Thoughts on African Colonization

'Those starry lights of virtue, that diffuseThrough the dark depths of time their vivid flame.'

That base and desperate men should thus stigmatize those who endure the cross as good soldiers, and walk as pilgrims and strangers here, is not wonderful; but that the professed followers of Jesus Christ should join in this hue-and-cry is lamentable. Singular enough, I have been almost as cruelly aspersed by ministers of the gospel and church members, as by any other class of men. Unacquainted with me, and ignorant of my sentiments, they have readily believed the accusations of my enemies. The introduction of my name into conversation has elicited from them contemptuous sneers or strong denunciations. I have a right to complain of this treatment, and I do strongly protest against it as unchristian, hurtful and ungenerous. To prejudge and condemn an individual, on vague and apocryphal rumors, without listening to his defence or examining evidence, is tyranny. Perhaps I am in error – perhaps I deserve unqualified condemnation; but I am at least entitled to a privilege which is granted to the vilest criminals, namely, the privilege of a fair trial. I ask nothing more. To accuse me of heresy, madness and sedition, is one thing; to substantiate the accusation, another.

Should this work chance to fall into the hands of those who have thus ignorantly reprobated my course, I appeal to their sense of rectitude whether they are not bound to give it a candid and deliberate perusal; and if they shall find in my writings nothing contrary to the immutable principles of justice, whether they ought not to be as strenuous in my defence as they have been hitherto in seeking my overthrow.

To show that I do not vacate any pledge which I have given to the public, I shall here insert all the specifications, which, from time to time, I have brought against the American Colonization Society. In 'The Liberator' of April 23, 1831, is the following serious compend:

'I am prepared to show, that those who have entered into this CONSPIRACY AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS are unanimous in abusing their victims; unanimous in their mode of attack; unanimous in proclaiming the absurdity, that our free blacks are natives of Africa; unanimous in propagating the libel, that they cannot be elevated and improved in this country; unanimous in opposing their instruction; unanimous in exciting the prejudices of the people against them; unanimous in apologising for the crime of slavery; unanimous in conceding the right of the planters to hold their slaves in a limited bondage; unanimous in their hollow pretence for colonizing, namely, to evangelize Africa; unanimous in their true motive for the measure – a terror lest the blacks should rise to avenge their accumulated wrongs. It is a conspiracy to send the free people of color to Africa under a benevolent pretence, but really that the slaves may be held more securely in bondage. It is a conspiracy based upon fear, oppression and falsehood, which draws its aliment from the prejudices of the people, which is sustained by duplicity, which really upholds the slave system, which fascinates while it destroys, which endangers the safety and happiness of the country, which no precept of the bible can justify, which is implacable in its spirit, which should be annihilated at a blow.

'These are my accusations; and if I do not substantiate them, I am willing to be covered with reproach.'

The following is copied from an editorial article of July 9, 1831:

'The superstructure of the Colonization Society rests upon the following pillars:

'1st. Persecution. It declares that the whole colored population must be removed to Africa; but as the free portion are almost unanimously opposed to a removal, it seems to be the determination of the Society to make their situations so uncomfortable and degraded here, as to compel them to migrate: consequently it discourages their education and improvement in this their native home. This is persecution.

'2d. Falsehood. It stigmatises our colored citizens as being natives of Africa, and talks of sending them to their native land; when they are no more related to Africa than we are to Great Britain.

'3d. Cowardice. It avows as a prominent reason why colored citizens ought to be removed, that their continuance among us will be dangerous to us as a people! This is a libel upon their character. Instead of demanding justice for this oppressed class, the Society calls for their removal!

'4th. Infidelity. It boldly denies that there is power enough in the gospel to melt down the prejudices of men, and insists, that, so long as the people of color remain among us, we must be their enemies!– Every honest man should abhor the doctrine.'

In 'The Liberator' of July 30, 1831, alluding to the present work, I used the following language:

'I shall be willing to stake my reputation upon it for honesty, prudence, benevolence, truth and sagacity. If I do not prove the Colonization Society to be a creature without heart, without brains, eyeless, unnatural, hypocritical, relentless, unjust, then nothing is capable of demonstration – then let me be covered with confusion of face.'

