^^•^^ 
 
 •To' .0 
 
 
 .^" ... 
 
 
 ■^o 
 
 .<N^ - t • 
 
 't^ .^' 
 
 
 >'' ^iSAr 
 
 M Of* 
 
 '^o\> 
 
 <^ .'«: 
 
 f^^i 
 
 
 ^ > „ *. ® • 
 
 
 J o. 
 
 v^^ 
 
 '^^l 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 :^; 
 
 
 '"^^*" 0^' 
 
 
-^^ 
 
 
 
 -^Ao^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i*** f. 
 
 *W* .♦< 
 
 
 
 ^^ •''• «4^ 
 
 — ' ^0* ._ %. -...• ,<v ... <i, •^rrr* .o* _,. - 
 
ADDRESS 
 
 ,^. 
 
 TO 
 
 ABOLITIONISTS. 
 
 " Let sugar be as cheap as it may be, it is better to cat none — better to eat aloes 
 and coUoquintida tlian violate a primary law impressed on evei-y heart, not irn- 
 bruted with avarice — than rob one human creature of tiiose eternal rights of whicii 
 niJlaw on eartli can justly deprive»him." 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 M E K K I II K W AND G U N N, I' R I N T E R S, 
 
 No. 7 Cartei-'s Alley. 
 
 • 1838. 
 

 i_7 , r 
 
 
ADDRESS TO ABOLITIONISTS. 
 
 We are not about to tell you of tlie existence of slavery in our 
 "land of the free," or to inform you that nearly tliree millions ol 
 your countrymen are the victims of systematic and legalized rob- 
 bery and oppression. This you know full well, and the know- 
 ledge has awakened your strong sympathy with the sufferers, and 
 your soul-deep abhorrence of the system which crushes them. We 
 mean not to prove that this system is condemned by every princi- 
 ple of justice, every precept of tlie Divine law, and every attribute 
 of the Divine character, — or that no man can innocently sustain to 
 his fellow man the relation it has established. You already be- 
 lieve this proposition, and build upon it, as a fundamental doctrine, 
 the whole superstructure of your anti-slavery creed and plan of 
 operations. It is not our purpose to convince you that the slave, 
 as your brother man, has a right to your compassion and assistance. 
 You acknowledge his claim, and profess to be his fast and faithful 
 friends. But we would propose to you a question of weight and 
 serious import. Having settled your principles, in the clear light 
 of truth, by fair and thorough investigation, do you practically 
 carry them out in your daily life and conduct? To one point we 
 would direct your attention. Do you, into whose hands this ad- 
 dress has fallen, faithfully abstain from using the products of the 
 slave's extorted and unpaid labor ? If not, having read thus far, 
 do not immediately throw aside this address with an exclamation 
 of contempt or indifference, but read it through with candor. 
 
 Before entering upon a discussion of the question, whether our 
 use of the products of slave-labor does not involve us in the guilt 
 of slaveholding, we ask your attention to the two following propo- 
 sitions, viz.: The love of money is the root of the evil of slavery — 
 and the products of slave-labor are stolen goods. 
 
 I. The love of money is the root of the evil of slavery. 
 We say that the whole system, with all its incidents, is to be traced 
 to a mean and heartless avarice. Not that we suppose every indi- 
 vidual slaveholder is actuated by a thirst for gold ; but that slave- 
 holders so generally hold slaves in order to make money by their 
 labor, that, if this motive were withdrawn, the system would be 
 abolished. If nothing were gained, it would not be long before the 
 commercial staples would cease to be produced by slave-labor, and 
 this would break the back-bone of the system. 
 
 A comparison of the history of the cotton trade with that of 
 slavery would show that every improvement in the cultivation and 
 manufacture of cotton has infused new vigor into the system of 
 slavery ; that the inventions of Cartwright, Whitney, and others, 
 have diminished the proportional number of emancipations in the 
 United States, enhanced the value of slaves, and given a degree of 
 
4 ADDRESS TO AnOI.ITIONISTS. 
 
 Stability to the robbery-system which it did not before possess. 
 Indeed, every fluctuation in the price of cotton is accompanied by 
 a corresponding change in the value of slaves. We copy the fol- 
 lowing statistics from the New York Herald, of November 23, 
 1837; they are extracted from a long " chronological table of the 
 cotton trade.'" 
 
 183G. Cotton farms in Mississip])i, iVontin_s; on the river, sell for KlOO per acre, 
 readily. Negro men, of [)rinie <iualily. feli-h from ;gl ,5iiO to f?'i,O0O. Rajiid settle- 
 ment of new cotton lands. Great siieculations. Heavy importations of foreign cotton 
 goods. 
 
 18.37. Cotton trade opens in a higldy prosperous condition. Fall of cotton from 
 20 cents to 8 cents per lb. Ruin of cotton factors. General languor in cotton trade. 
 
 One other fact growing out of the fall in the price of cotton in 
 1837, omitted in the above extract, we here supply : to wit, that 
 «' negro men of prime quality" would fetch not more than $400 
 or $500. If any further evidence is wanted that 
 
 " 'I'lie Christian hrokcrs in the trade of hlood, 
 Buy men and sell them, steal, and kill/or gold,'' 
 
 we refer the reader to John C. Calhoun's indignant allusion, last 
 winter, to the nine hundred million dollars worth of slave pro- 
 perty. 
 
