitionists being infidels, and holding peculiar views upon the Sabbath, all for the purpose of leading people away from the true facts of the case.

The meeting broke up about 11 o’clock; Mr Robertson stating that he would hold a meeting the following night, for the purpose of denouncing the Evangelical Alliance.

Mr Douglass’s speech was the same as he has delivered in Edinburgh, as reported in the papers. He was very severe upon Drs Candlish and Cunningham, but especially the former, holding him up to the ridicule of the audience, the majority of whom, we grieve to say, seemed to express ore hatred towards the Free Church than detestation of Slavery.

Mr R. lamented that a great number of the leaders of the Anti Slavery movement had drawn back and were no more seen upon the hustings at their meetings, – mentioning Drs Wardlaw and Alexander of the Independent body, and imputing it to the influence of the Free Church, forgetting that it was their own violence in this agitation that had made these men look cool upon them. Mr R. proposed a resolution, condemning the Free Church in holding Christian fellowship with slaveholders, and receiving blood-money from them, which was seconded; but he stated that as he intended addressing them upon the Evangelical Alliance, he would not divide the house then, but would do so on that occasion, so that if any belonging to the Free Church wished to make an amendment, they would have an opportunity of doing it then.

He likewise mentioned that he had a number of copies of Mr Douglas’s Life, written by himself, which he sold at half a crown each, and some copies of Messrs George Thomson & H. C. Wright’s addresses at Edinburgh, at 1s each.

A lady, he said, had written to Mr D’s late master in America, to see what he would give him his freedom for, and an answer had been returned, saying, that he could have it for L. 140. They had, accordingly, made a collection at a meeting in Edinburgh, which amounted to L. 4, 10s 3¹⁄₂d; and if any felt inclined they might have an opportunity as they retired.

During the meeting, a person, holding infidel opinions, wished Mr Douglas to retract an expression he had used, to the effect that the Free Church leaders had acted as bad as infidels. The person said that infidels would not have taken the money. Mr Douglas said he had met some people holding infidel views who would have taken it, and others who would not.

[TUESDAY MEETING]

On Tuesday evening, another meeting was held in the same place. There was but a very thin attendance, the church being not half filled. Mr Robertson commenced again upon the Free Church. His speech was almost a repetition of what was said the night before. He again recurred to the Dundee Warder, Witness, and Border Watch newspapers, which, he said, misled their readers by getting them to follow the trail of a red herring.

After a great deal of abuse, levelled principally against the latter newspaper, he proceeded to read a number of extracts from George Thomson’s speeches upon the Evangelical Alliance, and strongly condemned that body for compromising the Slave Question to please the American ministers who were at the conference.

He began upon the Free Church at 8 o’clock, and spoke till ten minutes past 9 upon it, and then  began to the Evangelical Alliance; but he returned to Dr Candlish, and gave him another quarter of an hour. Thus the Free Church had the lion’s share of the castigation. He said that the curse of God is resting upon the Free Church, and if the leaders do not immediately return the money no honest man can remain a member of it. He called upon all, having a regard for honesty and respectability, to leave it. In his opinion, there will soon be another disruption if they persisted in retaining the blood-money.

Before the meeting closed, he proposed a resolution, condemning the conduct of the Free Church and the Evangelical Alliance, and pledging those who voted for it to withdraw their support from the Free Church until they sent back the blood-money. No response being given, he put the resolution, when a good number of hands were held up. He then asked those who were opposed to it to hold up their hands, but as none did so, he declared the resolution carried.

He intimated that as they intended forming an Anti-Slavery Committee in Hawick, those feeling interested might stay after the meeting broke up. A vote of thanks was given to the minister and managers for the use of the church, and the meeting dismissed.

* Query. – Is this the Mr Robertson who figured so conspicuously at the meetings of the Total Abstinence Society in Edinburgh eight years ago, and who was the cause of so much strife and dissention among the members?

Border Watch and Galashiels Advertiser, 5 November 1846

---

Notes

1. 1. William Lloyd Garrison to Elizabeth Pease, Perth, 25 October 1846, in The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison. Volume 3: No Union with Slave-Holders, edited by Walter M. Merrill (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1973), p.446. It is likely he and Douglass attended, but no newspaper of the lecture has been found.
   2. Ibid., p.446.
   3. At least his name does not appear in the house’s visitor book for the period. I am grateful for this information to Eve Morley, Collections and Engagement Assistant, The Abbotsford Trust (email, 25 March 2019).
   4. Margaret Fuller, At Home and Abroad; or Things and Thoughts in America and Europe (Boston: Brown, Taggard and Chase, 1860), ‘Letter VI’ (Paris, November 1846) p. 163; ‘Letter III’ (Edinburgh, 20 September 1846), p. 137.
   5. Nathaniel P. Rogers, ‘Ride into Edinburgh’, in A Collection from the Newspaper Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers (Concord, MA: John R. French, 1847), pp. 113-15. See also James Mott, Three Months in Great Britain (Philadelphia: J. Miller M’KIm, 1841), p. 73; Mott, Slavery and ‘The Woman Question’: Lucretia Mott’s Diary of Her Visit to Great Britain to Attend the World’s Anti-Slavery Convention of 1840, ed. Frederick B. Tolles (Haverford, PA: Friends’ Historical Association, 1952), pp. 72–3.
   6. Henry Clarke Wright to William Lloyd Garrison, Melrose, 28 March 1846,  Liberator, 1 May 1846.  The notice must have been there some time: see ‘A Prohibition to Slaveholders,’ Illustrated London News, 18 January 1845; and G.A.S., Notes of Travel at Home: During a Month’s Tour in Scotland and England (London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1846), p. 30.
   7. For further background see Alastair M. Redpath’s three articles on ‘Hawick and Slavery’, Hawick Paper, 1, 8 and 15 March, 2019.

Following the three meetings in Montrose the previous week, Frederick Douglass and James N. Buffum headed north to Aberdeen, arriving on Monday 2 March 1846.¹ In a letter to his publisher in Dublin, the abolitionist Richard D. Webb, Douglass wrote: ‘My first meeting in this place will take place this evening. We shall probably hold three meetings here – and from here return to Montrose – hold one more meeting there, touch at Dundee – hold a meeting – at Perth and hold another meeting – and from there return to Glasgow’ where he expects to arrive on 14 March.  By then he very much hopes to take delivery of more copies of his Narrative to sell at his lectures.²

Two short reports covering all three of these meetings appeared in the Aberdeen Journal and in the Aberdeen Herald. They do not provide a detailed account of what was said, but, with Douglass’ letter, they do allow us to state with some certainty that Douglass spoke at the Bon-Accord Music Hall on George Street (marked red on the map below) on Monday 2 March and at the Assembly Rooms on Union Street (marked blue) on Friday 6 March. If three meetings were held, as Douglass hoped, it is likely that a third would have taken place between these two dates, at one or other of the two venues.³

In Dundee a week later, Douglass told his audience:

It was but the other day I was in Aberdeen. There it appeared at first as if the hearts of the people were as hard as the granite of which their houses are built; but we had been there only two evenings before they flocked out to know what was the matter – to learn the head and front of the Free Church‘s offending; and we have the pleasure of informing you that, before we left, there was not a house which would contain the numbers that came. They saw, when I had read my charges against the Free Church, that I had business among them; and, instead of attempting to silence me, a petition signed by a large  number of most respectable citizens, wanting to hear more on the subject, was put into our hands previous to our departure.⁴

The reports make no mention of Buffum, but the ‘we’ of Douglass’s letter suggests that he did address the meetings alongside him in Aberdeen, as Buffum himself does in a later letter summarising his activities from January to March.⁵

---

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.– Mr. F. Douglass, a man of colour, who escaped from slavery in Maryland, has been lecturing in this place, on the subject of slavery, during the past week. Mr. Douglass seems to be no ordinary man. His struggles to educate himself during the period of his slavery, where the circumstance of a slave learning even to read and write is very remarkable, in face of every means that his taskmaster can devise of preventing such a thing. Yet Mr. Douglass continued to educate himself, and, after much suffering, effected his escape from the Southern to the Northern States, where he was safe from pursuit. He is now an accredited and much-esteemed missionary of the American abolitionists. His lectures (which have been delivered in the Music Hall, George Street, and yesterday in the Assembly Rooms) were most interesting. His own personal sufferings are graven deep in his mind, and give a depth of earnestness to his denunciations of slavery that cannot fail to stir up the deepest horror for the slaveholder and sympathy with his unfortunate victims.

Aberdeen Herald and General Advertiser, 7 March 1846

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.– Mr F. Douglass, a man of colour, who escaped from slavery in Maryland, has been lecturing in this place on the subject of slavery, during the past week. Mr Douglass seems to be no ordinary man. His struggles to educate himself during the period of his slavery, where the circumstance of a slave learning even to read and write is very remarkable, in face of every means that his taskmaster can devise of preventing such a thing. Yet Mr Douglass contrived to educate himself, and, after much suffering, effected his escape from the Southern to the Northern States, where he was safe from pursuit. He is now an accredited and much-esteemed missionary of the American abolitionists. His lectures (delivered in the Music Hall, George Street, and in the Assembly Rooms) were most interesting. His own personal sufferings are graven deep in his mind, and give a depth of earnestness to his denunciations of slavery that cannot fail to stir up the deepest horror for the slaveholder and sympathy with his unfortunate victims. Mr Douglass denounced, in strong and eloquent language, the conduct of the Free Church party, who had taken money from the slaveholders in America to assist in building their churches; thereby violating all Christian principle, encouraging the slaveholders in their iniquitous traffic, and seriously injuring the Anti-Slavery movement in the States.

Aberdeen Journal, 11 March 1846

---

Notes

1. It is possible that the meetings were organised by the Aberdeen Emancipation Society, formed in 1836, although its allegiances were to the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society based in London which was suspicious of the Garrisonian abolitionists from the United States, such as Douglass. On abolitionism in Aberdeen, see C. Duncan Rice, ‘Aboliitionists and Abolitionism in Aberdeen: A Test Case for the Nineteenth-Century Anti-Slavery Movement,’ Northern Scotland, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1972): 66–87.
2. Frederick Douglass to Richard D Webb, Aberdeen, 2 March 1846.
3. The Aberdeen Journal merely names the venue as the ‘Music Hall, George St’. However, a notice in the Aberdeen Herald of 22 November 1845 publicised an event at the ‘Bon-Accord Music Hall (formerly the Temperance Hall) in George St’ (and another notice the previous week specified the address as 206 George Street). Moses Roper lectured in the same hall four months later (Aberdeen Journal, 8 July 1846). The hall was built around 1841. It should not be confused with the later ‘Bon-Accord Music Hall’ on St Nicholas Lane, which opened in 1888.  The Assembly Rooms on Union Street were reconstructed in 1858-59 and reopened as the Aberdeen Music Hall, which still serves as a major entertainment venue today.
4. Anti-Slavery Soiree: Report of the Speeches Delivered at a Soiree in Honour of Messrs Douglass, Wright, & Buffum, Held in George’s Chapel, Dundee, on Tuesday the 10th March, 1846 (Dundee: D. Hill, 1846), pp. 28–29.
5. James N. Buffum to William Lloyd Garrison, Bowling Bay, 31 March 1846 (Liberator, 1 May 1846).

 

Frederick Douglass and Scotland, 1846: Living an Antislavery Life

Alasdair Pettinger

Available now from Edinburgh University Press.

The first full-length study of Frederick Douglass’ visit to Scotland in 1846

---

Frederick Douglass (1818–95) was not the only fugitive from American slavery to visit Scotland before the Civil War, but he was the best known and his impact was far-reaching. This book shows that addressing crowded halls from Ayr to Aberdeen, he gained the confidence, mastered the skills and fashioned the distinctive voice that transformed him as a campaigner. It tells how Douglass challenged the Free Church over its ties with the Southern plantocracy; how he exploited his knowledge of Walter Scott and Robert Burns to brilliant effect; and how he asserted control over his own image at a time when racial science and blackface minstrel shows were beginning to shape his audiences’ perceptions. He arrived as a subordinate envoy of white abolitionists, legally still enslaved. He returned home as a free man ready to embark on a new stage of his career, as editor and proprietor of his own newspaper and a leader in his own right.

Shortlisted for the Saltire History Book of the Year 2019

We have long known about the significance of Frederick Douglass’s visit to Britain and his activities in Scotland in 1846, but Pettinger calls on us to look beyond what we know, and in doing so takes us on an exciting intellectual excursion at the end of which we are left with a much deeper understanding of the ways those months spent in Scotland helped to sculpt the man who is now recognized as one of the great figures of 19th century history. – Richard Blackett, Vanderbilt University

… an exemplary intellectual, political, social, cultural, and ideological investigation into Douglass’s many lives as lived in Scotland. As the first full-length and exhaustively researched study of Douglass’s visit to Scotland in 1846, Pettinger’s volume is to be highly commended for its innovative literary, cultural, and philosophical analyses and for its effortless mapping of Douglass’s transatlantic life and works. – Celeste-Marie Bernier, University of Edinburgh, Scottish Literary Review, Vol 11 No 2 (Autumn/Winter 2019) [Link to full review]

Frederick Douglass and Scotland is an ambitious and highly original work that is an exciting new addition to the historiography. It addresses both the need for more recognition of Douglass in Scottish historiography, and also of Scotland in studies of Douglass in the United States. It is thoroughly researched, and the author does an impressive of using source material to reveal Douglass’s visit to Scotland as a truly transformative episode in the abolitionist’s life. – Shaun Wallace, University of Bristol, History Scotland, Vol 2 No 2 (March/April 2020) [Link to full review]

There is much to be admired in this book. Pettinger constructs a compelling narrative, all the while remaining faithful to a wide array of contemporary sources. His style is clear and inviting, evidenced – for example – by the image-laden prose used to describe the scenes Douglass would have taken in during his first days in Scotland. He also interacts constructively with the growing body of work on Scotland’s connection to slavery, including the output of Tom Devine, Michael Morris, and – with particular reference to the Free Church and slavery – Iain Whyte. The front and back matter also add to the book’s appeal. The introductory Dramatic Personae enlivens the book from the beginning, preparing the reader for what unfolds in the chapters that follow. The appendices and maps at the back add yet another level of detail, and aid the reader in placing Douglass – and themselves – in the unfamiliar cityscapes of Victorian Scotland. – Andrew Jones, Kennesaw State University, Scottish Church History, Vol 49 No 1 (April 2020) [Link to full review]