The following paragraph is extracted from 'The Liberator' of November 19, 1831:

'It is the enemy of immediate restitution to the slaves; it courts and receives the approbation of notorious slave owners; it deprecates any interference with slave property; it discourages the improvement of the colored population, except they are removed to the shores of Africa; it is lulling the country into a fatal sleep, pretending to be something when it is nothing; it is utterly chimerical, as well as intolerant, in its design; it serves to increase the value of the slaves, and to make brisk the foreign and domestic slave trade; it nourishes and justifies the most cruel prejudices against color; it sneers at those who advocate the bestowal of equal rights upon our colored countrymen; it contends for an indefinite, dilatory, far-off emancipation; it expressly declares that it is more humane to keep the slaves in chains, than to give them freedom in this country! In short, it is the most compendious and best adapted scheme to uphold the slave system that human ingenuity can invent. Moreover, it is utterly and irreconcileably opposed to the wishes and sentiments of the great body of the free people of color, repeatedly expressed in the most public manner, but cruelly disregarded by it.'

The following passages are taken from my Address to the People of Color, delivered in various places in June, 1831:

'Let me briefly examine the doctrines of colonizationists. They generally agree in publishing the misstatement, that you are strangers and foreigners. Surely they know better. They know, that, as a body, you are no more natives of Africa, than they themselves are natives of Great Britain. Yet they repeat the absurd charge; and they do so, in order to cover their anti-republican crusade. But suppose you were foreigners: would such an accident justify this persecution and removal? And, if so, then all foreigners must come under the same ban, and must prepare to depart. There would be, in that case, a most alarming deduction from our population. Suppose a philanthropic and religious crusade were got up against the Dutch, the French, the Swiss, the Irish, among us, to remove them to New Holland, to enlighten and civilize her cannibals? Who would not laugh at the scheme – who would not actively oppose it? Would any one blame the above classes for steadfastly resisting it? Just so, then, in regard to African colonization. But our colored population are not aliens; they were born on our soil; they are bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh; their fathers fought bravely to achieve our independence during the revolutionary war, without immediate or subsequent compensation; they spilt their blood freely during the last war; they are entitled, in fact, to every inch of our southern, and much of our western territory, having worn themselves out in its cultivation, and received nothing but wounds and bruises in return. Are these the men to stigmatize as foreigners?

'Colonizationists generally agree in asserting that the people of color cannot be elevated in this country, nor be admitted to equal privileges with the whites. Is not this a libel upon humanity and justice – a libel upon republicanism – a libel upon the Declaration of Independence – a libel upon christianity? "All men are born equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights – among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What is the meaning of that declaration? That all men possess these rights – whether they are six feet five inches high, or three feet two and a half – whether they weigh three hundred or one hundred pounds – whether they parade in broadcloth or flutter in rags – whether their skins are jet black or lily white – whether their hair is straight or woolly, auburn or red, black or gray – does it not? We, who are present, differ from each other in our looks, in our color, in height, and in bulk; we have all shades, and aspects, and sizes. Now, would it not be anti-republican and anti-christian for us to quarrel about sitting on this seat or that, because this man's complexion is too dark, or that man's looks are too ugly? and to put others out of the house, because they happen to be ignorant, or poor, or helpless? To commit this violence would be evidently wrong: then to do it in a large assemblage – in a community, in a state, or in a nation, it is equally unjust. But is not this the colonization principle? Who are the individuals that applaud, that justify, that advocate this exclusion? Who are they that venture to tell the American people, that they have neither honesty enough, nor patriotism enough, nor morality enough, nor religion enough, to treat their colored brethren as countrymen and citizens? Some of them – I am sorry to say – are professedly ministers of the gospel; others are christian professors; others are judges and lawyers; others are our Senators and Representatives; others are editors of newspapers. These ministers and christians dishonor the gospel which they profess; these judges and lawyers are the men spoken of by the Saviour, who bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. These Senators and Representatives ought not to receive the suffrages of the people. These editors are unworthy of public patronage.