 It is the love of money, then, that leads to the buying and work- 
 ing of slaves. And all the laws forbidding education, sanctioning 
 cruelty, binding the conscience — in a word, all the details of the 
 system, — flow from the buying of men and holding them as pro- 
 perty, to which the love of money leads. Are we not, so far, 
 correct ? 
 
 II. Artieles produced by slave-labor are stolen goods, be- 
 cause every man has an inalienable right to the fruits of his own 
 toil. It is unnecessary to prove this to abolitionists. Even 
 slaveholders admit it. John C. Calhoun says : " He who earns 
 the money — who digs it out of the earth with the sweat of his 
 brow, has a just title to it against the universe. No one has a 
 right to touch it without his consent, except his government, and 
 it only to the extent of its legitimate wants ; to take more, is rob- 
 bery." This is what slaveholders do. By their own confession, 
 then, they are robbers. 
 
 It is no small aggravation of their oflence, moreover, that in 
 order to get the labor of slaves without wages, a system has been 
 adopted which robs them of every thing else. In the language of 
 Charles Stuart, "their bodies are stolen, their liberty, their right 
 to their wives and children, their right to cultivate their minds, 
 and to worship God as they please, their reputation, hope, all vir- 
 tuous motives are taken away by a legalized system of most mer- 
 ciless and consummate iniquity. Such is the expense at which 
 articles produced by slave-labor are obtained. They are always 
 heavy with the groans, and often wet with the blood, of the guilt- 
 less and suffering poor." 
 
 But, say some, " we admit that the slaves are stolen property ; 
 and yet the cotton raised by their labor is not, strictly speaking, 
 
ADDRESS TO AROMTIONISTS. 5 
 
 Stolen, any more than the corn raised by means of a stolen horse." 
 In reply, we say that it is stolen. In every particle of the fruit of 
 a man's labor he has a properly until paid for that labor, unless it 
 is performed under a contract, express or implied, by which he 
 has relinquished his claims. The slave is under no such contract. 
 He, therefore, who sells the produce of his toil before paying him, 
 sells stolen property. If the case of the corn raised by means of a 
 stolen horse be parallel, it only proves the duty of abstaining from 
 that also. If it be not parallel, it proves nothing. 
 
 If, then, the products of slave-labor are stolen goods, and not 
 the slaveholder's property, he has no right to sell them. 
 
 We are now prepared to examine the relation between the con- 
 sumer of slave produce and the slaveholder, and to prove that it is 
 guilty — all guilty. Our proposition is this: 
 
 By using the products of slave-labor, knowingly, we be- 
 come PARTAKERS IN THE CRIME OF SLAVEHOLDING. 
 
 If slaveholding be a crime, this proposition must be true, or 
 aiding in the commission of a criminal act is no participation in the 
 crime. Was not William Lloyd Garrison correct in holding " the 
 proposition to be self-evident, that no transfer, or inheritance, or 
 purchase, or sale, of stolen property, can convert it into a just pos- 
 session, or destroy the claim of its original owner — the maxim 
 being universally conceded to be just, that the receiver is as bad 
 as the tbieiV— Liberator, Vol. I'l., No. 1. 
 
 If the purchaser of slave produce be not a " partaker of other 
 men's sins," where will you find such a character? 
 
 1. He gives his sanction to the plunder of the slave. This, at 
 first view, seems self-evident. But some deny it, and assert that 
 the mere act of purchasing the goods of the slaveholder is no more 
 an approval of the injustice by which those goods were obtained, 
 than of any other crime of which the seller may be guilty. Nay, 
 that, with the greatest abhorrence of his injustice, the purchase 
 of its products may be made for the very purpose of counteracting 
 it. No man, it is said, understands the act of purchasing a bale of 
 cotton, as admitting the morality of refusing pay to the people who 
 hoed and picked it, any more than that it was raised, ginned, and 
 pressed in the most economical way. 
 
 This reasoning contains a manifest fallacy. It is no better than 
 most palpable and clumsy sophistry. The veriest child knows 
 that the stolen property has not the same connexion with the thief's 
 other crimes as with his act of theft ; and that bad morality in the 
 mode of procuring goods is a somewhat stronger objection to re- 
 ceiving them, than bad economy in their production. 
 
 That devoted friend of the sufl'ering, Thomas Shipley, was wont 
 to illustrate this subject by supposing that slavery had never ex- 
 isted in this country, and that a company should noir be formed to 
 prosecute some branch of agriculture or manufactures by means of 
 coerced and unrequited toil. Who that has either conscience or 
 
6 ADDRESP TO ABOLITIONISTS. 
 
 luimanity would patronise that company by buying the goods it 
 vvoiild throw into the market? Were the use of slave-labor to be 
 now originated, we should all reject its fruits. Can its long con- 
 tinuance alter its moral character, or change our duty? 
 
 As to purchasing the products of injustice for the very purpose 
 of counteracling that injustice, we have only to say, that we are 
 not of the number of those who believe that the "end sanctities 
 the means," and tliat " we should do evil that good may come." 
 We, therefore, re-aHirm that our use of the products of slave-labor is 
 a practical sanction of the robbery. 
 