It seems utterly mind-blowing that W L Andrews’s otherwise excellent Oxford Frederick Douglass (1995) brought out in the 150th anniversary of the trip to Britain and Ireland contained not one letter or speech from the visit. Pettinger’s masterly study of his epochal visit to Scotland fills in some of those gaps with a comprehensively researched treatment of topics such as phrenology, his interest in photography, blackface minstrelsy and centrally the Free Church of Scotland and Douglass’s ‘Send Back the Money’ campaign that was so important to his maturation as an independent political figure. – Alan Rice, University of Central Lancashire, Journal of American Studies 54 (2020). [Link to full review]

This referenced and illustrated book is very well written and it includes an extensive bibliography. It should appeal to a broad spectrum of readers … The author provides a fascinating analysis of the impact of contemporary Scottish culture on Douglass (and vice versa). – Eric Graham, Scottish Local History 109 (Summer 2021) [Link to full review]

Pettinger’s vast research into Douglass’s speeches, correspondence and autobiographies enables him to foreground clearly Douglass’s agency in his transformation … Overall, this is an important addition to the scholarship on Douglass and abolitionism in the US. But equally, in calling to light the fact that Douglass did not come to Scotland to congratulate the people on ‘having broken with a slavery past, but to accuse them of a continued alliance with a slavery present’, Pettinger also provides an important contribution to the transatlantic scholarship examining Scotland’s role in slavery. – Nicola Martin, University of the Highlands and Islands, Scottish Historical Review, Vol 100 No 2 (August 2021). [Link to full review]

Anyone wanting to get a better sense of the significance of this period in Douglass’s life, both for Douglass himself and for understanding early Victorian Scottish religion, abolitionism, and racial attitudes, will be grateful for this book. Pettinger’s Part , “Douglass, Scott and Burns,” is the most obviously relevant here, but the whole story of Douglass’s Scottish lecture tour will suggest new connections both for Scottish Victorianists and for scholars of mid-19th century America. – Scott Patrick, Studies in Scottish Literature, Vol 47 No 2 (2022). [Link to full review]

• 234mm x 156mm
• 376 pages
• 31 b&w illustrations
• Published in hardback, November 2018; paperback, August 2020.

A digital edition is available via University Scholarship Online, which is free to access for members of university libraries which subscribe to this database; also for registered readers of the National Library of Scotland whose main address is in Scotland.

The paperback may be ordered from Hive (the online portal for independent bookshops in the UK) for £18.89.

Some time after addressing the Scottish Temperance League meeting in Glasgow on 18 February, Frederick Douglass and James N. Buffum headed north again. Passing through towns they had already lectured in  – Perth, Dundee, Arbroath – they spoke on three successive evenings in Montrose, beginning on Thursday 26 February.

A report of the first meeting appeared the following day in the Montrose Standard, specifying the United Secession Church of Henry Hyslop as the venue (marked blue on the map below).

From the report that appeared a week later, it is likely that the second meeting also took place there, while for the third the abolitionists moved to the Thistle Hall on Bridge Street (marked red).

We reproduce both reports below, followed by a third that appeared in the Montrose, Arbroath and Brechin Review.  The reports are brief, and do not record Douglass’s speeches in detail. The newspapers seem to prefer to print the testimony of others, specifically a letter of recommendation from the Glasgow Emancipation Society, in order to respond to Douglass’s critics, rather than allowing him to speak for himself.

The reports suggest that the main subject of the speeches was (as the Standard put it) ‘the conduct of our Free Church friends, who have been accused – and we think justly – of lending their countenance to slavery, by accepting contributions from the slave states.’

But this was not the only thing on Douglass’s mind. On the day of his first meeting, he wrote an important letter to William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the Liberator, the abolionist newspaper in Boston, in which he fulfils his promise (made in a previous letter) to ‘say something more about Ireland’.  And so, it was in Montrose that Douglass movingly wrote at length, for the first time, about the ‘extreme poverty and wretchedness of the poor’ he had observed in Dublin the previous autumn.¹

---

AMERICAN SLAVERY. – Messrs Buffum and Douglas, the eloquent advocates for the abolition of slavery, delivered lectures last night, in Mr Hyslop’s chapel, to an overflowing audience. Mr Douglas (himself originally a slave) denounced the system in a very eloquent speech; and gave some explanations of his life and training as a young slave of his efforts to acquire a knowledge of reading and writing, unknown to his master, and of his treatment in the United States, as a liberated and educated negro. Mr Buffum also treated the subject in a masterly manner, but, from the late hour, we could not report at length either of their remarks. We believe they are to give another lecture this evening, when Mr Douglas purposes to bring the question ‘nearer home,’ – alluding, no doubt, to the conduct of our Free Church friends, who have been accused – and we think justly – of lending their countenance to slavery, by accepting contributions from the slave states. We shall resume the subject next week, when we shall be enabled to make a more full report. In the mean time, we would re commend those who abominate the horrid system of slavery, to lend their countenance and support to the present lectures..

Montrose Standard 27 February 1846

THE FREE CHURCH AND SLAVERY

In the latter half of last week, three public meetings were held to hear addresses on the subject of American slavery from Messrs. Douglass and Buffum – the former a runaway slave, and the latter a member of the American Anti-Slavery Society. The first two took place in the United Secession Church, and the latter in the Thistle Hall. The meetings were numerously and respectably attended, and the speakers handled their subject in such a way as to arouse the interest and excite the enthusiasm of their audience. Mr. Douglass’ present history is sufficient of itself to bespeak sympathy and curiosity; but, apart from any recommendation of this nature, his vigorous and impressive eloquence fits him admirably for an effective public speaker. His language is singularly chaste and elegant, notwithstanding the difficulties he has had to encounter in acquiring learning and information. His action is natural and forcible; and the tone of his voice imparts a strong impression to his words – whether he seeks to express deep feeling, playful irony, or sarcastic indignation. The incidents of his life would excite interest when learned under any circumstances, but to hear them related from his mouth, with all the advantages of his simple and burning eloquence, is a treat which it is not our fortune every day to enjoy. We are sure his return to this quarter on Monday next will be hailed with general satisfaction, and that an increasing interest will be taken in the cause which he so ably advocates.

Together with the general question of slavery, the two lecturers discussed the subject of the fellowship of the Free Church with the slaveholders of America. They invited any of the members of that Church to bring forward a defence of her conduct in this particular; but whether defence was considered somewhat difficult, or whether prudence suggested that ‘least said is soonest mended,’ no champion appeared to ward off the hard blows which were dealt to her with so much force and effect. An attempt, indeed, has been made to throw discredit upon their efforts, by representing them as unaccredited, and, perhaps, of questionable reputation, as if the facts and arguments they adduced required a name to recommend them to the hearts and consciences of men. Any effort, however, to damage the cause through its advocates will in this case be futile, as the following certificate from the Committee of the Glasgow Emancipation Society will very satisfactorily show.

At a meeting of the Committee of the Glasgow Emancipation Society, held 20th February, 1846, –

The attention of the Committee was called to certain statements made in speeches delivered by Free Church Ministers, at a late meeting of the Free Church Presbytery of Dundee, and subsequently circulated through the medium of the ‘Northern Warder’ and Edinburgh ‘Witness‘ – said statements being prejudicial to the influence and usefulness of our highly esteemed and valued friends and coadjutors, Messrs Henry C. Wright, Frederick Douglass, and James N. Buffum, from America, who are now labouring to array the moral and religious sentiment of the people of this country against receiving to Christian fellowship American slavehoders, and thus countenancing them in the practice of holding and using men as property. It was unanimously resolved,–

‘That the Secretaries of this Society be instructed to prepare a statement respecting these American friends and fellow-labourers in the Anti-Slavery cause; that the said document be signed by the Chairman, and by the secretaries, and a copy given to Messrs Wright, Douglass, and Buffum; also that copies be forwarded to the ‘Witness‘ and ‘Northern Warder,’ and other papers, for publication.’

In compliance with the foregoing instructions, we would say, that no distinct and detailed charges being made against these gentlemen, and no proof being brought to sustain the general assertions made respecting the circumstances, motives, and objects of their mission, we believe the following general statement may suffice –

We have, for years, been familiar with the names, labours, and characters of the above-named American friends, in connexion with the great Anti-Slavery struggle in their own country, through the medium of American newspapers – or private correspondence with American abolitionists – of the reports of American friends who have visited this country – and of our faithful, distinguished, long-tried, and well-known and universally respected coadjutor, George Thompson, Esq., who was intimately associated and acquainted with Messrs Wright and Buffum, while on his Anti-Slavery mission to the United States. Mr Douglass being at that time a slave, and held and used as ‘chattel personal,’ to all intents and purposes was, of course, unknown to Mr Thompson.

As to Mr Wright – who has laboured so assiduously and successfully during the past year, we call the attention of the people of Scotland to the insult and outrage done to Christianity and its Divine Author, by the efforts and leaders of the Free Church, to associate the name of Christian with that of slave-holder – he has been personally and intimately known to us, and to hundreds in this kingdom, for the last four years. We regard him as one of ourselves in the sacred cause of emancipation, and of promoting among men the Gospel spirit and principles of universal love and human brotherhood. His character as a man and a Christian – as a lecturer and writer on subjects of moral and Christian reform, are well-known to thousands both in this country and in America

Though not personally acquainted to the same extent with Messrs. Douglass and Buffum, yet so familiar are we with their names and labours, and with the names and efforts of those with whom they are associated in the cause of freedom in America, that we feel as if they, also, were our intimate friends. They come to us with all the recommendations which we could desire. We have every reason to believe that they are what they profess to be – sincere, honest, and self-sacrificing friends of the American bondmen, – labouring, by Christian means, to free them from their chains, and to redeem the Christian name from all connection with the foul system of slavery. We commend all three to the Christian and friendly regard of all who feel for the honour of our common Saviour, and the redemption of our common humanity from the degradation of American slavery, and sincerely hope they will countenance and further our friends in their philanthropic and Christian work.

Signed in name and by appointment of the Committee,

JAMES TURNER, Chairman.
JOHN MURRAY, WILLIAM SMEAL,  Secretaries

Glasgow, 27th Feb. 1846.

Montrose Standard, 6 March 1846

American Slavery. – For three successive nights last week, Messrs. Frederick Douglass and James M. [sic] Buffum, from the United States, addressed large and respectable audiences on the interesting subject of slavery, which still holds within its iron grasp no fewer than 3,000,000 of our fellow-creatures in ‘free’ America. Mr. Douglass was himself a slave only a few years ago; but his intelligence, conversational powers, and even eloquence, disprove the stigma that some would affix to the negro population, that they are of another and an inferior race. There are few people to me met with on the platform who appear to more advantage. The object of the party in visiting Britain is to stir up the benevolent to denounce the iniquitous system of trading in human flesh; and, accordingly, their addresses went to illustrate its awful enormity and wickedness, which one of their co-adjutors has summed up in these terms:

Slaves have no control over their offspring to train them up for God as rational, accountable beings, but are obliged to yield them up, as soon as they are born, to be reared as brutes for the market; they have no control over their own persons, and are robbed of the capacity to make anything their own; are incapable of being a party to a civil or criminal suit, and of being witnesses against their oppressors in civil or ecclesiastical courts; are liable to be seized, at any moment, and sold to pay their master’s debts; are forbidden, on pain of death, to attempt to change their condition, and to rise from brutes to men, from slaves to freemen; are transmitted from parents to children as goods; are denied the means of moral and intellectual improvement; are punished with stripes, imprisonment, and death, for acts which, in all others, are regarded as Christian virtues and duties; are bought and sold ‘like other live stock;’ are shut out from the comfort and hopes of redemption by Jesus Christ, as far as it is in the power of man to shut them out, and are compelled to live in absolute heathenism; the sole end of their existence is ‘the profit of the master;’ their powers of body and soul, their civil, social, and domestic rights and relations, their time and eternity, are all merged in the pecuniary interests of their owners. They are fed, clothed, reared, worked, disciplined, baptized, brought into the churches – taught that there is a God – a judgement to come – and an eternal state – to enhance their price in the market.

– On Saturday evening, Mr. Douglass informed his audience that a great change for the better, in regard to this important question, was passing over the free States of America – the subject could now be talked of, without the fear of being murdered. A great portion of all the addresses consisted of hits at the Free Church for receiving money from slaveholding States and Churches. A grand moral effect, the speakers contend, would be produced if the Free Assembly would ‘send back the money.’ It is not very flattering to the generality of their hearers to attach so much importance to any act on the part of the Free Church; but, nevertheless, the pell-melling at the Frees conduces greatly to keep the audiences merry. We believe both of the gentlemen have sincerely at heart the welfare of their fellow-countrymen; and we have pleasure in subjoining the following extract of a certificate in reference to them and Mr. Wright by the Glasgow Emancipation Society:

Though not personally acquainted to the same extent with Messrs. Douglass and Buffum, yet so familiar are we with their names and labours, and with the names and efforts of those with whom they are associated in the cause of freedom in America, that we feel as if they also were our intimate friends. They come to us with all the recommendations which we could deesire. We have every reason to believe that they are what they profess to be – sincere, honest, and self-sacrificing friends of the American bondsman, – labouring, by Christian means, to free them from their chains, and to redeem the Christian name from all connection with the foul system of slavery. We commend all three to the Christian and friendly regard of all who feel for the honour of our common Saviour, and the redemption of our common humanity from the degradation of American slavery, and sincerely hope they will countenance our friends in their philanthropic and Christian work.

Given in name and by appointment of the Committee.

JAMES TURNER, Chairman.
JOHN MURRAY, WILLIAM SMEAL,  Secretaries

Glasgow, February 27, 1846.

Montrose, Arbroath and Brechin Review, 6 March 1846

---

Notes

1. Frederick Douglass to William Lloyd Garrison, Montrose, 26 February 1846 (Liberator, 27 March 1846); repr. in The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series Three: Correspondence, Volume 1: 1842–52, edited by John R. McKivigan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), pp. 93–98.

While Frederick Douglass left Dundee for a few days in Glasgow at the beginning of February, it seems that his companion James N Buffum went ahead to Arbroath, fifteen miles up the coast, to arrange a venue for lectures they would give together when he returned.

