to measure the propriety of language, we must first examine the character of the system, or the nature of the object, against which it is directed. If we see a person wilfully abusing the goods of an individual, we may reprehend him, but with comparative mildness. If we see him maiming, or in any way maltreating another man's cattle, we may increase the severity of our rebuke. But if we see him violating all the social and sacred relations of life,-daily defrauding a number of his fellow creatures of the fruits of their toil, calling them his property, selling them for money, lacerating their bodies, and ruining their souls, -we may use the strongest terms of moral indignation. Nor is plain and vehement denunciation of crime inconsistent with the most benevolent feelings towards the perpetrators of it. We are sustained in these positions by the example of Christ, and the apostles, and the prophets, and the reformers.

So, also, if there be an institution, the direct tendency of which is to perpetuate slavery, to encourage persecution, and to invigorate prejudice,-although many of its supporters may be actuated by pure motives,-it ought to receive unqualified condemnation.

It is proper to call things by their right names. What does the law term him who steals your pocket-book, or breaks into your dwelling, or strips you on the highway? A robber! Is the charge inflammatory or unjust? or will it please the villain ? The abuse of language is seen only in its misapplication. Those who object to the strength of my denunciation must prove its perversion before they accuse me of injustice.

Probably I may be interrogated by individuals, Why do you object to a colony in Africa? Are you not willing people should choose their own places of residence? And if the blacks are willing to remove, why throw obstacles in their path or deprecate their withdrawal? All go voluntarily of what, then, do you complain? Is not the colony at Liberia in a flourishing condition, and expanding beyond the most sanguine expectations of its founders ?'

Pertinent questions deserve pertinent answers. I say, then, in reply, that I do not object to a colony, in the abstract-to use the popular phraseology of the day. In other words, I am

entirely willing men should be as free as the birds in choosing the time when, the mode how, and the place where they shall migrate. The power of locomotion was given to be used at will; as beings of intelligence and enterprise,

The world is all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide.'

The emigration from New-England to the far West is constant and large. Almost every city, town or village suffers annually by the departure of some of its adventurous inhabitants. Companies have been formed to go and possess the Oregon territory

-an enterprise hazardous and unpromising in the extreme. The old States are distributing their population over the whole continent, with unexampled fruitfulness and liberality. But why this restless, roving, unsatisfied disposition? Is it because those who cherish it are treated as the offscouring of all flesh, in the place of their birth? or because they do not possess equal rights and privileges with other citizens? or because they are the victims of incorrigible hate and prejudice? or because they are told that they must choose between exilement and perpetual degradation? or because the density of population renders it impossible for them to obtain preferment and competence here? or because they are estranged by oppression and scorn? or because they cherish no attachment to their native soil, to the scenes of their childhood and youth, or to the institutions of government ? or because they consider themselves as dwellers in a strange land, and feel a burning desire, a feverish longing to return home? No. They lie under no odious disabilities, whether imposed by public opinion or by legislative power; to them the path of preferment is wide open; they sustain a solid and honorable reputation; they not only can rise, but have risen, and may soar still higher, to responsible stations and affluent circumstances; no calamity afflicts, no burden depresses, no reproach excludes, no despondency enfeebles them; and they love the spot of their nativity almost to idolatry. The air of heaven is not freer or more buoyant than they. Theirs is a spirit of curiosity and adventurous enterprise, impelled by no malignant influences, but by the spontaneous promptings of

the mind.

Far different is the case of our colored population. Their voluntary banishment is compulsory-they are forced to turn volunteers, as will be shown in other parts of this work.

The following proposition is self-evident: The success of an enterprise furnishes no proof that it is in accordance with justice, or that it meets the approbation of God, or that it ought to be prosecuted to its consummation, or that it is the fruit of disinterested benevolence.

I do not doubt that the Colony at Liberia, by a prodigal expenditure of life and money, will ultimately flourish; but a good result would no more hallow that persecution which is seeking to drag the blacks away, than it would if we should burn every distillery, and shut up in prison every vender of ardent spirits, in order to do good and to prevent people from becoming drunkards. Because Jehovah overrules evil for good, shall we therefore continue to do evil?