 First. So far as that single act is concerned, it manifests a will- 
 ingness, on the part of the consumer, that the rightful owner shall 
 remain deprived of the property which has been stolen from him. 
 In fact, if the original thief begins the injury to the rightful owner, 
 the purchaser continues it. 'I'his seems to us a truth so plain, that 
 argument would be wasted alike in attempting to prove or to dis- 
 prove it. The inference then seems fair — at least a natural one 
 for the robber to draw — that his offence is not thought a very atro- 
 cious one. Instead of meeting the eye of stern rebuke, and hear- 
 ing the voice of condemnation, reproving his wicked act, he is, by 
 the purchase of the stolen property, treated as an honest man, en- 
 gaged in a rightful business ; for 
 
 SecondJij. Our buying goods of a person implies our belief in 
 his right to sell them. Especially is this the case where the seller 
 claims a right to the goods and to the disposal of them. If he has 
 not that right, no one has a right to buy. By buying the products 
 of the slave's labor, then, abolitionists practically admit either that 
 their charge of robbery against the slaveholder is false, or that they 
 are partakers of other men's sins. 
 
 2. Nor is this all. The purchaser of slave produce not only 
 sanctions crime, when committed., but directly tempts to its com- 
 mission. We have already sliown that the slaveholder's object 
 is to make money. Without pay, he will no more raise cotton 
 for Its, than his overseer will manage his plantation for him. As 
 the salary is the temptation which induces the overseer to follow 
 that degrading employment, so the profit which we jiay the 
 slaveholder, on his rice, cotton, and sugar, is his temptation to 
 enslave. You say, if there were no market for slaves the slave- 
 trade would cease? Is it not as true that, if there were no market 
 for slave produce, slavery would cease? The slave-buying 
 planter is the tempter of the Guinea merchant. Is not the man 
 who buys the fruits of the slave's labor the tempter of the slave- 
 holder and the slave-buyer ? 
 
 The following extracts are so much to the point that we cannot 
 forbear introducing them here. The first is from the pen of 
 William Lloyd Garrison, and was published in the Liberator for 
 April 2:^, 1831. 
 
 "The abcUoi's of crime are :is giiilly as llu- jx r|Klr;\lois. Tlie asserlions wliich 
 liavt bf-en made are true — tliut tlie cotisunuis ol' llic productions of slave-labor 
 contribute to a fund for sn]H)Orting slavery, wiili all its aliominalinns — that they are 
 
AUURKtS lO AIU)l,mONl.STS. 7 
 
 tlie Alplui ami the Onioga of ilic luisincss— lliat llie slavo-dcalur, llic slavc-lioldcr, 
 and lliu slave-diivei', arc virlually llii; ai^futs of tlic consuimr, lor l»y lioltlin;^ oui ilie 
 temptation, he is tlic original cause, tlic first mover in the JKjrrid iirncess — tliat we 
 are called iipon to I'efuso tliose articles of luxury, wliicli arc oljtained at an absoluli^ 
 and lavish waste of the blood of oui- fellow men— and that a merchant, who loads his 
 vessel with the proceeds of slavery, does nearly as much at helping foiwai-d the slave- 
 trade, as he that loads his vessel 'in Africa with slaves ; they are both twisting the 
 same rope at ditterent ends. 
 
 « A few interrogations will suflice to illustrate this business. 
 
 " If a merchant patronise a jjiratc, who has plundered vi ssels on the high seas, and 
 pay him liberally for so doing, is he not himself a pirate in principle ? Is it true that 
 ' the receiver is as bad as tl'ie thief!" • Is i\ot the man who bribes his companion to 
 stab a third person to the heart, the greater criminal of the two, though he shed no 
 blood .' 
 
 "There can be no dift'iculty here. K very body wdl answer m the allirmalive. 
 These are self-evident truths. Now for the application. 
 
 "Why are the slaves held in bondage i" Certainly not to fulHl any prophecy ;— 
 not on the ground of benevolence ;— not because their liberation would he dangerous:— 
 no such th'ing ■,—hiit because thcij are projUahlr to their owners. Who are the prm- 
 cipal consumers of the products of slave- labor i" The free states. They turnish a 
 good market for the South. What is this, but pe.'ting an mimensc biibe into the 
 iiands of the slaveholders to kidnaj), steal, and oppress ? \\'cre it not lor our patron- 
 age, they would be compelled to liberate their slaves. The prophecy ot Mr. Kandolph 
 will then be fulfilled: the slaves will not run away from their masters, but the 
 masters from their slaves. We are, then, the warmest and most eflicieut sui.porters 
 of slavery, and feel no compunctious visitings of conscienci- in purchasing those things 
 which are stolen, and which have been moistened with the tears and blood ot the slave. 
 If 'the receiver is as bad as the thief,' surely he is more criminal who gives a yearly 
 salari/ to the robber. Is there any flaw in the argument.' Are not the cases 
 parallel;"' 
 
 The next extract will show how slavchoklers reason on this 
 subject. It is from a sermon preached in 1837, in Columbia, 
 South Carolina, by Samuel Dunwoody, a Methodist minister. 
 
 " Another metaphysical argument of tlie anti-slaveholders, and upon which they 
 lay a most unreasonable stress, is, the receiver, say they, is as bad as the thief. The 
 idea here intended to be conveyed, is, that as slavery is morally wrong in every in- 
 stance, all that are concerned with the subject, either directly or indirectly, must be 
 guilty of moral evil. 
 