'Colonizationists too generally agree in discouraging your instruction and elevation at home. They pretend that ignorance is bliss; and therefore 'tis folly to be wise. They pretend that knowledge is a dangerous thing in the head of a colored man; they pretend that you have no ambition; they pretend that you have no brains; in fine, they pretend a thousand other absurd things – they are a combination of pretences. What tyranny is this! Shutting up the human intellect – binding with chains the inward man – and perpetuating ignorance. May we not address them in the language of Christ? "Wo unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in! Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith."

'Colonizationists generally agree in apologising for the crime of slavery. They get behind the contemptible subterfuge, that it was entailed upon the planters. As if the continuance of the horrid system were not criminal! as if the robberies of another generation justify the robberies of the present! as if the slaves had not an inalienable right to freedom! as if slavery were not an individual as well as a national crime! as if the tearing asunder families, limb from limb, – branding the flesh with red hot irons, – mangling the body with whips and knives, – feeding it on husks and clothing it with rags, – crushing the intellect and destroying the soul, – as if such inconceivable cruelty were not chargeable to those who inflict it!

'As to the effect of colonization upon slavery, it is rather favorable than injurious to the system. Now and then, indeed, there is a great flourish of trumpets, and glowing accounts of the willingness of planters to emancipate their slaves on condition of transportation to Africa. Now and then a slave is actually manumitted and removed, and the incident is dwelt upon for months. Why, my friends, hundreds of worn-out slaves are annually turned off to die, like old horses. No doubt their masters will thank the Colonization Society, or any one else, to send them out of the country; especially as they will gain much glorification in the newspapers, for their disinterested sacrifices. Let no man be deceived by these manœuvres.

'My time is consumed – and yet I have scarcely entered upon the threshold of my argument. Now, what a spectacle is presented to the world! – the American people, boasting of their free and equal rights – of their abhorrence of aristocratical distinctions – of their republican equality; proclaiming on every wind, "that all men are born equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights," and that this land is an asylum for the persecuted of all nations; and yet as loudly proclaiming that they are determined to deprive millions of their own countrymen of every political and social right, and to send them to a barbarous continent, because the Creator has given them a sable complexion. Where exists a more rigorous despotism? What conspiracy was ever more cruel? What hypocrisy and tergiversation so enormous? The story is proclaimed in our pulpits, in our state and national assemblies, in courts of law, in religious and secular periodicals, – among all parties, and in all quarters of the country, – that there is a moral incapacity in the people to do justly, love mercy, and to walk uprightly – that they must always be the enemies and oppressors of the colored people – that no love of liberty, no dictate of duty, no precept of republicanism, no dread of retribution, no claim of right, no injunction of the gospel, can possibly persuade them to do unto their colored countrymen, as they would that they should do unto them in a reversal of circumstances. Now, to these promulgators of unrighteousness, with the Declaration of Independence in one hand, and the Bible in the other, I fearlessly give battle. Rich and mighty and numerous as they are, by the help of the Lord I will put them to open shame. They shall not libel me, they shall not libel my country, with impunity. They shall not make our boasted republicanism a by-word and a hissing among all nations, nor sink the christian religion below heathen idolatry; and if they persist in publishing their scandalous proclamations, they shall be labelled as the enemies of their species and of the republic, and treated accordingly.

'The Colonization Society, therefore, instead of being a philanthropic and religious institution, is anti-republican and anti-christian in its tendency. Its pretences are false, its doctrines odious, its means contemptible. If we are to send away the colored population because they are profligate and vicious, what sort of missionaries will they make? Why not send away the vicious among the whites, for the same reason and the same purpose? If ignorance be a crime, where shall we begin to select? How much must a man know to save him from transportation? How white must he be? If we send away a mixed breed, how many will be left? If foreigners only, then the people of color must remain – for they are our countrymen. Would foreigners submit? No – not for an instant. Why should the American people make this enormous expenditure of life and money? Why not use the funds of the Society to instruct and elevate our colored population at home? This would be rational and serviceable. Instead of removing men from a land of civilization and knowledge – of schools, and seminaries, and colleges – to give them instruction in a land of darkness and desolation – would it not be wiser and better to reverse the case, and bring the ignorant here for cultivation?'

The foregoing accusations are grave, weighty, positive – involving a perilous responsibility, and requiring ample and irrefragable proof. They are expressed in vehement terms: but 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 chooseTheir 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 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?