He probably expected to book the Second Secession church of Rev. Alexander Sorley on Fore (now West) Abbey Street (marked green on the map below).¹ Their fellow campaigner Henry Clarke Wright had addressed meetings there on several occasions the previous year.²  But from the reports in the Arbroath Guide and Northern Warder, reproduced here, it appears that he failed to find a church willing to accommodate them, and they had to settle for the Trades’ Hall (marked purple) instead.

 A notice dated 6 February appeared in the Guide on the 7 February announcing the lecture:

ANTI-SLAVERY LECTURES

MR DOUGLASS, a Fugitive Slave from the United States of America, whose Lectures have excited the deepest interest in all parts of the Kingdom in which he has been, will, with his Friend and Companion, MR BUFFUM, LECTURE on the Subject of SLAVERY in the UNITED STATES, in the TRADES’ HALL here, on TUESDAY evening next, at half-past seven P.M.

** In order to defray expense, One Penny each person will be charged at the door.

According to the report in the Guide, a James Anderson, stood up at this meeting to promise the speakers the use of the Abbey Church (marked blue), of which he was a trustee.³ The next two meetings (on Wednesday 11th and Thursday 12th) took place there.

Why Sorley did not make his church available we do not know for sure. It was not unusual for ministers to be overruled by their managers. They may have been especially cautious in the light of events that followed Wright’s previous appearance in the town. His criticisms of the Free Church of Scotland for its cordial relationship with pro-slavery churches in the United States, symbolised by its acceptance of donations from them, provoked a dramatic response.  As Wright tells it:

Some weeks ago, I lectured here twice, in the Superior Church, Rev. Mr. Sorley, minister. The Saturday night after I left, somebody prepared some black and some red paint, and at the midnight hour, painted with black paint, on the Free Churches, in a prominent place near the door, and in very large letters, the following sentence – ‘THE SLAVE’S BLOOD;’ and then, with a brush, dashed the blood red paint about on the stones, some ten feet from the ground. The churches are built of stone. Sabbath morn, when the people came to church, there were the sentence and the blood-red spots; and they carried shame, conviction and wrath to the Frees. The whole town flocked to see it, and for weeks it was the town talk, and led to a long discussion in the newspapers. They could not wash, nor scrape off the bloody spots, nor the black letters. It seemed like the blood of the murdered victim, that could not be washed out. A man was employed by the elders of one of the marked churches to put up a scaffold, and to chisel out the convincing words. But, on the other church, the words and bloody spots are still seen. I have just been to see them, and I do not wonder that they have excited the town.⁴

Wright was present in Arbroath with Douglass and Buffum and reported: ‘This town of 12,000 inhabitants, is in a state of great excitement. “Send back that blood money!” is the general watchword, and the Free Church cannot endure the scorn much longer.’⁵ But he did not join them on the platform. If the Church of Scotland trustees of the Abbey Church, like the dissenting churches, were reluctant to overly antagonise their Free Church rivals, perhaps they were reassured by his discretion. However, Douglass and Buffum clearly did not feel the need to modify the tone of their speeches which, on Thursday the 12th, unhesitatingly condemned the Free Church’s refusal to break fellowship with the American churches.

First, the report in the Arbroath Guide, which provided an account of the meetings on Tuesday 10 February and Thursday 12 February; and then the much briefer (and rather less sympathetic) report of the first meeting in the Northern Warder.  The Guide refers to a meeting on the Wednesday, but gives no details of it.

---

ANTI-SLAVERY LECTURES

On Tuesday evening last, Messrs Douglass and Buffum, Anti-Slavery Lecturers, who have visited a number of cities in [sic] various towns throughout the kingdom, held a meeting in the Trades’ Hall, to which hundreds of our townsfolk of all descriptions flocked. The utmost enthusiasm prevailed, and the powerfully impressive, excellently reasoned, and touchingly eloquent appeals of Mr Douglass, failed not to raise a feeling of sympathy for the unhappy, degraded, and persecuted slave of the Southern States of America, such as cannot fail to produce the best results. Mr Douglass is one of the most interesting and eloquent speakers we ever remember to have heard, and having a practical knowledge of his subject, he having himself been one and twenty years a slave, and now liable to be seized on as such the moment his foot touches the soil of that ‘Land of Liberty,’ the United States, the details he favoured us with were listened to with intense interest, and the valuable information afforded by him, received with marked attention.

Mr Buffum, his companion and friend, accompanies him. Zeal the most unwearied, efforts the most indefatigable, render Mr B. sufficiently remarkable, while, by his long and initimate acquaintance with all matters calculated to throw light upon the infamous slave commerce, and its baneful workings in the States, he has given us a fund of information as to the position of the slave, the brutal and savage habits of the slave holder, and the direful effects of the system upon the country generally. Mr Buffum has for many years been an active and enterprising member of the Slavery Abolition Society in America; and his account of the formation, organization, and progress of meritorious societies of the kind must have caused a deep, and we trust a lasting feeling of sympathy for the unfortunate beings, to the emancipation of whom he has devoted his time and energies. The style of Mr Buffum’s speaking is different from that of Mr Douglass, but teeming as his statements do with facts and figures, explicit as are his details, and graphic as are his descriptions, need we say that the stores of information which he possesses, and the anecdotes he introduces, are given with striking effect, and received with unmixed applause.

The lectures of these gentlemen have created no little sensation here; indeed, such as has been rarely if ever surpassed. They deal with their subject in a true spirit of candour, of honesty, and straightforwardness; and, armed in the panoply of justice, can well afford to laugh to scorn the weak but malicious attacks of such papers as the Northern Warder. These rigidly righteous rags are stung to the quick, no doubt, because honest and fearless men, such as Messrs. Douglass, Buffum, and Wright, dare to tell the truth as respects a section of the ministers of the Free Church – ministers who have undeniably, and by their proceedings, constituted themselves the aiders, abettors, and defenders of slavery. The damning facts cannot be gainsayed – the truth cannot be denied; and, unable to do away with that which while acknowledged cannot be excused, they, in a mean and dastardly manner, seek, by innuendos, misrepresentations and falsehood, to injure the reputation of men who are as much their superiors in standing as they are in talent. We are wae for the Church, be she bound or be she free, the cause of which is advocated by writers of the stamp we have described.

‘WARDER’ MORALITY

We have heard of Border morality in bygone days. In modern times we have now a specimen of Warder morality. In a commentary on that black business, viz., the Free Church deputation taking into its coffers the blood-stained dollars, and holding forth on the men-stealers and men-dealers of America the hand of Christian fellowship, the Warder says (we quote the substance, not the words, as we do not have the paper bye us), ‘we care not from what source the offerings to our church and to our cause come. If the source is polluted it is no concern of ours – the offering may have been given in a good spirit, and we ask no questions. The more polluted the source, the more acceptable and the more necessary the offering.’ If we quote the spirit of the Warder‘s commentary aright, and we think we do, what can be said of such a system? Murder and robbery may be committed, the plunder may be given for charitable or religious purposes, and no questions asked!! In cases such as this, where you have to deal with folks who indulge in this sort of morality, an appeal to the law may have more effect than an appeal to the gospel. If the Procurator for the Church says nothing, what would the Procurator Fiscal say? We opine he would ask a question; and we are, moreover, inclined to think it would be followed by an act.  There are such terms in the law of Scotland, if not to the Warder‘s code of moral law, as guilty of reset, of theft, and accessory after the fact and

Since laws were made, for every degree,

To check vice in bound, as well as in free,

We think there will soon be more companie

                                Upon Tyburn tree.⁶

So bewildered are we at the unblushing recklessness of the men who promulgate such doctrines, that we take leave of the subject in utter horror, leaving it to Churchmen, and Free Churchmen, and Christians of whatever creed, to form their own conclusions on it.

ANTI-SLAVERY LECTURES

Our space will not admit of our giving anything like a detail [sic] of the admirable, eloquent and impressive addresses of Mr Douglass on this subject, delivered in the Trades’ Hall on Tuesday, and in the Abbey Church on Wednesday last.

[Tuesday Meeting]

On Tuesday, Mr Buffum, Mr Douglass’s friend and companion, commenced by saying, that he was agreeably disappointed [sic] in meeting so large and intelligent an assembly as what he saw before him. He was disheartened the other day when he came to this town for the purpose of getting a place for his friend, Mr Douglass, and himself, to speak in, and felt, when he found the numerous churches closed against them, that the spirits of liberty had departed from the place.

Churches were built for the express purpose of preaching against sin, and advancing the principles of Jesus Christ; but when he asked them to open them to one who had been a slave one and twenty years of his life, had escaped with the marks of the whip upon his back, and had now four sisters and an aged grandmother in the prison-house, the image of Christ, whom their masters profess to serve, imbruted in their persons, their mind-darkened, and they not allowed to read the scriptures of truth, was it not natural that he (Mr D.) should wish to reveal the dark and bloody deeds of the slaveholders, and call upon them, as followers of Him who went about doing good, to lend him their aid and sympathy. His friend’s object was to free the oppressed from the horrible pit, and vindicate the claims of Christianity.

Strange, then, that not one of their churches could be opened to him.

One church, calling itself ‘Free’, had, for its own selfish purposes, taken a part of the gains of slave-robbers, and to prevent the exposure of this sinful act, had closed the doors of their churches against him and his friend: nay, more, had attempted to overawe others from doing so, and he feared to some extent had succeeded in doing so. This, he would submit, was presumptive proof of their guilt if they were innocent, they would have no fear from any charges. ‘Innocence fears not the light.’ It rushes into it, and says ‘examine;’ but it is the guilty that hate to be examined.⁷ The Free Churchmen say that we are men of moderate abilities,and may affect to despise our efforts. With the men of talents and learning which that church boasts of, they are surely perfectly competent to do themselves and their church justice. Why not come before the people, then, and show themselves right – prove that they have done right in taking the money, and recognizing the slave-holders as Christians – instead of throwing out vile insinuations against us as men and Christians? I think ‘there is something rotten in the state of Denmark,’ or they would pursue a different course.

Here Mr. Buffum was interrupted by Mr. James Anderson, merchant, who stated that he could not believe that it was from a want of sympathy with them on the part of the people of Arbroath that they were not in posseasion of a more commodious place; but as he (Mr A.) was one of the trustees of Abbey Church, he would venture to take on himself the responsibility of giving them the use of that church, one of the larget and most commodious in the town, for the next night, if they would accept of it.

Mr Buffum thanked Mr Anderson for his kind offer, and said, that he and his friends would avail themselves of it, and that a meeting would be held the next night at half-past seven in that church. He added, that as he knew that they must feel more interest in hearing one who had a long and bitter experience in slavery, and could speak of its actual workings as it came under his observation, he would give way to his friend, Mr Douglass.

Mr. Douglass then came forward and explained the objects which had induced his visit to this country, and stated that the principal one was to give accurate information regarding the practical working of slavery to the people of Great Britain, but that a desire for his own personal safety had also weighed with him, as the disclosures he had been enabled to make of the horrors of slavery, had made him a marked man in his own country. He also stated that he wished to rouse his hearers to a sense of the great influence which the expression of the opinions of the people of Scotland exerted over matters connected with slavery on the other side of the Atlantic, and earnestly entreated them to give their support and countenance to the means now using for the abolition of one of the greatest evils which had ever afflicted the world.

The speaker then entered at some length on the practical working of slavery, and the great support which that evil received from the church, an institution which he declared to be its bulwark in America.⁸ This part of the subject was handled with consummate ability and eloquence, and his withering denunciation of the profession of slave-holding churches in America compared with their practice, was received with loud and continued cheering.

After going over a variety of other matters bearing on the question of slavery, and appealing to the feelings of his audience in behalf of the poor persecuted, misrepresented, and degraded slave, he explained how the accursed system of bondage, from which the slave suffered, was owing to the institutions of the United States all leagued against him, rendering any hope of freedom under the existing circumstances out of the question.

He then referred to his own position when a slave – to the oppression he had been subjected to – to the hardships he had undergone – to his escape – the countenance he had received – the difficulties he had labored under in order to acquire education; and, finally, to the great, glorious, and amazing progress which the abolition cause was rapidly making in the United States.

No one can form a correct idea of the power and pathos, the thrilling eloquence and the powerful appeals ernbodied in Mr Douglass’s speeches. Of one thing we feel assured, and that is, that his and his friend’s visit will be attended with the happiest results, and not a little add to that just indignation with which the mind of every honorable and upright man must be filled, at the grovelling, base, and selfish attempts of some of the religious folks par excellence, of the Free Church defending and palliating slaveholders and slavery.

After Mr. Douglass had concluded, Mr Buffum again spoke of the origin of the Anti-Slavery movement in the United States, its principles and measures, and gave a short but graphic description of its triumphs and progress, concluding by thanking them for their kind attention, hoping that they should meet them all the next evening.

The Abbey Church on Tuesday was crowded, and the powerful, forcible, and eloquent addresses of our American friends were listened to with the deepest attention. Mr Douglass confined his observations to the state of the slave churches in America, and to the debasing and degrading aid they gave to the crime of slavery, while Mr Buffum gave us some details respecting the working of the system in the places in which he had been and to a brief but interesting account of his (Mr B’s) and his friend’s voyage to this country. As the question of slavery in connection with the Free Church of Scotland is to be taken up this evening (Thursday,) and as it naturally must be of more interest to our readers than details with which they are less acquainted, we have deemed it expedient thus to curtail the account of the lectures on Tuesday and Wednesday, in order to give that of Thursday at greater length.

[Thursday Meeting]

On Thursday evening, the Abbey Church was densely crowded, and the utmost excitement prevailed. About eight o’clock, Mr Douglass addressed the audience as follows:–

Ladies and Gentleman, – I have come hither this evening, in the spirit of candor and fair dealing, to discuss the subject which has now called us together. I am deeply sensible of the prejudice already excited against myself and friends for daring to call attention to the present connection of the Free Church of Scotland with the slave holding churches of America. Much of this prejudice is owing to gross misrepresentations of our motives and objects by the Free Church paper at Dundee. The Warder having taken one false step, they adopt the common, though not the most Christian, mode of defending that step, by taking a dozen more in the same direction.

[The Scottish Churches]

In rising to discuss this subject, I wish to be distinctly understood. I have no war with the Free Church, as such. I am not here to offer one word as to the right or the wrong of the organization of that body. I am not here to say whether Drs Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, or any of the Free Church leaders, did right or wrong in separating from the Establishment. I want no false excuse to be made, or false statements to obtain.