 '• Suppose a West India planter should imrchase a large number ot slaves, for the 
 purpose of increasing his wealth. Would he be guilty of moral evil in so doing ? 
 Most certainly, says "the anti-slaveholder. But suppose he should employ these slaves 
 in the culture of sugar and coft'ee, in order to make his money out ot them ; he must 
 necessarily sell the sugar and coifee, the product of the slaves' labor, in order to accom- 
 plish his main design. Every person, then, who purchases sugar or coftee, in reality 
 encourages the slave-trade. But the anti-slaveholders at the North are in the habit ot 
 buying and using sugar and coftee ; therefore, they encourage the slave-trade in so 
 doing; and thus they are guilty of moral evil on their own principles. And, tor tlie 
 same reason, it would be morally wrong for a Northern merchant to buy a single bale 
 of cotton from a Southern planter; for that is likewise the product ot slave-labor." 
 
 3. The purchaser of slave produce is, himself, virtimllij the 
 plunderer of the slaves. This may be a startling proposition to 
 some ; and perhaps many, who are unconscious of a desire to do 
 such a deed, and even regard it with holy abhorrence, will at once 
 deny the charge. Still we affirm that,— wittingly or not,— they 
 do plunder the slaves. The truth of the accusation appears from 
 what has already been said. What we hire another to do for us, 
 is morally our own act. He who hires an artist to engrave a 
 counterfeit bank note, is none the less a counterfeiter because he 
 performs none of the manual labor of preparing the plale or print- 
 
8 ADDRESS TO ABOLITIONISTS. 
 
 ing tlie bills. And the consumers of slave produce who pay for 
 the raising of tliose articles by slave-labor, are slaveholders. 
 Where is the flaw in the argument? "None are so blind as those 
 who xi'ill not see." The South understands clearly the relation of the 
 North to the system of slavery. More than once have her distin- 
 guished men reproached us with being, in fact, the slaveholders, 
 while they were to us, as really as the overseers upon their 
 plantations to them, mere agents. What could we answer them ? 
 
 Objection. But, says the objector, " in order to show that 
 our use of slave products does actually have the effect to aid and 
 encourage the slaveholder to continue his sin, it must be shown 
 that our abstinence will prevent, or at least tend to prevent, his 
 continuance. And this cannot be done, without showing a rea- 
 sonable probability that our abstinence will produce a sensible 
 effect upon the market." — We answer 
 
 First. That the whole body of consumers of slave produce 
 sustain slavery, no one denies. Each consumer is part of the 
 whole, and whatever the ivhole does, each part — even though so 
 small that its influence is too minute for calculation — helps to do. 
 If ten uiiliion stockholders hold in equal shares a hundred thousand 
 dollars, does not each, though contributing but a single cent, aid 
 in promoting the common objectof the investment? So with each 
 purchaser of slave produce. The abstinence of all the abolitionists 
 might not yet exert so great an influence upon the market as to 
 make slave-labor improfitahle ; but, subtracting from the total 
 consumption so much as that of a single individual, would, to a 
 certain degree, diminish its profits. " Every atom of slave pro- 
 duce which is used, actually and direcdy sustains slavery, as far 
 as it goes." Of course, every purchaser of slave produce contri- 
 butes, in a measure, to that result. " He is not ihejifty million; 
 all that the fifty million can do, therefore, he is not required to do; 
 but he is one, and what one can do, is required of him." If, then, 
 we gain no more than this, we diminish the profits oi slavery, and 
 thus weaken one of the man-stealer's principal motives to resist 
 our appeals to his reason and conscience. The shrine-maker in 
 Ephesus stopped his ears against the truth, because his business 
 brought him great gain. Interest, real or supposed, blinds the 
 eyes of Southern slaveholders. They would be more likely to 
 give heed to anti-slavery arguments, if they did not think their 
 system profitable, than if they were realizing immense wealth. 
 
 " The whole community is made up of individuals. Should 
 every individual always take it for granted, that his own exertions 
 in any cause could produce no good effects, all works of benevo- 
 lence, which require a general co-operation, would go on but 
 slowly. Besides, there is every prospect that, so far from any 
 person who entered upon this cause being alone, he would soon 
 find himself united with many others." Ilis example would lead 
 others to adopt the practice, and theirs would influence others, and 
 theirs others still, until the little leaven would leaven the whole 
 lump. 
 
ADDUrSS TO AliOMTIONISTP. a 
 
 It is justly observed by a correspondent of tlie Liberator, (vol. I. 
 p. 78,) that, " by using slave produce; each one to himself, so large 
 a number may be kept from adopting the measure, as each one 
 admits might, bj' adopting it, produce the desired effect. But the 
 more direct answer to tlie objection is, that if the use of these 
 productions is positively assisting (in however small a degree) to 
 keep men in slavery, no one, who considers it wrong to keep them 
 so, is at liberty to assist even to this trifling extent. Let, tlien, 
 each individual, who is persuaded of the propriety of this measure, 
 look around him, and see if there is not some one, if no more, 
 whom he can influence, and induce to join in it." 
 
 Secondly. We may safely assert that, if in this measure all 
 would unite whose avowed principles seem clearly to demand it, 
 and all whose relations to slavery render it in some sort peculiarly 
 their duty to do so, a very "sensible effect upon the market" would be 
 produced. The Society of Friends, consistently with their testi- 
 mony against the use of prize goods, and goods fraudulently 
 obtained, of which character pre-eminently are the products of 
 slave-labor, ought to be among the foremost in this work. They 
 number, according to the American Almanac, 150,000. The last 
 annual report of the American Anti-Slavery Society informs us, that 
 there were in May, 1838, (the time when it was written,) about 
 180,000 members of Anti-Slavery Societies in the United States. 
 Probably there are many abolitionists not belonging to any Society. 
 Besides these, many persons agree with us in most points, but not 
 in all. The co-operation of some of these might be reasonably 
 expected. Indeed, some of ihem do now conscientiously abstain. 
 But, without counting this last class, since its number, though 
 doubtless large, is indeflnite, and reckoning the Friends who belong 
 to anti-slavery societies at 10,000, we have an aggregate of 
 320,000, whom consistency, we think, requires to withdraw at 
 once their pecuniary aid from that system of abominations which 
 they profess to abhor. Add to these the free colored people, — 
 who, as in a measure identified with the slaves, might be expected 
 to sympathize deeply with them, and to be especially ready to 
 avoid participation in the fruits of oppression, — and the sum will 
 exceed 600,000. 
 