If ten thousand white mechanics, farmers, merchants, &c. &c. were to emigrate to Africa, does any man doubt whether permanent good would result from the enterprise-good to that benighted continent, which would counterbalance all the sacrifices and sufferings attending it? And yet is there a single mechanic, farmer or merchant, who feels it to be his duty, or would be willing to go? Suppose the people of color should get the power into their hands to-morrow, and should argue that the whites must not be admitted to equal privileges with themselves; but that, having so long plundered Africa, and oppressed her children, justice demanded that they should be sent to that desolate land to build up colonies, and carry the light of civilization and knowledge, as a sort of reparation-and that, having superior instruction in literature and science, they were peculiarly qualified for such a mission-how would this doctrine relish? It is a poor rule that will not work both ways,' says the proverb. Yet this logic would be more sound than is our own with regard to the colonization of the blacks.

On this point, deception is practised to a great extent. The advocates of the Colonization Society are constantly aiming to divert public attention from the only proper subject of inquiry, namely, 'Is it based upon benevolence and justice?'—to the [PART I.]

3

success of the colony. Granting all that they assert, it proves nothing; but of this success I shall have occasion, doubtless, to speak hereafter. Fine stories are trumpeted all over the country, of the happiness, intelligence, industry, virtue, enterprise and dignity of the colonists; and changes, absolutely miraculous, are gravely recorded for the admiration and credulity of community. The simple,' says Solomon, believeth every word but the prudent man looketh well to his going.'

The doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means,' belongs, I trust, exclusively to the creed of the Jesuits. If I were sure that the Society would accomplish the entire regeneration of Africa by its present measures, my detestation of its principles would not abate one jot, nor would I bestow upon it the smallest modicum of praise. Never shall the fruits of the mercy and overruling providence of God,—ever bringing good out of evil and light out of darkness,-be ascribed to the prejudice and sin of man.

.

It is certain that many a poor native African has been led to embrace the gospel, in consequence of his transportation to our shores, who else had lived and died a heathen. Is the slave trade therefore a blessing? Suppose one of those wretches who are engaged in this nefarious commerce were brought before the Supreme Court, and being convicted, should be asked by the Judge, whether he had aught to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon him? And suppose the culprit should espy some of his sable victims in court, whom he knew had made a profession of faith, and he should boldly reply May it please your Honor, I abducted these people away from their homes, it is true; but they were poor, miserable, benighted idolators, and must have inevitably remained as such unto the hour of their death, if I had not brought them to this land of christianity and bibles, where they have been taught a knowledge of the true God, and are now rejoicing in hope of a glorious immortality. I therefore offer as a conclusive reason why sentence should not be pronounced, that I have rescued souls from perdition, and thus enlarged the company of the saints in light.' Would the villain be acquitted, and, instead of a halter, receive the panegyric of the Court for his conduct?

Our pilgrim fathers, not being able to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences in the mother, country, were compelled by ecclesiastical despotism to seek a refuge in this rude and barbarous continent. Wonderful have been the fruits of their expulsion! A mighty republic established—the freest, the wisest, the most religious on earth!-influencing the world by its example, and exciting the emulation of all nations! Now suppose we should occasionally find in the pages of the Edinburgh or Quarterly Review, or in the columns of the English newspapers, not only a full justification of this oppressive treatment in view of its astonishing consequences, but a claim to approbation on account of its exercise. Would not such effrontery amaze us? Would not an honest indignation burn within us? Should we look with a more complacent aspect upon the bigots who kindled those fires of persecution around the Puritans, which, but for the interposition of Heaven, had consumed them to ashes ?

The death of our Lord Jesus Christ was essential to the salvation of the world. Suppose Judas, at the judgment day, should build upon this fact in extenuation of his dreadful crime. What would be the decision of the assembled universe? Yea, what was the condemnation passed upon him by the Illustrious Sufferer ? 'Wo to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born!'

Let not, then, any imaginary or real prosperity of the settlement at Liberia lead any individual to applaud the Colonization Society, reckless whether it be actuated by mistaken philanthropy, or perverted generosity, or selfish policy, or unchristian prejudice.

I should oppose this Society, even were its doctrines harmless. It imperatively and effectually seals up the lips of a vast number of influential and pious men, who, for fear of giving offence to those slaveholders with whom they associate, and thereby leading to a dissolution of the compact, dare not expose the flagrant enormities of the system of slavery, nor denounce the crime of holding human beings in bondage. They dare not lead to the onset against the forces of tyranny; and if they shrink from the conflict, how shall the victory be won? I do