The Warder has dared to circulate the story, that myself and friends are in the pay, and under the sanction of, opposing religious denominations. As far as the charge is brought against me, I pronounce it an unblushing falsehood. I am here to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, to plead the cause of the perishing slave, and to arouse the energies, excite the sympathies, and obtain the aid and co-operation of the good people of old Scotland in behalf of what I believe to be a righteous cause – the breaking of every yoke, the undoing of heavy burdens, and letting the oppressed go free! Thank God! all religious denominations may work in this cause. The anti-slaveholder’s platform is as broad as humanity, and as strong as eternal justice; all may stand upon it and work together, without violating any christian principle. If fewer of the Free than of the Established Church are to be found upon that platform, the fault is theirs, not mine. In a cause like this, he is a mean-spirited bigot who would refuse to labour because another is labouring in the same cause, whose religious opinion happens not to agree with his own. In denouncing the present connection of the Free Church with the slave-holding churches of America, I have distinguished men of different denominations – of the Established Church, Free and Dissentors – the Rev. John Angell James of Birmingham; Independent minister, Dr Duncan, Dr Willis, Dr. Ritchie, and thirty-six ministers in Belfast, with a host of others, have nobly come forward and refused christian fellowship to slaveholders. I am not here alone; I have with me the learned, and wise, and reverend heads of the church, to justify the position I have assumed. But with or without their sanction, I should stand just where I now do, maintaning to the last that man-stealing is incompatible with christanity – that slaveholding and true religion are at war with each other – and that a Free Church should have no fellowship with a slave church; – that as light can have no union with darkness, Christ has no concord with Belzebub; and as two cannot walk together except they be agreed, and no man can serve two masters, – so I maintain that freedom cannot rightfully be blended with slavery. Nay, it cannot, without stabbing liberty to the heart. Now, what is the character of those churches in America with which the Free Church is in full fellowship, and the christianity of which they indorse in the most unqualified manner? In the language of Isaiah, ‘Their hands are full of blood.’ Their hands are full of blood. Allow me to state the case as it really exists.

[The American Churches]

At this moment, there are three millions of people, for whom Christ died, in the United States held in the most abject slavery – the most galling and degrading bondage – deprived of every privilege – mental, moral, social, and political – deprived of every right common to humanity – herded togther like brutes – denied the institution of marriage – compelled to live in concubinage – left to be devoured by their own lusts – raised like beasts of the field for the market – mere chattels – things – property – deprived of their manhood – they are ranked with beasts – robbed of their identity with the human family – cut off from the race – loaded with chains  – galled by fetters – scarred with the whip – burnt with red hot irons.

They are living without a knowledge of God, groping their way from time to eternity in the dark, the heavenly light of religion shut from their minds. A mother may not teach her own child to read our Lord’s Prayer, not even to spell the name of the God who made her. For it is a crime punishable with death to teach a slave to read. It is nothing that Christ died, it is nothing that God has received his will, for the black as well as the white man. It is nothing that Christ commands us to search the Scriptures; it is a crime punishable with death, by American law, to teach a slave to do it. Good God! what a system! A system of blood and pollution; of infidelity and atheism; of wholesale plunder and murder. Truly did John Wesley denounce it as the sum of all villanies, and the compendium of all crime.

[The Case Against the Free Church of Scotland]

This, christian friends, is but a faint picture of American slavery, and this is the system upheld and sustained by the entire church in the Southern States of the American Union. It is with such a church that the Free Church of Scotland is linked, and interlinked in christian fellowship. It is such a church that the Free Church of Scotland are trying to palm of upon the world as being a christian church. Thus making christianity and slaveholding compatible, thus saying that man-stealing ought not to be a barrier to christian communion, and lowering the standard of christainity, so that the vilest thief, the foulest murderer, the most abandoned profligate, may claim to be a christian, and to be recongnized as such. The Free Church, in vindicating their fellowship of slaveholders, have acted upon the damning heresy that a man may be a christian whatever may be his practice, so his creed be right. So he pays tithes of mint, anise, and cummin, he may be a christian, though he totally neglect judgement and mercy. It is this heresy that now holds in chains three millions of men, women and children in the United States. The slaveholders’ conscience is put at ease by those ministers and churches. They tell him that slave-holding is quite consistent with a profession of religion, and thus sing his conscience to sleep.

Now, let us look at the circumstances under which this deed of christian fellowship was consummated . The Free Church had just broken off from the Established Church, as they say, in defence of christian liberty. They professed to bring off with them nearly all that was good, pure, and holy, from the Establishment. They proclained themselves the true exponents of the moral and religious sentiment of Scotland. Taking their word, they are the life, the soul, the embodiment of christianity in this country. So good, pure, and holy are they, that they would almost feel themselves contaminated by a touch of a member of the Establishment . And so free are they, that they look upon those who remain in the church as mere slaves.

With all this profession of freedom and purity, they appointed a delegation to visit the slave-holding churches in the United States, to beg money to build churches, and pay their ministers. The delegation went over three thousand miles of perilous deep. On their arrival at New York, they were besought, in the name of the perishing slave. not to go to the slave-holding Churches of the south; that as sure as they went, they would contaminate their own cause, as well as stab the cause of the slave.

But reason gave way to avarice, purity yielded to temptation, and the result is, the Free Church is now wallowing in the fifth and mire of slavery, possessing the bad pre-eminence at this time of being the only church in Scotland that makes it a religious duty to fellowship men-stealers as the followers of Jesus Christ.

Now, you have the case before you. The Free Church stands charged with fellowshipping slaveholders as followers of Christ, and of taking the wages of unrighteousness to build her churches, and pay her ministers. Are those charges true, or are they false? The Free Church admits these truths, but denies that she has done wrong. Then the question between us is as to the rightfulness of holding christian fellowship with slave-holders, and taking the results of slaveholding to build churches and pay ministers.The Free Church says it is right: I say it is wrong; and you shall judge between us.

My first position is, that slavery is a sin, the vilest that ever saw the sun, and thus far the Free Church and myself are at agreement.

If, then, slavery be a sin, those who hold slaves must be sinners. This seems to me to be the only rational and natural result to which we can come from such a premise. If lying, swearing, murder, adultery, and stealing be sin, then it is clear that the liars, swearers, murderers, adulterers, and thieves must be sinners.

[Thomas Chalmers’ ‘Doctrine of Circumstances’]

The argument in opposition to this is, that although lying swearing, murder , adultery, and slaveholding be sin, yet liars, swearers, murderers, and adulters, and slaveholders may be, and are, followers of the meek and lowly Saviour; for says Dr Chalmers on this point, ‘DISTINCTION ought to be made between the character of a system and the character of the person whom CIRCUMSTANCES have implicated therewith.‘⁹ The Doctor would denounce slaveholding, robbery, and murder as sin, but would not denounce the slaveholder , robber, and murderer as a sinner. He would make a DISTINCTION between sins and the persons whom CIRCUMSTANCES have implicated therewith; he would denounce the dice, but spare the sharper; he would denounce the murder, but spare the murderer; he would denounce the adultery, but spare the adulterer; for says the Doctor, ‘distinction ought to be made between the character of a system and the persons whom circumstances have implicated therewith.’

‘Oh! the artful Dodger.‘ What an excellent outlet for all sinners! Let slaveholders rejoice! Let a fiendish glee run round and round through hell! Dr Chalmers, the eloquent Scotch divine, has, by long study and deep research, found that ‘distinction ought to be made between sin and the sinner’; so that, while slavery may be a heinous sin, the slaveholder may be a good christian, the representative of the blessed Saviour on earth, an heir of heaven and eternal glory, for such is what is implied by christian fellowship.

When a man is received into the church, those who receive him say to the world, ‘we believe this man to be a christian, a representative of Christ, a member of his blessed body.’ This is most horrible doctrine, glossing over the awful sin.

But there is another point in this little sentence of Dr Chalmers; indeed we have, in this one sentence, the key to the entire defence which the Free Church have made to the fellowshipping slaveholders as christians. But to the point. He says that distinction should be made between the character of a system and the character of the persons whom circumstances have implicated therewith. Yes, circumstances – the doctrine of circumstances. Who proclaims it? Dr Chalmers. Yes, this doctrine, which has justly brought down upon the head of the infidel, Robert Owen, the execrations of Christendom, is now proclaimed by the eloquent Scotch divine. The Doctor has been driven to this hateful dilemma by taking a false step, in fellowshipping slaveholders as christians. This doctrine carried out does away with with moral responsibility. All that a thief has to do in justification of his theft is to plead that circumstances have implicated him in theft, and he has Dr Chalmers to apologize for him, and recognize him as a christian. A man-thief, the worst of all thieves has but to make this plea; say, the Doctor makes the plea for him, and receives him to the bosom of the Church as a christian. Christ says, ‘By their fruits shall ye know them.’ Dr. Chalmers says, no, ‘distinction is to be made between the character of the individual and the character of his deeds.’

Now, my friends, I wish to ask, do Dr Chalmers and the Free Church represent your sentiments on this subject? – (here the audience loudly shouted, No!) – I am glad you speak out. I regret to find that such is the power of the Free Church in some parts of this country, and even here in Arbroath, that the Dissenters, who know the Free Church to be wrong, yet do not dare to speak out, for fear of the displeasure of that church. I am ashamed of such abolitionists; they are unworthy the name, being destitute of the spirit. They have not yet learned to value their principles. But the people will speak, they will speak in tones not to be misunderstood. They have already spoken, and, I trust, will continue to speak, until they silence the arrogant pretensions of the Free Church, and cause her to send back that blood-stained money.

I now propose three cheers, which shall be given in the following words: – Send back that money ! (Here the audience joined with Mr Douglass making the welkin ring with ‘Send back that money.’ repeating it three times.)

Mr. Douglass read a compliment to Dr. Chalmers, from the New Orleans Picayune, and also two advertisements of runaway slaves from the same paper, showing that the slaveholders were highly pleased with the Doctor’s position on the slave question. And after commenting on the character of the paper by which the Doctor was eulogized, he closed with an eloquent appeal to the christian people of Scotland, to agitate the question of holding christian fellowship with slaveholders and to proclaim in the ears of the Free Church, ‘Send back that money.’ Oh! that the Free Church would send it back and confess that they did wrong is taking it. Such a course would send slavery reeling towards its grave as if struck by a bolt from heaven. Mr Douglass sat down amid loud applause.

We are sorry that our space will not admit of giving the spirited and well-timed observations of Mr Buffum, who addressed the meeting after Mr Douglass. The vile attack upon him and his friend which appears in the Northern Warder of Thursday he disposed of in a manner the most complete, by exposing the fallacy of its statements, its cobweb sophistry, and its mean insinuations. Never did we see a thing more thoroughly demolished, and in a more masterly style. With such a straightforward, plain-speaking man as Mr. Buffum, Jesuitry whether wrapped up in the garb of that religion peculiar of a Horner, or disguised in the solemn plausibility in which it comes forth from the lips of a Chalmers, has no chance. Sincerely do we wish Messrs Buffum and Douglass every success in their labour of love.

Arbroath Guide, 14 February 1846 (repr. Liberator, 27 March 1846 and 3 April 1846, minus the ‘Warder Morality’ section)

ANTI-SLAVERY MEETING. – Messrs Douglas and Buffum who have been declaiming in Dundee for some time past, held a meeting here in the Trades Hall on Tuesday last. We only notice this circumstance for the purpose of introducing a statement made by Mr Buffum in regard to the reception he had met with in Arbroath. Though he had letters of introduction to several gentlemen in town, none of them would have anything to do with him; and not a single church in all the town could he get opened to him. He maintained that if there was slavery in America, there was slavery of the grossest kind in Arbroath also. He could not get a single individual to render him the slightest assistance in any of his operations. He could not even get a door-keeper, and so had to perform the menial office himself. He was proceeding to rate soundly all parties concerned, when he was interrupted by Mr James Anderson, clothier, who said there had been a misunderstanding, and pledged his word that he would give him his choice of the churches in the town. After the application of this peace-offering, Mr Buffum cooled down, and the usual description of the most disgusting horrors of slavery, interlarded with ill-natured abuse against the Free Church, was gone through. We hear that the Abbey Chapel is to be opened for the reception of these wandering orators.

Northern Warder, 12 February 1846

---

Notes

1. The church opened in 1821. Sorley was ordained minister there in 1837. George Hay, History of Arbroath to the Present Time (Arbroath: Thomas Buncle, 1876), pp. 248-9. The building no longer exists.
2. Henry Clarke Wright to William Lloyd Garrison, Arbroath, 27 September 1845 (Liberator, 24 October 1845); Henry Clarke Wright to William Lloyd Garrison, Arbroath, 2 October 1845 (Liberator, 5 December 1845).
3. According to Places of Worship in Scotland, the original church was built in 1797 as a chapel of ease to the Old Parish Church. It was rebuilt in 1876-78 but parts of the old church were incorporated in the new building, which still serves as a place of worship. The meetings of 11 and 12 February 1846 were rare occasions when Douglass spoke in an Established church; nearly all of his meetings in churches were in those of the United Secession Church or the Relief Church (the two denominations merged in 1847 to form the United Presbyterian Church).
4. Henry Clarke Wright to William Lloyd Garrison, Arbroath, 11 Februuary 1846 (Liberator, 3 April, 1846).
5. Ibid.
6. The reporter here adapts a much-quoted song from John Gay, The Beggar’s Opera (1728) Act III, Scene iii.
7. Buffum adapts a formulation from the commentary on 1 John 1:3 in Matthew Henry, Exposition of the Old and New Testament [1708-10] (London: James Nisbet & Co, [1857]), Vol XI: Romans to Revelations, p. 699: ‘They should see the evidences of their holy religion. It fears not the light, nor the most judicious examination.’
8. Douglass alludes to James Gillespie Birney, The American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery (London: Johnston and Barrett, 1840), widely reprinted in Britain and the United States.
9. Douglass is quoting from a letter Chalmers wrote to the Witness newspaper defending the Free Church’s position, insisting that a ‘distinction ought to be made between the character of a system and the character of the persons whom circumstances have implicated therewith.’ Thomas Chalmers to editor, Edinburgh, 12 May 1845 (Witness, 14 May 1845).

Following his lecture at Bell Street Chapel in Dundee on Friday 30 January, Frederick Douglass must have returned to Glasgow for a few days.