 It has been computed that ten persons consume the produce of 
 the labor of one slave. If this be correct, the abstinence of 600,000 
 could not but make a perceptible difference in the profits of slave- 
 labor, and consequently in the demand for slaves. It must 
 sensibly impair the strength of oppression's blood-cemented 
 bulwarks. 
 
 We pretend not, from these data, to determine, with mathematical 
 precision, by how much the number of slaves, the value of their 
 labor, or the ratio of their increase will be diminished; or at what 
 rate the number of voluntary manumissions would be augmented. 
 We freely admit that circumstances exist which could hardly be 
 
 2 
 
10 ADDRESS TO AHOLITIOIVISTS. 
 
 bent into an accurate estimate, and the inlluence of which, in modi- 
 fying the result, could not with any reasonable degree of certainty 
 be measured. Each reader is left, therefore, to carry out the calcu- 
 lation according to his own judgment, and to arrive at such conclu- 
 sion as to him appears legitimate. But one thing all will probably 
 concede: — that a strict adherence, by 600,000 persons, to the plan 
 we recommend would produce an impression, and lliat not a small 
 one, on the market for slave produce, and on the profitableness of 
 slave-labor. 
 
 Thus much for the influence of abstinence on the pecuniary sup- 
 port of slavery. From what follows it will be seen that, even 
 without reference to this consideration, its efi'ect is beneficial, on 
 however small a scale it is practised. 
 
 4. The consumer of slave produce is a partaker in the crime of 
 slaceholdin^, because, by such consumpiion, he withholds one very 
 important testimony against slavery as a sin. By abstaining from 
 the products of slave-labor we bear a constant and powerful testi- 
 mony against slavery. It is equivalent to saying that we regard it 
 as a heinous sin. "Yonder are the hogsheads of sugar and molasses, 
 the bales of cotton, the rice, and the indigo! Now suppose that 
 no one would buy them, because obtained by robbery. No one 
 consumes them — not because they are not wanted, for they are 
 wanted ; but because the curse of the suffering and outraged poor 
 is upon them." Will the masters be unrebuked by such sacrifices, 
 made rather than partake of the fruits of their sins ? 
 
 In every possible way, that does not conllict with other duties, 
 we are bound to testify against this sin. The reason of this obliga- 
 tion is to be found in the enormity of the evil, and in the ruin it is 
 every moment producing. Shall we then refuse to bear our testi- 
 mony against it by abstinence from its products? If " actions speak 
 louder tiian words," how loudly would our abstinence declare our 
 conviction of the sinfulness of slaveholding I And if merely pro- 
 claiming with tongue and pen and press the immorality of slavery, 
 does so much towards promoting its abolition, how irresistible will 
 be the effect of preaching its sinfulness by our constant prac- 
 tice ! 
 
 Elizur Wright, jr., of New York, though dissenting from our 
 views of duty in this matter, asserts that the practice of abstaining 
 from West India sugar, which prevailed to some extent in Great 
 Britain, while Clarkson was assailing the slave-trade, '■'■produced a 
 great and salutary effect on the minds of thousands'''' even of 
 those who did not adopt it. " ft was a loud and practical rebuke 
 of slavery. It was an index of sincerity and zeal. It was an ever - 
 vresent memento of the oppressed. It was truly, as our amiable 
 coadjutors, the Friends, call it, 'a testimony.' " — Now we contend 
 that all this the slaves have a right to claim, — that all this is due 
 to the cause of truth and righteousness. 
 
 One word more under this head. In this controversy against 
 slavery, as in other moral conflicts, "he who is not for us, is 
 
ADDRKSS TL» AISOLITIONISTS. 11 
 
 against us," and he who "galhereth not with us, scallerclh abroad." 
 Refusal to join an anti-slavery society is regarded by the world as 
 evidence either of opposition to the society, or of an inditl'erence as 
 fatal as opposition itself. By declining to act in any particular 
 practicable way against slavery, we give our opponents occasion 
 to question the sincerity of our professed convictions of its enormity, 
 and the duty of acting vigorously for its overthrow. However 
 faithfully or efficiently we labor in other ways against slavery, if 
 we use its products, we to some extent give our influence in its 
 favor, and thus counteract our own exertions. We act like tlie 
 man who should set one foot upon the load he is endeavoring to 
 lift from ihe ground. 
 
 5. The consumer of slave produce is a partaker of the sin of 
 slaveholding, because he diminishes the influence of his anti- 
 slavery efforts. It is probably true, generally, if not universally, of 
 those who abstain from the products of slave labor, that, since 
 adopting this course, they have felt a livelier zeal, a deeper abhor- 
 rence of slavery, more tenderness of conscience, and a warmer 
 sympathy with the suffering. Elizur Wright, jr., says of the 
 practice of the British abstainers just alluded to, " there can be no 
 doubt that it produced a great and salutary effect upon their own 
 minds.'' We fully believe him. There is sound philosophy in 
 the statement. He who abstains from slave produce, meets me- 
 mentos of the slave wherever he turns. Scarcely a meal he eats, 
 but he is reminded of the lash and the fetter and the unrequited 
 toil. Scarcely a garment can he purchase or wear, but has a voice. 
 
 Then the consciousness that he is striving lo keep his own hands 
 clean and unpolluted with the gains of oppression, gives energy to 
 his mind, and strength to his hand, and increased efficiency to his 
 action in other departments of anti-slavery labor. The writer, last 
 quoted, justly remarks, that " reformers must be, or, at least, must 
 honestly aim to be, pure of the sin they rebuke. This is requisite, 
 not only to commend them to the consciences of others, but to save 
 them from the goadings of their own. 'A sinful heart makes feeble 
 hand.' " Acting inconsistently with our avowed principles, unfits 
 us for rebuking the errors and misdeeds of others, and of course 
 impairs the force of our rebukes. The professed temperance man 
 who preaches total abstinence from strong drink, and is known to 
 take an occasional sip of brandy — however infrequent or however 
 small — even though he should not suffer in health, or become a 
 drunkard, could hardly expect to be a very successful advocate of 
 the temperance cause. It may safely be doubted whether that 
 minister of the gospel, so called, who told his congregation to do as 
 he said and not as he did, ever made many converts to righteous- 
 ness. But how much more wisely or consistently do we act, if 
 we preach against slavery, and at the same time uphold it by con- 
 suming its products. ' Governor Hayne's reply to Daniel Webster 
 on the Tariff" question has not yet been forgotten. His biting 
 retort would probably be thrown in our faces more frequently, if 
 
12 ADDRESS TO ABOLITIONISTS. 
 
 the South were not afraid of thereby driving us as a body to take 
 the consistent ground of abstinence. 
 
 As Elizabeth lleyrick truly says, " we must purge ourselves from 
 these pollutions. Then, and not till then, we shall speak with the 
 all-rommandin g eloquence of sincerity and Irul/t, and all our per- 
 suasions will be back(id by the irresistible argument of consistent 
 example.'''' Without that argument, can we expect to gain the same 
 credit as with it, for the genuineness of our devotion to the cause 
 of humanity? If we are unwilling to make the sacrifice wliich ab- 
 staining from slave produce requires, can we prove our readiness 
 to do and suffer all that a strict adherence to correct princi[>les may 
 demand? If abolitionists refuse to forego the slave-raised luxuries 
 which gratify the palate, or to substitute at a small advance of price 
 the products of free labor, with what consistency can they call 
 upon the slaveholder to make much greater sacrifices to holy prin- 
 ciple ? 
 
 Finally. Our abstinence promotes discussion of the subject of 
 slavery. When, as often happens, we sit with others at a table 
 spread in part with blood-bought luxuries, and our reason for de- 
 clining to partake of them is asked, the answer brings at once to 
 view the slave's condition, and naturally introduces a discuss ionof 
 his wrongs and the means for their redress. This is the very thing 
 we want. Free discussion is the vital air of abolitionism. 
 
 Such are our reasons for believing abstinence from slave produce 
 to be a duty. To this doctrine objections have been raised, which 
 we now proceed to consider. 
 
 Objection I. Abstinence from slave produce is " the exaltation 
 of a physical expedient into the place of m,oral power, for the 
 removal of slavery"— a moral evil. " Starving is not convincing." 
 Making slave produce unprofitable is " not an argument to the 'un- 
 derstanding and conscience' of any body, but an argument addressed 
 solely to the pockets of the planters." '« It lets down, mars, and 
 secularizes the glorious plan of emancipation which has been 
 adopted." 
 
 We reply: If it is our duty to avoid participation with other 
 men's sins, it is none the less our duty, because we cannot do right 
 without rendering it more difficult for others to do wrong. We 
 abstain because moral principle requires it. The effect of our 
 abstinence on the interest of the slaveholder, and, through that, on 
 the system of slavery, is a necessary incident for which, even if it 
 were matter of regret, we are no more responsible, than we should 
 be for the inability of a distiller to maintain his mischievous busi- 
 ness in consequence of our refusal to purchase his liquid poisons. 
 The " physical expedient" is not exalted "into the place of moral 
 power," but is merely an unavoidable consequence of the proper 
 application of such power. 
 
 Objection II. " Suppose the whole world should abstain from 
 these products, and the slave states should thereby bo compelled 
 
ADDRESS TO ABOLITIONISTS. 13 
 
 formally to abolish slavery. So far as the abolition was produced 
 bv these means, it would rest on no principle but necessity, — it 
 would be a shivish act. The sin would be unrepented of; and the 
 chance is, that the reformation would be rather nominal than real. 
 For there could not be, in the Southern states, as in llie West In- 
 dies, hosts of special justices to watch the unwilling benefactors, 
 and secure the rights of the weaker party." 
 
 This objection would apply with equal force against abstaining 
 from the purchase of any species of stolen goods, and against every 
 law ever enacted, affixing a penalty to the commission of crime. 
 But would the objector consider it valid in these cases? If not, 
 why in the present? 
 