There is no record of any public appearances by him there, but it is likely that he went primarily to make the necessary arrangements for a second Irish edition of his Narrative. He was running short of copies to sell at his lectures and over the previous weeks had written several times to his publisher Richard D. Webb urging him to send more to Glasgow, even though Douglass had taken a strong disliking to the portrait of himself that Webb had inserted in the most recent copies of the Narrative.  The portrait had been made of him by Bessie Bell, a family friend of Webb’s, while he was in Dublin two months earlier. Webb then had it engraved by Henry Adlard in London. Douglass’ objections dismayed Webb, but he had made his point. 

When the second edition was issued in May, it carried a new frontispiece portrait. Or, to be more precise, a close copy of the engraving that featured in the original Boston publication. This one bore the signature of Glasgow engraver Joseph Swan, no doubt commissioned by Douglass when he was in the city during the first week of February. The new edition also carried a new preface by Douglass, which was dated ‘Glasgow, Feb. 6th, 1846.’¹

Shortly afterwards he rejoined James Buffum in Dundee for his fifth lecture there, this time at the church of Rev. Mr McGavin in Tay Square. 

 It is not known how much of the original building survives as part of what is now the Nethergate Medical Centre.

 

The following morning Douglass wrote:

We held a very good meeting here last night, crowded to overflowing with a people whose influence cannot but be felt by the free church. Our faithful dealing with this church has at length had the effect to compel them to a defence of their conduct. They have until a few days since affected to despise our effort, deeming this the best mode of silencing and defeating our exposures […] The agitation goes nobly on – all this region is in a ferment.²

We reproduce below the reports in the Dundee Courier and the Dundee, Perth and Cupar Advertiser which appeared the next day.

---

ANTI-SLAVERY LECTURE

Last night, a public meeting was held in Mr M’Gavin’s Chapel, Tay Square, for the purpose of again hearing Messrs Frederick Douglass and J. N. Buffum lay open the secrets of American slavery. The church was crowded in every part with a most respectable and attentive audience.

Mr Douglass took for his subject the great moral evils resulting from the institution of slavery in America – to the slaveholder as well as to the slave. In seeking the overthrow of American slavery he was actuated by love to the slaveholder as well as to the slave. They were not the enemies of the slaveholder because they told him the truth, but rather his best friends, as they would remove him from a position where he was liable to be tempted to do wrong every day of his life.

[The Power of Slaveholders]

The first moral evil was the absolute power enjoyed by the slaveholder. Such a power was never intended for man, and it soon destroyed in a greater or less extent the best faculties of his nature. It heightens that love of domination which is entirely inconsistent with that humility which is both the exponent and element of happiness in man, and without which no man can be happy. It begets a character in the slaveholder favourable to this love of domination over the slave.

He was also in a position by which he was made a liar. The very moment he asserts his right to hold property in man that very moment he proclaims himself a liar, and the truth is not in him.

The next position in which he is placed is that of a thief and a robber, not only a thief stealing the gains, but a robber stealing the bodies, the arms, and the sinews of his fellow-men. If a person were to attack an old woman in the street and not only steal her basket, but also carry off her person, would he not be a thief and a robber; and is the slaveholder not in the position of a person stealing the gains, and carrying off the persons of his fellow-men? The slave had no property of his own, all was his master’s.

The slaveholder was not only a thief and a robber, but he was in open rebellion against God. God says to the slave as he does to all men, honour thy father and thy mother; but the slaveholder comes in and says, heed not thy parents, honour and serve me. God may speak to the slave as he does to others, bidding him go through all the world to proclaim his name, but the slaveholder binds a bar of iron about his neck, he may not obey God when his master wills. The slave is not ranked among sentient beings,  but as chattels personal. He may not even approach his God in prayer. There is not a command in the decalogue but is broken directly or indirectly by the institution of slavery. The law that thou shalt not covet is violated, and so is thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery – that is violated indirectly. Although a legal marriage is not known in the slave States, there are even cases among slaves of faithful, honest, chaste, and virtuous pairs. If, however, such cases occur, it is because slavery has not succeeded in annihilating all that is good within them; but the great mass herd together by the will of their masters in one great mass of concubinage. There is not a single precept of God’s law but is violated. Search the Scriptures, says the Word of God: Ye shall not search, says the slaveholder. If ye do, ye may be punished with death for the second offence. Mr Douglass here read extracts from the civil law of various States, showing the severe punishment to which, in every case, a party was rendered liable for teaching a slave to read.

He then described at considerable length, and with graphic skill, many of the various additional evils resulting from slavery – a hardening of the hearts even of the females of the slaveholding population. An instance of this he narrated – the murder of a female friend of his own by her mistress. In this case long watchfulness and fatigue, while in charge of a sick child, had brought on the slave heavy sleep; and the mistress, irritated at her not immediately awakening on the cry of the child, struck her so severely on the forehead and breast, with a heavy piece of wood, that she expired in a few minutes, and was buried long before morning. The culprit was not even once called to be examined, although, in consequence of the numerous reports, the body was examined, and death pronounced to have proceeded from violence. She still lives in freedom, and as much respected by her circle of friends as if no crime of blood had dyed her hands.

The evil effects of such a state on the slave were also pourtrayed. Could they expect that he, whose body, whose labour, whose every thing was his master’s, could suppose himself guilty of stealing when he took from that master and appropriated to his own use. It was but a transfer. Could they be supposed to adhere strictly to truth, when on no occasion was the word of a coloured man to be taken in evidence unless supported by that of a white person?

As an instance of this, he referred to the fact of his own left eye having been nearly put out in a shipbuilding yard in which he was employed; and although done in the presence of 1000 persons, his master could obtain no redress for the damage, because no white person would give evidence in his favour.

[Rebutting the Arguments of Slaveholders]

He also glanced at the arguments advanced by slaveholders for keeping their victims in bondage. They kept them ignorant, and then assigned that as a reason. They brutalized and degraded them, and then referred to their brutality and degradation as marks of their unfitness for a state of freedom. Even if this were true, it should, with properly constituted minds, be an inducement to aid and assist them to raise themselves in the scale of human beings; but although he admitted that there was necessarily great ignorance, still there were instances of slaves even, with all the difficulties they had to surmount, acquiring learning, and exhiniting no common powers of mind.

An instance of this kind, mentioned by Mr Lewis, and with which he himself was acquainted, he then narrated. In that case the party was bought by a religious body – not for the purpose of instructing his fellows, but to be sent to Liberia, where the slaveholders were anxious to have all the free blacks sent, that their slaves might not be induced to rebel, from seeing persons of their own colour at freedom among them. He also mentioned the case of black men – negroes with all their marked developments of head and other peculiarities – having received classical educations by the kindness of an abolitionist, and being now very talented and eloquent preachers.³ These were evidences that, put the negro in the same position as the white man, he would rise to the same scale of civilization and cultivated intellect.

As an instance of negro domestic affection, of which they were declared to be void, he mentioned the case of Maddison Washington, who, after escaping from bondage, again braved all its woes with the view of getting away his wife. He was retaken and put on board a ship, with upwards of a hundred others, to be despatched to a slave market. On the passage they burst their chains, took possession of the ship, and carried her to the British possession of New Providence, where they gained their liberty, and were permitted to retain it notwithstanding the efforts of the American democrats to cause the British to give them up.⁴

Mr Douglass concluded by a few eloquent observations on the evils of American slavery.

Mr Buffum began by some remarks on the attack which was made on them last week in the Northern Warder.⁵

He gave a graphic narrative of the efforts which had been long making [sic] by abolitionists in America to effect a revolution in public opinion there – the effect of their labours had had – the arrival of the Free Church deputation among them – the endeavour which was made to prevent the deputation visiting the Southern States, – endeavours which were altogether ineffectual from that party’s love of the dollars – and the paralysing and withering influence which such a step had on their exertions for freedom to the negro.

After narrating that this had induced them to visit Britain to see if they could enlist the good people of old Scotland in their sacred cause – to see if the Free Church deputation spoke truth in representing themselves as the representatives of the religious people of Scotland, – an assertion which was not believed, he mentioned that he had called on the editor or reporter of the Warder (he could not say which) – had requested him to invite Mr Lewis to a discussion – had offered to speak before an audience entirely selected by Mr Lewis, if he would give the use of his place of worship.⁶ All he wanted was the elucidation of the truth. To this it was replied that he and Mr Douglass were not known – that there was no certainty what sort of characters they were – and that it was impossible to separate a man’s statements from his character.

Mr Buffum then offered numerous references – references of a most unexceptionable kind – in order that this might not prove a loop-hole for them to get out by; and told them it was not his character, but the character of Mr Lewis and the other members of the deputation which were at stake, and if they had been as anxious in their inquiries after character on visiting America, his journey would have been unnecessary.

After detailing some father particulars of his conversation, Mr Buffum took up the statements in the Warder, and showed them to be a series of misrepresentations – of assassin-like attempts to stab and injure, while they dared not meet a single argument or statement advanced. He made no pretensions to eloquence or to logical reasoning, but let them come and confute him if they could. He then eulogised the American advocates of emancipation to the slave as men of vast intellect, and warmest and kindliest affection to the cause, with many of whom he was unworthy to be classed.

To show the truth of the various statements which had been made by Mr Douglass and himself, he read several extracts from Mr Lewis’ ‘Impressions of America and American Churches,’ commenting on them as he went along; and pointing out clearly and explicitly that in that very book, which he recommended to general perusal, would be found abundant evidence of the unmitigated horrors of slavery and the great inconsistency of the Free Church seeking an alliance with the perpetrators of such crimes – the upholders and supporters of such a dreadful system.⁷

Mr Douglass also made a few remarks on the attack made on him in the Warder – referred to the many tokens of esteem he had received from the most eminent Philanthropic and Benevolent Societies, and from persons in high and honoured stations in the kingdom, as ample refutation of the Warder‘s lies – to call things by their right name. He ridiculed the attempt to get off in this sneaking paltry manner, by distracting attention from the subject of dispute – by attempting to throw dust in the people’s eyes. He concluded by an earnest and eloquent appeal to the people of the Free Church in behalf of his brethen in bondage.

Dundee Courier, 10 February 1846

---

LECTURES ON AMERICAN SLAVERY

Last night another meeting was held relative to this subject, in Tay Square Chapel. The chapel, as usual, was crowded to excess.

Mr DOUGLASS, in speaking of the evil effects of slavery, illustrated some of its moral, religious, and intellectual effects on the slave-holder. He confined himself at first to the moral effects which it had on the slave-holder himself; and, in seeking the entire overthrow of slavery, he considered himself no more the enemy of the slave-holder by publishing its enormities to the World than was Jesus the enemy of mankind in promulgating the truths which he taught. Slavery laid the slave-holder under the greatest moral temptation to do wrong.

First, let us look to the evils arising from the absolute power of the slave-holder: Absolute power was not intended for any man, and all who had seized it had been overthrown by it. He had as much confidence in himself as he could place in any other man; but, high as this confidence was, he could not dare to assume absolute power with safety to himself. Such power induced haughtiness, a love of domination, and a wish to tyrannize over the slave; and, from his situation, the slave-holder had every inducement to exercise such power.

He started first as a liar: He asserted that the hands, the head, and the heart of the poor Negro was his; and the moment any mortal asserted such right, he asserted a lie – he misconstrued his own situation of life, so as to make a lie of all life, and became a thief as well as a liar. Who was a thief? It was one who appropriated the property of another; and the slave belonged to no slave-holder – for he belonged to himself. God gave him to himself. Singly he came into the World – he got powers for himself – he was responsible to none but God and his own conscience and the laws of his country, which made one man amenable for his transgressions to another. But the slave-holder had assumed the right of God, – he had taken that which only belonged to God. The Bible said – honour father and mother; the slave-holder said – honour me, your obedience to me must be absolute; God said – go over the whole World and preach the gospel; the slave-holder placed a band of irons over his limbs so that he could not go. The slave-holder went to the cradle and claimed the child that slept in it; the deed made him a thief; when he asserted his rights by violence he became a robber. Was not the man a robber who knocked an old woman down in the street and took not only her property but herself? and the slave-holder robbed the slave of his very identity.

By the existing laws of America, the slaves were not ranked among the human family; the slave-holders had as absolute a right over them as he had over brute beasts – they were not allowed to marry, but were forced by the laws of America to live in a state of concubinage. The right of the master being absolute in all things, the slave could not even assume to have the fetters taken from his feet that he might pray – and such are the laws of slavery. There was no law in the New Testament which slavery did not violate; it transgressed every commandment written by the finger of God on the two tables of stone. The pernicious example of the slave-holders had a withering and baneful influence on the feelings of the slave. By the existing laws of America, a slave could not steal – he did not own or possess anything – he was a brute beast, not amenable even to God, and could not be responsible for his actions. No man could act virtuously without freedom. There was no virtue in the deed of rescue done by his arm when forced by a neutral power. The slave said he was not responsible; he was compelled by the laws of his country to live in concubinage; from his situation he was compelled to transgress all moral laws.

These were three powers which the slave-holder held constantly over his head – force, fraud, and fear. By means of these the slave-holder contrived to uphold his power, and it was impossible for him to sustain his power without these. The slave-holder said it was decreed by Heaven for the Black Man to remain a slave, and the Christian Churches of the States sustained the sentence by the sanctity of its altar.

He had seen the slave holding lady weep lack-a-daisy tears over a sentimental novel, whose delicate nerves would not be moved by seeing a poor slave lashed in the field, and who at the slightest offence could draw a heated poker from the fire and apply it to the bare shoulders of the Black. He illustrated how slavery brutalized the slave-holder – the very frequency of the lashings and other punishments inflicted hardened his feelings.