 The answer to the previous objection will also apply to this. To 
 that we may add, that, even admitting wliat the objector says, it is 
 better the master should do right with ivrong motives, than do 
 wrong with wrong motives. Better reform his outward act while 
 his heart is unconverted, than remain at once inwardly corrupt and 
 outwardly immoral. Besides, it will be easier to convince his un- 
 derstanding, avvaken his conscience, and effect a genuine reforma- 
 tion of heart as well as life, when his strongest temptation to sin is 
 removed — when he no longer thinks that interest is on the side of 
 vice, nor feels those continual accessions of strength to his habits 
 of wrong-doing with which the constant tenor of his external acts 
 now fortifies him in sin, nor finds it necessary to seek out argu- 
 ments in defence of robbery and oppression, in order to vindicate 
 his own daily practice and silence the voice of the accuser in his 
 own bosom. 
 
 To the intimation in the objection that the slave's condition will 
 be only nominally changed without being improved, we answer, 
 that even admitting what the objector asserts, that the master's op- 
 pressive disposition would still remain, it is yet something gained 
 that the law no longer sanctions but now condemns its exercise, 
 and that the slave's right is acknowledged, even if impediments are 
 thrown in the way of its enjoyment. While at the worst nothing is 
 lost ; for moral means can still be used to convert the master, and 
 enlist his will as well as his interest on the side of justice ; and, 
 as we have already remarked, serious obstacles to their success 
 would have been removed, and they would act with greater efficacy. 
 In the language of Charles Stuart, " as soon as the slaveholders 
 were satisfied that they could never sell another pound of sugar, 
 (fcc, wrung by force and fraud out of the outraged slave, but that 
 they would be sure of an abundant market for the same things 
 fairly obtained by hired and voluntary labor, they would be as 
 eager for immediate and. thorough emancipation, at home, under 
 law, as the abolitionists now are, and in this awakened and 
 dominant sense of their own interest, benevolence would have a 
 belter security for the new liberty on these principles bestowed, 
 than all the special justices in the world could yield. We have a 
 
14 ADDRKSS TO ABOLITIONISTS. 
 
 striking instance of tliis in Antigua.* It was /)o/ir?/, not righteous- 
 ness — interest, not benevolence, which prompted the former slave- 
 holders of tliat island to the immediate and thorough emancipation 
 of their slaves, on the spot. Yet it was a perfectly voluntary 
 act, — properly speaking, their own act, in view of exactly the 
 same influences as all the world's abstaining from slave produce 
 would exercise universally upon slaveholders ; and the same sense 
 of interest wliich prompted them to the act, has been found ten 
 thousand times more efficient than any extraneovs svperintendence 
 could possibly have been, in securing the rights of the weaker 
 party." 
 
 Objection III. The practice of abstinence must necessarily 
 lead to great waste of things in themselves good. You must throw 
 away all the slave-produced goods in your possession ; for if it 
 was sinful to buy them, it is sinful to use them. 
 
 We reply; the inference is not sustained by the premises, for 
 to throw away the articles, would as much encourage slavery, as 
 to use them. If their price has gone into the hands of the slave- 
 liolder, all the support which slavery can derive from them has 
 already been secured, and so far as the influence on that system of 
 iniquity is concerned, one disposition of them will be the same as 
 another. If, then, we abstain from all future purchases which 
 will put money into the slaveholder's pocket, and from the use of 
 those things whose place, when they are consumed, will be sup- 
 plied by such purchases, there is no occasion to waste or destroy 
 what we have already purchased. So it seems to us ; but we leave 
 this question to each one's conscience, hoping no one will refuse 
 full obedience to that monitor. We may remark, however, that 
 even admitting the alleged necessity, the objection proceeds on 
 the utterly erroneous assumption, that destruction is of course 
 waste. Use itself results in destruction, but it is not deemed waste. 
 Why? Because the good enjoyed in using and so consuming the 
 article, is greater than would flow from its preservation ; and there- 
 fore preservation would be the real waste. If, then, in any 
 case, the entire and instant destruction would produce more 
 good than tlie use of an article, such use would be the true waste, 
 and destruction the true economy. The seed sown in our fields 
 is not wasted. If the speedy abolition of slavery should be the 
 effect of an instant destruction of all the slave produce now in ex- 
 istence, would not the harvest be worth the seed ? 
 
 Another thought may be worth presenting. The apprehended 
 waste, it is clear, can only come from the general adoption of the 
 practice we recommend. If such general adoption should be in- 
 stantaneous, its necessity and reason would very speedily cease i 
 
 ♦Since that was penned, otlici- West India islands have abohshed the apjirentice- 
 ship system, which was a remnant of slavery, not from conscience, bnt interest. The 
 odes wrilli'ii, and addresses delivered, in celebration of this event, cVen by persons 
 who do not agree with us as to llie duty of abstinence, show tliat they do not, in real 
 lilc, regard as valid the objection wc are considering. 
 
ADDRESS TO ABOLITIONISTS. 15 
 
 as slavery would be almost immediately abolished ; and the goods 
 on hand — not having had time to perish — could be innocently used. 
 Their consumption, then, would not uphold a system which had 
 ceased to exist. If not instantaneous, then, during its gradual 
 progress, slave-raised goods would be consumed as now by those 
 who have no scruples on the subject, and the gradual spread of 
 these scruples being accompanied by a gradual disappearance of 
 slave produce, and the introduction equally gradual of the fruits 
 of free labor, there would be no waste of either. 
 
 Objection IV. A fourth objection is made up of the statement of 
 extreme cases, and the allegation that it is impossible entirely to 
 abstain. We are asked, what shall be done by the crews of vessels 
 driven by storms into slaveholding ports; or by men who become 
 convinced of the sinfulness of slavery, while residing in the midst 
 of a slave state, where to remain or whence to escape, without the 
 use of slave produce, is alike impossible. We are reminded that if 
 we travel in stage-coach or steam-boat, we shall iind slave cotton in 
 the linings of the one and the bedding and tablecloths of the other; — 
 that in every book or paper which we read, we handle the unclean 
 thing, and that even anti-slavery publications must be suspended till 
 paper unstained with slavery can be procured to write and print 
 upon. Nay, that then the difHculty will not be escaped, for the 
 coin with which we pay the printer, and the boards of his 
 office floor, as well as of our own dwelling houses, are perhaps 
 made of slave-wrought materials. 
 
 To all this we answer, extreme cases do not make general rules, 
 and the necessity of the case justifies nothing which is not neces- 
 sary. It was well replied by a Quaker wom^n in Vermont, to one 
 who urged this objection, " if thou can'st not avoid soiling thy shoe- 
 soles, that is no reason for thy wading through the middle of the 
 mud-puddle." Let those who start these difficulties, be cautious 
 to abstain from the fruits of slave-labor in all but the really "ex- 
 treme cases," and never to use them bul; when it is absolutely ne- 
 cessary, and we will promise not to quarrel wilh|hem about their 
 exceptions. ■•• 
 
 In reply to that form of the objection which presents the difficul- 
 ties that would attend the prosecution of the anti-slavery enter- 
 prise, it might not be impertinent to ask the objector if he would 
 deem it right for an abolitionist to hold slaves, for the purpose of 
 making money to give to the Anti-Slavery Society ? If not, why 
 may he for the same purpose hire others to do the same thing ? 
 
 Once more. For what purpose are we told that difficulties at- 
 tend the maintenance of our doctrine, and that ingenious objec- 
 tions, hard to be disposed of, can be brought against it? If all this 
 may be true, and yet the doctrine may be right and sound, then 
 it is not disproved by the statement of these facts, and the argu- 
 ment against it, grounded on them, is without force. But if the 
 doctrine cannot be correct, concerning which such facts may be 
 truly alleged, then that of our opponents, who maintain that it is 
 
10 ADDUKSS TO Ar.OLTTIONlSTS. 
 
 right to use slave produce, must be unsound and untrue. For they 
 cannot deny that very strong arguments, and extremely difficult to 
 be answered, can be arrayed against their doctrine, and against 
 the claims to consistency of that man who at the same moment 
 condemns slavery as a sin, and holds out the principal inducement 
 to its commission. If the objection has any weight against us, 
 then, it has at least as much against its authors. Let them, before 
 urffino" it, wait till they have fairly proved that a voluntary partici- 
 pation in the fruits of unrequited toil, is free from liability to 
 serious objections grounded on the principles of moral rectitude. 
 
 E. Wright's admission, (A. S. Quarterly Magazine, Vol. I. p. 
 398,) that we should be unwilling to use the products extorted 
 from the toil of our near relatives, were they in slavery, and that 
 " we should feel it a duty to abstain even at some inconvenience," 
 if we had any chance of thereby exerting a moral influence in 
 their favor, appears to us to confirm the doctrine of this address. 
 Unless partaking the fruits of their unpaid labor sanctions its exac- 
 tions, why should we be unwilling to use them '^ Why " not feel 
 like sweetening our tea with sugar bought at the price of a bro- 
 ther's blood," unless to do so would make us partners in the 
 wrong inflicted on our brother ? But " have we not all one 
 Father V Are we not all, — bond and free, — brethren of one great 
 family? 
 
 We are not aware that any other objections to our views have 
 been offered, except such as have been already anticipated and met 
 in the preceding pages, or such as are too frivolous to deserve a 
 serious answer. We do not expect to remove all doubt from every 
 mind, or so to solve* every conceivable difficulty, and reply to 
 every ingenious cavil, as to satisfy the captious, and convince the 
 wilful and predetermined skeptic. Enough has been said to call 
 attention to the subject presented, and to stimulate honest minds 
 to inquiry and reflection. ^ To you, friends of the slave, pledged 
 champions of the_^ rights of man, we now submit the question, 
 whether you wi^'elevate.^our standard of principle and action to 
 the summit lev.rf' pf a pure morality, or lower it to that of a 
 worldly policy, a supple, circumstance-moulded expediency; whe- 
 ther your practice shall be such as will steel the slaveholder against 
 your arguments and appeals, and worse than neutralize your in- 
 fluence on his mind ; — or whether it shall exhibit such a preference 
 of right to convenience, of the iikeresls of humanity to personal 
 comfort, as will extort his admiratioiy. and be worthy of his imita- 
 tion. To your own consciences, i'lHhe sight of the motive-read- 
 ing eye, we leave the decision. 
 
 In behalf of the Committee appointed by the Requited Labor 
 Convention, to prepare an address on the duty of abstaining from 
 slave produce. 
 
 Lkwis C Gunn. 
 
 54 W 
 
A*^ 6 " • * <^s 
 
 ^c^ 
 
 '' ^^ 
 
 
 >^ ... 
 
 
 '^: 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 
 

 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 <. ♦'TTi* .G^ ^ '•"»* .0- <* *'T7i» ,G^ >i 
 
 
 5'3» 
 
 • N O 
 
 ^^<=»^