[Tyranny and Ideologies of Inferiority]

He had often witnessed the baneful influences of the habit. Many persons had gone from this country to America, with a hatred of slavery – they had seen the poor Negro hated – they had seen him foolish – they had seen him a person everywhere despised – and, from the very frequency of such manifestations, they had felt their own abhorrence of slavery melting away. He alluded to a phrenological fact – that, the more one organ was used to the exclusion of the others, the organ became so much stronger, and acquired a preponderance over the others; and the slave-holder, by exercising self-esteem, which engendered love of dominion, lost the proper balance of his mind – the better feelings of the man were absorbed in the propensities of the tyrant; and from such causes might probably be traced the American propensities for duelling and using the bowie knives, which were of necessity the accompaniments of such an education.⁸

Mr Douglass then read passages from a book of Mr Jefferson‘s, illustrative of the pernicious effects of slavery on all observing it.⁹ He next read an extract from a South Carolina Paper, entering into details of the laws of duelling. He next referred to the reasons assigned for the rights of slave-holding; and the most common of these were the allegation that the Negro was of an inferior race, – but, though such were the case, he thought it no right for slave-holding; the holy Bible inculcated the doctrine for the strong to help the weak, and for all mankind to live in one common brotherhood, – and he regretted to meet in Scotland with men who could give support to such reasons. But the Negro had all the feelings which identify him with the White men – he had a mind capable of the same improvement.

It was an old custom of tyrants to prove the inferiority of those over whom they tyrannized, and all tyrants had adopted the same method. He then referred to the present state of Ireland. England at present held out that Ireland was an inferior race; but, if ever he had met in with gentlemen, it was in Old Ireland.

Mr Douglass then read the laws of the various States relative to the punishment of slaves for offences. Their laws expressly prohibit all evidences from slaves being taken. A White man might commit the most disgusting crimes in the presence of a thousand Blacks, and there was no redress possible to be obtained.

[Evidence of Black Achievement]

Mr Douglass next read an extract from a Work of Mr Lewis’s, of a Negro blacksmith, who had gained, by hard perseverance, a knowledge of letters – Arithmetic, Mathematics, Latin, and Greek. The ‘Black Light’ was soon found to be rather dangerous to the slave holding interests of the Church; and that Church, rather than clasp him in her Christian embrace, sent him off to the regions of Liberia.

He next related a story of Maddison Washington, a slave by birth, who made his escape from the United States to Canada, but felt that he could not be free while his wife and little ones remained in slavery. Against the united remonstrances of friends, that his mission prove hopeless, he returned to the United States, to wrest his wife from the possession of the man who dared to call her his property; but, so close was the guard placed over her, that in attempting to save her, he was seized himself. Maddison next appears a slave, bound down with heavy irons in the ship Clio.¹⁰ Love of liberty still prompted him on – he wrested his irons from him, and released others. At twilight, as he gazed out on the calm sea, a signal was heard; the liberated slaves rushed on deck, struck down the captain, and guided the vessel to a British island, and again felt himself free. Mr Douglass referred to the commotion which this incident had created in the American Congress and the British Parliament; and, after a long and eloquent speech, sat down admist great cheering.

Mr Buffum had commenced speaking when we had to leave.

Dundee, Perth and Cupar Advertiser, 10 February 1846.

---

Notes

1. For a detailed discussion of the frontispiece portraits in the Irish edition of the Narrative see Alasdair Pettinger, Frederick Douglass and Scotland, 1846: Living an Antislavery Life (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019), pp. 223-32.
   
2. Frederick Douglass to Richard D. Webb, Dundee, 10  February 1846, The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series Three: Correspondence, Volume 1: 1842–52, edited by John R. McKivigan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p.92.
3. The instance Douglass refers to is to be found in George Lewis, Impressions of America and the American Churches (Edinburgh: W.P. Kennedy, 1845), p. 176.
4. Douglass later told the story of Madison Washington – including the mutiny he led on the Creole in 1841 – in his novella ‘The Heroic Slave’ in Autographs for Freedom, ed. Julia Griffiths (Boston: John P. Jewett, 1853). See also George Hendrick and Willene Hendrick, The Creole Mutiny: A Tale of Revolt Aboard a Slave Ship (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003).
5. As well as its report of the meeting of 30 March, the Northern Warder of 5 February, 1846 carried an article entitled ‘The Free Church and Slavery’ which referred to ‘hired bravoes from the ranks of the American abolitionists, who are at present perambulating the country, retailed columns of the most extravagant absurdities, and which, in so far as they at all bear upon the position of the Free Church, or the conduct of its ministers, are mere wild farragoes of mingled falsehood and slander.’ It went on to accuse these ‘foul-mouthed clamourers’ of perpertrating ‘impieties, fooleries, and extravagancies.’
6. Lewis was the Free Church minister of St David’s Church on Ward Road, Dundee.
7. Lewis’ book was found to be a useful source by historians of US slavery in the 1970s and 1980s: see Alasdair Pettinger, ‘George Lewis and the American Churches’ in Travel Writing in the Nineteenth Century: Filling the Blank Spaces, ed. Tim Youngs (London: Anthem, 2006), pp.145–62, esp. pp153–54.
8. In his third autobiography 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, 1881), Frederick Douglass recalled meeting the leading Scottish phrenologist George Combe in Edinburgh in 1846, and praised his book The Constitution of Man, ‘the reading of which had relieved my path of many shadows’ (pp. 245-46). The language of phrenology permeated much mid-century literature on both sides of the Atlantic, although Douglass drew on it rarely. Combe identified over thirty moral and intellectual ‘organs’ or ‘faculties’. ‘Self-Esteem’ was one of the ‘lower propensities’ which, if allowed to predominate, ‘presided over the slave trade and other institutions.’ And while the relative strength or weakness of the various faculties in a given individual could be discerned from a careful examination of the head, they were not fixed, but dependent on the opportunities available for their exercise, and thus amenable to reform: George Combe, The Constitution of Man Considered in Relation to External Objects. 7th edition (Edinburgh: Maclachlan & Stewart, and John Anderson, Jun., 1836), pp. 68, 240. For a fuller discussion of Douglass’ relation to Combe and phrenology see Pettinger, Frederick Douglass and Scotland, 1846, pp. 171–96.
9. Douglass may have quoted from the passage in Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: R.T. Rawle, 1801) in which he writes: ‘Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race’ (p. 269). But Douglass would certainly not have endorsed Jefferson’s view that the best way to avoid such conflict was the forced emigration of emancipated slaves.
10. The reporter here mishears the name of the vessel, Creole.

For their fourth meeting in Dundee, the abolitionists moved from George Gilfillan’s church in School Wynd to the larger Bell Street Chapel.  On this occasion Frederick Douglass and James N Buffum were joined by Henry Clarke Wright, with whom they had shared a platform in Perth.

The building subsequently served as a Music Centre and is currently being converted into  ‘a base for residencies, exhibitions and other projects.’

As with the earlier meetings, we reproduce the reports from the Dundee, Perth and Cupar Advertiser and the Northern Warder, preceded by the more detailed account that appeared in the Dundee Courier.

In recent years, Douglass’ speech here has attracted special attention. It was anthologised in Great Scottish Speeches (2011), formed the basis of a poem by Aonghas MacNeacail commissioned by the Empire Café (2014), and is commemorated by a plaque mounted on the wall of the former chapel  for one of the set-pieces of the BBC television series Black and British (2016).¹

 

---

AMERICAN SLAVERY

In the course of last week, four public meetings have been held, at which addresses on the subject of American slavery have been delivered by a Mr Frederick Douglass, a runaway slave; Mr Buffum, a member of the American Anti-Slavery Society; and, on the fourth occasion, by the Rev. Henry C. Wright of Philadelphia. The novelty of a slave addressing a Scottish audience, altogether apart from the interest felt in the subject, could not fail to draw together a numerous assembly; and consequently the School Wynd Chapel, where the first three meetings were held, was on the two occasions so fearfully crowded that admission by tickets had to be afterwards resorted to to [sic] prevent danger.

Mr Buffum is an excellent speaker, and depicted in glowing language the horrors and miseries of American slavery; but by far the most interesting speaker is Mr Douglass himself. In chaste and vigorous language, – such as was indeed surprising from the lips of a person, who, from his own simple narrative, has had so many difficulties to overcome in acquiring learning and information (teaching a slave to read being a criminal offence severely punishable) – he opened up the secrets of the dark prison house of slavery as it exists in the southern states of the Union. His own personal experience, the horrid scenes he had witnessed, the sufferings of the slaves, four of his own sisters and a brother being still among the number, the instruments of torture (specimens of which, consisting of a collar to prevent repose, handcuffs and anklets, with the lash, all commonly in use, were exhibited) were all described in a pathetic, earnest, and impressive manner. The evils resulting to the masters from such a system – the effect which it has in searing and hardening their hearts – the revolting state of concubinage in which the female slaves, in addition to their other sufferings, are kept (Douglass himself being the offspring of a connection of this description) found in the speaker an eloquent exponent.

Slavery has  been, however, often described; and even its worst features, as they are exhibited in the boasted land of professed universal freedom, have been frequently held up to the public. We therefore pass over the first three meetings to give a short sketch of the fourth one, which was held in Bell Street Chapel, on the evening of Friday, – the principal subject then considered being the fellowship which the Free Church, after casting off connection with the State here, had so suddenly struck up with the American slaveholders. The meeting was very numerously and respectably attended.

Mr Buffum, who was the first speaker, said it was now too late in the day to talk of Christianity in connection with such a system of slavery as that in the United States. Yet to such a horrid system the Free Church of this country, professing to represent the religious feeling of Scotland (although he did not believe the assertion), had offered the hand of fellowship, and, as a price for their countenance and support, had taken the money wrung from the blood of the slaves. Unless the Free Church cut loose their connection with slavery, they would be dragged down to perdition with it. (Applause.)

Mr Douglass said he had come hither this evening in the spirit of candour to discuss the subject, and he wished to be distinctly understood that in rising to call their attention to the connection of the Free Church of Scotland with the Churches in America, he was not rising to speak against the Free Church. He was not here to offer a single word as to the right or the wrong of the Free Church of Scotland, or of its organization. He was not here to tell whether Drs Chalmers, Candlish, and Cunningham, or any of the leaders of the Free Church did right or wrong in coming out and establishing that church. He wanted no false statements to be made, for he understood that stories were in circulation here that he and his friends were in the pay and under the sanction of the other opposing religious denominations. as far as that charge was made against him, there was not the slightest shadow of truth in it.

[American Slavery and the American Churches]

He was only here to plead the cause of the slave, and to arouse the energies and obtain the co-operation of the good people of old Scotland in behalf of what he believed to be a righteous cause – the undoing of the heavy burdens and letting the oppressed go free. He then said he could not better begin his speech than by reading a portion of the first chapter of Isaiah. Mr Douglass here read from the fourth to the twentieth verses, after which he continued – I could not state my mission to this land better than by reading to you the passage of Scripture I have read. I should find it impossible to draw a more graphic picture of the state of the Churches in the United States than is drawn in these lines from the holy prophet Isaiah. In the single line ‘your hands are full of blood’ we have the character of the American Churches aptly described. Their hands are full of blood. In the United States there are three millions of people in the most abject slavery – in a most degrading and loathsome bondage – deprived of every privilege, moral, intellectual, and political – deprived of all – not a single right common to humanity that they may use, that they may say belongs to them. They are deprived of their rights by what are called the people of the United States, but they are also deprived by religionists. They are not allowed the right to marry, they cannot enter into matrimonial alliances. The whole three millions are compelled by the law, and by the religious teachers of the land who uphold the law, to live in a state of lawless concubinage and pollution. This is the state of the case. They are living without the knowledge of God, groping their way from time to eternity in the dark – the gospel, the heavenly religion shut out from their minds. They may not learn to read the word of God, for it is a crime punishable with death to instruct a slave to read the Bible. (Hear, hear.) This is the nature of the system which is upheld in the United States. This state of pollution – of blood, for such it is – of Atheism – of gross and dark infidelity – of lawless murder and plunder – is upheld, as I can prove, by the churches, by the clergy of the United States. Mr Douglass then enumerated the several sects, the Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, &c., who all sanctioned this system, and were willing and active participators in the sin of the slaveholders.

[The Free Church Delegation to the United States]

In this state of the case, there came from this land, the inhabitants of which are distinguished for their love of freedom – a land whose every hill has been made classic by heroic deeds performed by her noble sons – a land whose every brook and river carry the songs of freedom as they pass to the ocean – a land whose hills have nearly all been watered with blood in behalf of freedom – a land to which the slave had a right to look for sympathy, for aid, and for deliverance from his bondage. Instead of receiving such aid, there stands up in the midst a Church calling itself free! free! free! – (great cheering) – calling itself the Free Church, presenting itself both at home and abroad, arrogantly and egotistically, as the great representative of the people of Scotland. Does the Free Church represent your views on the question of slavery? (Cries of no! no!) I am glad to hear it. They claim to be the model, the impersonation, the life, the soul of Christianity in this country. Well, with all these influences, and with their exceedingly tender consciences – (laughter) – and with the professions of love to God and man, they leave their homes and go to the United States, and strike hands in good Christian fellowship with men whose hands are full of blood – the coats, the boots, the watches, the houses, and all they possess, are the result of the unpaid toil of those poor fettered, stricken, and  branded slave.

Where did these parties go when they went to the United States? I want to ask Mr Lewis where he went? (Great cheering and a few hisses.) I am glad to hear these hisses. It was said by a very learned man that when the cool voice of truth falls into the burning vortex of falsehood there would always be hissing. Innocence fears nothing. Perfect love casts off all fear. Innocence rusheth into the sun light, and asks to  be tried. It does not slink away and hide. It does not apologize and say I cannot talk with this or that man, because I do not know if he sustains an excellent reputation. It has no fears of this kind, it seeks to be searched and tried; and if there is a man here who feels for a moment that I should not unmask the Free Church of Scotland, he has more love for his sect than for truth, more love for his religious denomination than for God. I ought to have asked the brother who hissed, did not brother Lewis go to the United States? Did he not take the slaveholders’ money, and put it into his pocket? Let him come here and defend himself. But Mr Lewis has very wisely taken the counsel of Junius, who said to Sir William Draper, that he should never attract attention to his character – that as it would not pass without censure, it was better to endeavour to pass without observation.

The question with the Free Church is very easily settled if divested of all their sophistries. Their first justification is that the slaveholders are so situated that they cannot help holding their slaves; they are compelled by the laws of the land to hold them. I am here to pronounce this utterly false. There is not a slaveholder in the United States but can set his slaves free. In all the states except three, they can be set free on the soil. In three, I admit they cannot be set free on the soil unless the slaveholder becomes responsible for their good behaviour, but he can convey them to the protection of the British lion which prowls on three sides of them. But even if this were the case, it would not justify them. If slaveholding is a sin, as they admit it is, it is a sin in any circumstances. If the law were to say that they were to worship Vishnu or any other heathen deity, would it be right  because the law decreed it? Not at all. It would be none the less a sin because the laws of the land sanctioned it. Had these same Doctors of Divinity lived in the days of Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego, on the same principle they would have bowed down to the golden image. I could almost divine their argument for so doing. It would be ‘It has so happened under the providence of God that we have been placed in a heathen land, and it is of the utmost importance that the knowledge of the true God should be known in this heathen country, and so it is of importance that our lives should be preserved; and what I would advise’ says Dr Chalmers ‘is to submit to the powers that be. When you hear the sound of the various instruments kneel down, but be sure of this, worship only in form, not in heart; you may be lifting your hearts up to the Lord, and thus save your lives and your principles also.’ (Great cheering and laughter.)  We would never have heard of these three heroes if their conduct had been like that of these Doctors of Divinity.

After some farther remarks on this point, Mr Douglass continued by referring to the Free Church taking the slave money, and saying that their very members, when they looked up to their meeting-houses and reflected that they were built with the price of blood, would yet compel their clergy to send back the blood-stained money. (Great cheering.)  The question had been asked why did they not go and remonstrate with these reverend Doctors of Divinity? His reply was, that the force of public opinion was a much more powerful argument with such gentlemen than any he could use. If they had thought that such an uproar would have been made about it, they would  never have accepted of it; but they anticipated that they would be able to get out to America and steal home again with the money nobody being the wiser – forgetting all the while that the eye of the Almighty was upon them. Public opinion would yet compel them to send it back. (Applause.)

[The Slaveholder’s Sermon]

Mr Douglass then referred to the argument of the Free Church that the slaves were favoured with religious instruction, and said he would give them a sketch of a sermon which he had often heard preached. The text was ‘Servants obey your masters.’ He would divide it into separate heads, and here he was going to imitate the preacher, for he wanted to show them how cantingly, how piously he might appear when in the service of the wicked one himself. Mr Douglass then in tones of mimic solemnity gave the following epitome of the discourse: – ‘Servants obey your masters.’

You should obey your masters, in the first place, because your happiness depends on your obedience. (Cheers and laughter.) Now, servants, such is the relation constituted by the Almighty between cause and effect, that there can be no happiness neither in this world nor the world to come save by obedience; and it is a fact, that wherever you see misery, wretchedness, and poverty, want and distress, all is the result of disobedience. (Laughter.) Peculiarly is this the case with yourselves. Under the providence of God, you sustain a very peculiar relation to your masters. The term ‘servant’ in the text means slave, and you will of consequence perceive that this is a message to you by the mouth of the Apostle; so as a preacher of the Gospel I beg you to listen to the words of wisdom. (Great laughter.) I said it was peculiarly the case that your happiness depends on your obedience. It is verily true, and suffer me to illustrate this position by the statement of a fact. A neighbour of mine sent his servant Sam into the fields to perform a certain amount of labour which ought to have taken him two hours and a half. Now, by the way, his master was a pious soul, and after having waited till the expiration of the time which he had allotted to Sam for the performance of the work, he went out into the field, as he was accustomed to do, for the purpose of ascertaining why Sam was detained. (Laughter.) When he went, lo and behold, there lay Sam, his hoe in one place, and Sam fast asleep in the corner of the fence. (Great laughter and cheers.)  Think of the feelings of that pious master. Oh! it was a trying situation for a servant of the Lord to be placed in. (Laughter.) He went ‘to the law and to the testimony’ to know his duty, and he there found it written, that ‘the servant who knoweth his master’s will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.’ Accordingly, he took up Sam, and lashed him till  he was not able to bear it. Now this is the point I want to come to. To what was Sam’s whipping traceable? (Cheers and laughter.) Solely to disobedience. (Much laughter.) If you would be happy, therefore, and not be whipped, you will avoid sleeping when you should be working, for if you would enjoy and live under the sunshine of your master’s good pleasure, let me implore you, as one who loves your souls, ‘be obedient to your masters.’ (Cheers and laughter.)

You should obey your masters, in the second place, because of a sense of gratitude for your present situation compared with what it might have been. You should be inspired by a knowledge of the fact, that the Lord, in his mercy, brought you from Africa to this Christian country. (Shouts of laughter.) Oh! this is an important consideration, and one to which I will call your attention for a few moments. Your fathers – and I dread to enter upon the picture – were taken from Africa – degraded, lost, and ruined Africa – darkness may be said to cover that earth, and gross darkness that people – to be brought into the sunshine of this land of freedom. (Laughter.) Your fathers were living destitute of the knowledge of the gospel – destitute of all those civilising influences which you find surrounding you in this new region – destitute of religion, and bowing down to stocks and stones, and worshipping images. While they were in this state of deep despair the Lord put it into the minds of good men to leave their homes, to leave their families, and to brave the perils of the ocean, that they might snatch you as brands from the burning, and bring you to this Christian country. (Great applause and laughter.) I will now go to another head of my text.

Thirdly – (a laugh) – You should obey your masters, in the third place, because of your being adapted to your present condition. Now, servants, it is one of the peculiar marks of the wisdom of the Almighty, that whenever he establishes a relation amongst mankind he accompanies it with evidence of its fitness, and of the adaptability of parties to their several conditions. The relation of husband and wife, parent and child, the relation of ruled and rulers, of sovereign and subjects, and so on, all show this mark of adaptation. So the relation of master and slave! Permit me to point out to you some of the peculiarities and characteristics which show most conclusively that you should be contented to fill the very situation which you now find yourselves placed in. For instance, you have hard hands, strong forms, robust constitutions, black skins, and curly hair. (Cheering and laughter.) On the other side, we have soft hands, tender forms, delicate constitutions, and white skins. (Renewed cheers and laughter.) Oh! I wish to ask you from whence come these differences? ‘It is the Lord’s doing, and marvelous in our eyes.’ (Shouts of laughter and applause.) Now your hard hands and robust constitutions amply fit you to labour under our burning sun in the position in which you find yourself placed; while your masters and mistresses cannot labour thus. (Applause.)  The Lord has blessed you with black skins and strong constitutions; but, ah! boast not of your strength – boast not of those advantages, for while he has given you these advantages, he has also given us powers which mutually benefit you. (Loud applause.) You have not so much intellect as we have, so that you cannot take care of yourselves, nor provide for yourselves, and you would be in a most wretched condition if ever the Lord were to leave you to be guided by your own intellects. Thank God that we take care of you. Oh! the wisdom of God who made one class to do the thinking, while another does the working! (Cheers.) He hoped they would now allow him to say Amen.

Mr D. continued, he wanted to show them a specimen of the sort of spiritual instruction provided for the slaves. These were the brethren to whom brother Lewis was so much attached.

He then read a series of resolutions which had been lately agreed by the Churches in America, in which slavery was attempted to be defended from the example of ‘those good old slaveholding patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,’ as if these venerated patriarchs could be brought in as defenders of adultery and murder in their broadest and most damning sense. He pourtrayed in a happy and sarcastic style the encouragement afforded by the countenance of the Free Church to these American slaveholders; and contrasted with it the very different conduct of the celebrated John Wesley and others, of whom he spoke in warm and grateful terms for their labours in behalf of the slave. Would that John Wesley could stand up once more! Would that his words might be rung – not whispered – in the ears of those recreant Doctors of Divinity, who are now apologizing for and upholding the doctrine of slavery! (Great cheering.)

[Slavery and the Southern Press]

He would read from the New Orleans Picayune of July 8, 1845, a paper notorious for its slaveholding, slave-trading, slave-selling, and slave-buying tendencies, a eulogy on the Rev. Dr Chalmers for his course on the slavery question, and on another page of the same paper was an advertisement for two run-away negroes.² The paragraph was as follows:–

‘Dr Chalmers, the eloquent Scotch divine, having  been appealed to by the members of the Free Church of Scotland, on the subject of receiving contributions from churches in the slave states of America, to say whether religious fellowship could consistently be extended to slaveholding churches, the Doctor repudiates the spirit that would narrow the sphere of Christian union, and says, that the refusal of such fellowship would be “most unjustifiable.”‘

Fellowship with slaveholders! (continued Mr D.) – refuse fellowship with man-stealers, woman-whippers, cradle-robbers, and plunderers! – to refuse Christian fellowship with such would  be ‘most unjustifiable.’ (Applause.) Did they think Dr Chalmers would ever have said this, if, like him, he had had four sisters and one brother in bondage? (Cheers, and cries of ‘No.’)  Would this paper have eulogised George Thompson or William Lloyd Garrison, or any other eminent abolitionist. (No, no!) Well, the slaves run away – the bloodhound has not been able to follow their tracks, and the paper which eulogises Dr Chalmers thus advertises the fugitives:–

‘Forty Dollars Reward will be given for the delivery or detention of the following Negroes, who ran away from my plantation, near Fort Pikes, La. on the 3d instant, or Twenty Dollars for either of them: –viz.

‘Phil, aged about 40 years, dark complexion; has a deep scar on (perhaps) his left hand, and a piece off one ear.

‘Sam, aged about 20 years; has a scar on his chin, several lumps on his neck and back, and walks rather lame.’

He hoped this advertisement would be copied along with the eulogy of Dr Chalmers, to show the people of Scotland what influence was being exerted to uphold slavery in the United States. One with a piece off his ear, and another with lumps on his neck and back, and walks rather lame and in the same paper an eulogy on Dr Chalmers. (Hear, hear.) Well might the Doctor exclaim ‘What have I done that the wicked speak well of me?’ He might ask with a degree of propriety never done before, ‘What have I done that slaveholders eulogise me?’ (Cheers.) He need not look far to know what he had done. He had struck  hands with them in Christian fellowship, and sanctioned the taking of the blood-stained money to build churches; and for this he was eulogised by the New Orleans Picayune. Mr D. then described the case of a slave boy being whipped to death by his master in the streets of New Orleans about fourteen months ago, and said with such parties the Free Church was joining and banding together. He concluded by making an earnest and eloquent appeal to the people of Scotland to lend their assistance in freeing three millions of their fellow creatures from bondage. Let the people of Scotland arise, and show the Free Church that they did not represent them. Let the voice of public opinion compel that church to send back the money. He would again visit Dundee, where, if there was to be found a house open for him, he would yet raise the cry ‘send back the blood-stained dollars.’ (Great cheering.)

The Rev. Henry C. Wright of Philadelphia exposed the inconsistency of those men who would refuse to be present at a funeral where a Residuary was permitted to offer up a prayer, and would yet go 3500 miles to form a fellowship with man-stealers. He took up the Warder of Thursday last,³ and in an eloquent and happy speech, in the course of which he was repeatedly cheered, ably and sarcastically exposed the fallacies and sophistries contained in an article therein defending the Free Church in its conduct respecting the retaining of the slave-money.

He asked, had Dr Cunningham on his recent visit to America been seized and sold as a slave (and he would have brought a good price) and the money been offered to the Free Church, would they have accepted it? How then could they receive the price of the body and soul of the injured African? After putting two or three cases of this kind, he said, let the Free Church declare what they will against the system (the usual way in which they permitted the individuals to escape, by blaming the system), the institution, or even the slaveholders themselves, it would be of no effect so long as they retained the money. With this the slaveholders bought their Christian fellowship, and they could not take back the fellowship unless they gave up the price. This was the position taken by Dr Candlish himself, who says, ‘The question of the acceptance of the money turns on present communion.’ They were the only Church in Great Britain and Ireland who had not repudiated communion with such a body.

As an evidence of the feeling which is entertained in England on the subject, he read the following extract from a letter he had received the other day from the rev. T. P. Mursell of Leicester (the successor of the celebrated Robert Hall):–

‘The letter to Dr Chalmers and others I think most admirable. If these gentlemen are not heartily ashamed of the favourable aspect they have turned towards the most hideous and sinful of all practices, there are hundreds of thousands both at home and abroad who are ashamed for them. The name of Chalmers has been sullied, and his reputation will suffer as long as that name is known, by his speeches on the American question. But when men forsake the high ground of principle for the swampy marshes of policy they must expect to sink. The money of slaveholders presented a temptation which the distinguished leaders of the Free Church could not withstand. That money, with the disgrace it brings with it, will prove their curse.’

The name of Dr Chalmers, which he formerly revered, he never heard now without loathing and abhorrence for his defence of man-stealers. After some farther remarks on the connection between the Free Church and man-stealers, and asking if they would associate with sheep-stealers (a less aggravated kind of theft), he referred in highly eulogistic terms to the late Dr Andrew Thomson of St George’s, Edinburgh, as a great and talented advocate of abolition. He then went over some of the arguments advanced by the Free Church, and showed that their conduct was even condemned by eminent ministers within their own body – by the Rev. Henry Grey, Drs Duncan and Willis. Dr Duncan asks –

‘Is every Free church to have a slave-stone in it? Is this the commencement of the Free Church of Scotland? What! Is the association between the Free Church and a stone wet with the blood of the slave? Is one of our first acts to be a soft denuncation of slavery and a practical participation in its fruits?’ ‘Has this Church nothing to do but to sit down at the Lord’s table with these unmakers of men – with such traders in human flesh? As for myself, I could not eat a common meal with them: It would choke me.’ ‘I would count it foul scorn to associate with such men.’

The language of Henry Grey is –

‘Have we separated ourselves from our Moderate brethren to form alliance with man-stealers? Do we remove from us a brother that walketh disorderly – a drunkard, a fornicator, an adulterer – to unite ourselves with fornicators, such even as are hardly named among the Gentiles – men polluted with incests, renouncers of marriage rights, man-stealers, murderers, sellers of their own offspring, stained with the blood of innocents, leprous with sin?’⁴

These were the sentiments of some of their most eminent ministers, but they had as yet had no visible effect. He was desirous, if the Free Church did not set about restoring the money, that the people of Scotland should raise the £3000 by subscription, and go to the Free Church leaders and say, ‘Here is the money; if you do not send it back we will, to show that you do not represent the religious feeling of the people of Scotland.’ (Cheers.) He had already received numerous offers of liberal subscriptions if such a course was necessary. (Great cheering.) Mr Wright concluded by proposing the following resolutions, which were carried by acclamation:–

‘1. That all who hold Christian fellowship with slaveholders are accessory to the robbery, concubinage, and all the crimes and pollutions necessarily involved in slave-breeding and slave-trading; and virtue and humanity, as well as Christianity, demand that the ministers and Churches of this Kingdom should exclude all who perpetuate these deeds of guilt and infamy from their pulpits and communion.

‘Whereas the Reverend Dr Candlish and other leaders of the Free Church have declared that the question of retaining the money of slaveholders depends solely on the right of fellowship with them as Christians, therefore resolve – (2.) That this meeting earnestly recommend to the people of that Church to urge their General Assembly to send back the money obtained of slaveholders, to obtain which they have pledged to those man-stealers their Christian countenance and fellowship; and thus to annul their compact with death, an [sic] place themselves in a position to bear a consistent and efficient testimony against slavery.’

(The exposé of the doings of the Free Church made by these lecturers wherever they have been is in numerous instances taking the scales from the eyes of those who were formerly her most uncompromising and devoted adherents. As an instance, we may mention that at the meeting on Friday night, and elsewhere, we heard several of her friends declare that they will not contribute one additional sixpence towards her support till the ‘blood-stained money is sent back.’)

Dundee Courier, 2 February 1846

LECTURES ON AMERICAN SLAVERY

Friday evening, being the last night of Messrs Buffum and Douglass’s stay in Dundee, the place of lecture was changed from School Wynd to Bell Street Chapel, for greater accommodation; and here, as on former evenings, the audience could scarcely find seats.

Mr Buffum, in addressing the Meeting, anticipated that it might be supposed he was destitute of the love of country in speaking only of the stains and stigmas of the American Government; but it was love of country prompted him to do so. The surgeon who amputated a limb from a patient who would otherwise have died, was his patient’s friend; and he, in speaking of slavery and of churches built by the price of slaves, did so only with the motive that America and the Free Church of Scotland should separate themselves from slavery. So deeply was slavery interwoven with American law, there was no institution, civil or religious, free from its baneful influence. The English Government deservedly took credit to themselves for the emancipation of eighty thousand slaves, and such conduct had much influence on the slavery question of America. Not very long ago a voice came like a whirlwind across the Atlantic – it was the voice of the one hundred and thirty Churches of Scotland petitioning against slavery. The times had changed since then – the Church of Scotland had become divided against itself – the representatives of one of its parties had gone across the Atlantic, entered into an alliance with the slave-holder, and returned home with the fruits of that alliance to build temples for the Free Church. At the farthest corners of America the voice of Daniel O’Connell was heard, like an earthquake, protesting against the deed; and Scotland, to be free from the stains entailed upon her by the act of her representatives, must reverberate the echo of Daniel O’Connell, and send back the money.⁵ Slavery was doomed – a leprosy spot was on it, which increased with the increasing intelligence of the age; and, unless the Free Church severed herself from it, she would be dragged into her troubled vortex, and share her destruction. Mr Buffum sat down admist much cheering.

Mr DOUGLASS, in speaking of the connexion of the Free Church, and the American Churches, did not intend to speak against the Free Church proper – he did not intend to say that Doctors Candlish, Cunningham, Chalmers and others, had done right or wrong in severing themselves from the State. False representations had gone out against him, and he assured the audience that he was here only to arouse the People of Scotland to acts of humanity and justice – to heal the hurt, and let the prisoner go free.

[Slavery and the American Churches]

Mr Douglass then read a long passage from Isaiah, confirmatory of this spirit; after which he referred to the condition of three millions of slaves living in the most abject bondage in the United States of America. Not one right common to humanity was left them; the religionist and the slave-holder had mutually combined to take them away; the light of religion was purposely forbidden to the slave. It was punishable by death to teach the Black population to read. This law had its origin in the belief that, when instructed, the Black man would become dissatisfied with his condition. Infidelity and Atheism, in their boldest and blackest form, overspread the United States; and their causes were clear. A system of plunder and oppression affected all the religions of the land; the psalm rose up in the temple, and the slave rattled his irons under the very altar, held up his manacled hands, and imploringly asked, ‘How long shall this be?’ and that altar answered back, ‘FOR EVER!’

[The Free Church Deputation]

The Churches of America had their walls built by the wages of unrighteousness. From Scotland, a land whose voice was sacred – whose brooks sung music, and whose every hill was dear – from a Church in this land calling herself free, claiming the life, the impersonification of love and Christianity, a Deputation leave their homes, and, with the expression of love and good-will to man on their lips, they go to the United States, and, in face of repeated remonstrances from the Anti-Slavery Party, strike fellowship with hands stained in human blood.⁶ (Cheers and faint hisses.) He liked to hear hisses; it proved that his facts told; innocence had nothing to fear; and he would ask, did Mr Lewis go to America? did he return with slave money?

The Free Church vindicated their deeds by saying, that, by the American laws, the slave-holder was bound to retain his slaves. This was utterly false; there was not a slave-holder in America who might not say to his slave, I have lived too long on your muscles and sinews – conscience will not admit me to claim property of your blood – go, and from henceforth be free. There were but three States in America where the slave-holder might not emancipate the slave on the ground, and in these three States he had only to become guarantee for the slave. Had the Doctors who defend slavery lived in the days of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, they would likely have bowed down to the sound of the Psaltery; and the spirit of Dr Chalmers’s defence says, – Bow down to the golden image – submit to the laws that be – but you will come out unscathed. But there was a spirit above all human enactments written on his heart to abhor rapine and blood; and, while such did exist, his heart would turn in revolt and loathing from the possession of human blood.

These men, in their mission to America, pretended to be representing Scotland, but he believed they were misrepresenting it at every turn; and their members would yet rise against them and compel them to return this blood-stained money. Many might complain why he did not go and reason with their leaders – why did he not call and remonstrate with Dr Cunningham and Mr Lewis. He believed the better way was to change the public mind. These men had accepted money against the remonstrance of the Anti-Slavery Society of America. Had they anticipated that the public opinion of the country would have come down like an avalanche upon them, they would not have dared to take this money; but they thought they could do so secretly; and he intended going through every town in Scotland, and telling of the deeds of these men that had blooded their hands with the slaves, till he shamed them to return the fruits of their labour.

Mr Douglass next drew a graphic picture of the slave-holding Churches in America, the neglect of all interests of the slave, and the utter sycophancy of the pastor to the slave-holder. He next read extracts from sermons, not sanctioned only by individual clergymen, but before whole Presbyteries. These extracts were to prove that slavery existed in the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and hence it should continue to exist. Who had heard of the good old slave holders, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? As well might they reason that, as adultery had existed in these good old days, it should continue to exist.

He next read a eulogy on Dr Chalmers, from a New Orleans Newspaper, well known for its slave-holding propensities; and on the same page a slave advertisement of a poor Black who had made his escape, – a piece out of his ear, lumps on back and neck and walked rather lame. The eulogy on Dr Chalmers was relative to his letter condemnatory of the spirit that would narrow the union of Christian Churches. At the conclusion of Mr Douglass’s speech, three cheers were given to send back the money. He would not leave the country till it was sent back.

Mr WRIGHT, in addressing the Meeting, wished the People of Dundee and the People of Scotland distinctly to understand his sentiments on this subject. He did not condemn the Free Church for the mere taking of money from the United States, but because, in the taking of this money, the Free Church had bound herself to hold communion and fellowship with the slave Churches in America. His question was – Shall Christianity be associated with slavery? And he felt sure that Scotland from sea to sea would resist such union.

Previous to 1816 a law was in existence in America, that all who bought or sold slaves should not be admitted into the Church. At 1816 the slave-holders became so numerous and powerful as to get this prohibition done away; and since that time he has been freely admitted to all the privileges of the altar. He believed nine out of ten of the members of the Free Church of Scotland reprobated this alliance with the slave Churches in America. Their leaders had gone over the Atlantic, and entered into union with the American Churches. By this deed the leaders of the Free Church had powerfully kept back the spirit of emancipation. Grant that the Free Church was otherwise a pure and good Church – that very goodness and purity shed but a false lustre on the slave Churches of America, which served to prolong the reign of corruption. He reprobated the overbearing spirit of the Free Church in their endeavours to overawe the People of Scotland.

He next alluded to the spirit that threw the whole blame from the individuals upon the institutions.⁷ Of all the wicked hypocrisies under Heaven, this was the most disgusting. Robbery in London was an institution; why might not the robber throw the blame from himself, and say he was bound to obey the laws of this institution; and the same argument held good with the Free Church, in going three thousand miles, entering into alliance with the slave Churches, and throwing the whole blame on the slave-holders. He cared not for the Free Church’s condemnation of slavery, while it held out the right hand of fellowship to slave Churches. Institutions were made for men, and not men for institutions. The Free Church had little scruple in making use of the money obtained from slaves. Suppose Dr Cunningham was sold as a slave for 1000l., which price is laid up in the pocket of Mr Lewis. If the People of Dundee, or the Free Church, knew this money was the price of Cunningham, would they take it? And how dared they take the price of a poor Negro? How dared they form alliance with the man who sold the poor fallen slave? They would not hold fellowship with the man who sold Dr Cunningham, but they held it with the man who sold the slave; and the day was not far distant when the Free Church, should she not cut herself loose from slavery, she would sink with it.

He next read an extract from a letter of the late Dr Andrew Thomson, condemnatory of the views of the Free Church and Dr Chalmers; a list of slave advertisements; and, after a long and eloquent speech, sat down amidst great cheering.

Dundee, Perth and Cupar Advertiser, 3 February 1846

AMERICAN SLAVERY. – Messrs Douglas and Buffum’s lectures on this subject, noticed by us last week, have  been continued on several evenings since that time. On Friday evening [30 January] the place of meeting was changed from School Wynd to Bell Street chapel, where, as formerly, large crowds were present. The subject of that and the previous lecture was changed from an exposition of the slave system of america, to a discussion of the conduct of the Free Church in consenting to receive money from churches in which are slave holding members. The speakers, finding that this theme suits well the taste of their audience, dwell upon it at great length, and with abundant want of justice and good sense. On Friday they were joined by Mr Wright, the person who distinguished himself a few months ago by his irrational abuse of the Free Church, and whose appearance on this occasion was exactly what the character of the man would have led us to expect. Loud applause at intervals greeted the speakers, more particularly when something stronger, and more flagrantly unjust than ordinary, was said against the Free Church.

Northern Warder, 5 February 1846

---

Notes

1. Great Scottish Speeches, edited by David Torrance (Edinburgh: Luath Press, 2011); Aonghas MacNeacail, ‘saor bho shaorsa’ / ‘free from freedom’, in Yonder Awa: Poetry from the Empire Café, edited by Louise Welsh ([Glasgow]: Empire Café, 2014); Black and British: A Forgotten History, Part III, ‘Moral Mission’ (broadcast BBC 2, 23 November 2016).
2. An editorial note relating to this passage in the Frederick Douglass Papers points out that the editorial appeared in the 3 July 1845 issue of the paper, and that the issue containing the quoted advertisements has not been traced: The Frederick Douglass Papers. Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews, Volume 1: 1841–46, edited by John W. Blassingame (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), pp. 154–55.
3. Although the Northern Warder of 29 January 1846 had reported Douglass’ speeches at School Wynd Chapel fairly uncritically, on another page of the newspaper an article entitled ‘The Testimony of the Free Church Against Slavery’ offered a defence of the Church’s position, insisting that it had very clearly denounced slavery as a ‘heinous sin’, and had given the American churches ‘an earnest remonstrance on the matter in which they are at fault.’ If the Church was wrong to accept money from these churches, the argument continued, then ‘the greater guilt must be upon those who make gains by the toils of the slave,’ such as the grocer, the draper, the druggist. Indeed, ‘the vast majority of merchants are making their gains by slave produce; and there is hardly a man, woman, or child in this country who is not encouraging slavery, in using the produce of slave labour, either in what enters their mouths, or warms their bodies, or adorns their persons, or shelters them from the pelting rains.’ The article does not specify those who had criticised the Church for their actions, although another article in the same issue makes passing reference to a ‘rancorous and lying tract identifying the Free Church with slavery, which was circulated by a vagrant declaimer, who peregrinated the country some months ago, and which some of our readers may have seen.’  This ‘vagrant declaimer’ was almost certainly Henry Clarke Wright, author of a pamphlet, American Slavery Proved to be Theft and Robbery; with a Letter to Dr Cunningham (Edinburgh: Quintin Dalrymple, 1845), who had been lecturing on the subject across Scotland since the previous Spring. This might explain his eagerness to rebut their claims, and the especially negative response from the Warder in its report of this, the 30 January, speech of his – ‘the person who distinguished himself a few months ago by his irrational abuse of the Free Church, and whose appearance on this occasion was exactly what the character of the man would have led us to expect.’
4. These remarks by Dr John Duncan and Dr Henry Grey were made at a meeting of the Free Church Presbytery of Edinburgh on 12 March 1845. See Iain Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’: The Free Church of Scotland and American Slavery (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2012), pp. 61–3.
5. The ‘Send Back the Money’ campaign was probably inspired, or at least emboldened, by the example of Daniel O’Connell. In a notorious speech at a meeting of the Repeal Association in Dublin on 11 May 1843, he declared his intention to refuse ‘blood-stained money’ from pro-slavery Repeal groups in the United States. The speech was reported in the Liberator, 9 and 30 June 1843, and in the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Reporter, 9 August 1843.
6. At a public meeting in March 1844, the Glasgow Emancipation Society condemned the Free Church’s solicitation of funds from the American churches. Minutes of Glasgow Emancipation Society committee meeting, 14 March 1844 (Smeal Collection, Mitchell Library, Glasgow: Reel 1); Glasgow Argus, 18 March 1844 (repr. Liberator, 26 April 1844).  And the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, in an initiative of its own, wrote an open letter to the Free Church condemning its actions, a letter which would be distributed outside the Free Church’s General Assembly the following month. American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, Letter from the Executive Committee … to the Commissioners of the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: Myles Macphail, [1844]) (repr. Liberator, 26 April 1844). On its distribution at the General Assembly, see Michael W. Honeycutt, ‘William Cunningham: His Life, Thought, and Controversies’ (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2002), p. 169n.
7. Wright is probably referring to a letter Chalmers wrote to the Witness defending the Free Church’s position, insisting that a ‘distinction ought to be made between the character of a system and the character of the persons whom circumstances have implicated therewith.’ Thomas Chalmers to editor, Edinburgh, 12 May 1845 (Witness, 14 May 1845). Douglass mocked this argument in several of his speeches, including one he gave in Arbroath two weeks later on 12 February 1846.