an adequate and sufficient remedy for slavery, but that it is the only safe and prudent remedy. This sentiment has also been inculcated by the Society and its friends, from the beginning. Gen. Harper of Maryland, in his Letter published in the first annual report of the Society says: "This great end," [i. e. ultimate emancipation] "is to be attained in no other way than by a plan of universal colonization.”—And within a few months past, this very sentence has been quoted by Mr. Gurley in his correspondence with sundry citizens of New York, as expressive of his own views and those of the "leading friends of the Society."-But in direct opposition to this sentiment, every Abolitionist holds that emancipation may be effected more safely and speedily, on the plan of immediate emancipation. In what manner, therefore, shall he "press abolition," in a community where this sentiment has taken deep root, without endeavoring to show its fallacy? But to do this, is to oppose the claim of the Colonization Society, which has been pressed for seventeen years. The simple inquiry here is, how shall this collision be avoided? Must the Abolitionist give up his distinctive sentiments, and become a Colonizationist, in order to effect a union between Colonizationists and Abolitionists? If not, how is he to "press abolition?" What arguments may he use, and in what manner shall he proceed?

3. The great extent of this difficulty remains yet to be stated. Not only is the Colonization Society claimed to be an adequate, and the only practicable remedy for slavery; but the advocates of direct and immediate abolition have thus far "pressed," its claims under the pressure of direct and explicit censure. In his speech before the 11th Annual meeting of the American Colonization Society, Mr. Harrison of Virginia said that the Society "having declared that it is in no wise allied to any Abolition Society in America or elsewhere, is ready, whenever there is need, to pass a censure on such societies in America."-This speech was officially published in the 11th Report of the Society, without the least disclaimer, and at a time when no opposition to the Colonization Society on the part of Abolition Societies, could have provoked the censure. It is needless to add that similar censures have been frequently and strongly expressed in the resolutions of Auxiliary Societies, at various places and periods, up to the present time.

As a further illustration of the continued fulfilment, on the part of the friends of Colonization, of the promised censure, (when needed,) of Abolition Societies, I might notice the very singular, not to say unprecedented, frightful, and defamitory epithets so perseveringly bestowed on all, of every temperament 48

VOL. VI.-NO. X.

and character, who attempt to advocate a direct and present emancipation; a course of opposition, by means of which a panic, a contempt, and an abhorrence are engendered, which to a great extent, exclude them from the pulpit and the press, and which deny them a patient and candid hearing. I name not things like these for the sake of palliation or excuse, still less as a warrant for that propensity to render railing for railing, which may, at times, have been excited among us.-But still I find some difficulty in conceiving how Abolitionists can re-assert and vindicate their claims to sanity, patriotism, benevolence and common sense, without at all impeaching the justice, and wisdom of the award by which these qualities have been so constantly denied them. How shall we, or how can we hope to move against the influence pledged to crush us with its censures, without the least degree of resistance against that influence? Must we not breast the stream, unless we would be borne away by it?-Besides,

4. Every Abolitionist, to be consistent with his creed, must "press abolition" as a present and practicable duty. How can he do this, without pressing against the doctrine that would defer it, till a future period? How can he preach "Repent to-day," without saying defer it not until "a more convenient season?" It has been often stated by advocates of Colonization, that its operations could not touch the question of emancipation within a century to come. The Abolitionists "press abolition" on the present generation. Their time, is God's time, "now"-"to-day." They address the oppressors now on the earth-not their posterity. The oppressor, like every other sinner, pleads delay. The indulgence offered him by Colonizationists is all he asks. He says in his heart, let there be emancipation a century hence, if it needs must be so. But "let there be peace and quietness in my day." Let me not be disturbed, while I live. Shall the Abolitionist leave him in undisturbed possession of his plea, and of his sin? Or must he strip him of his plea? To do the latter is to strip the Colonizationist of all his pleas, and claims, and plans. Must the Abolitionist " spare direct attack" on the very obstacle that stands in his way, and thus cease to "press abolition" for the sake of an union with Colonizationists?

5. "What is the object of abolition? To do away slavery, and put the colored man in possession of the blessings and privileges of honorable citizenship and Christianity." So says the writer in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, and he says truly. What slavery, and what colored man does the writer speak of? American slavery, and the American colored man, assuredly.

None other do the Colonization or Anti-slavery societies of America intermeddle with, or mention. The object of the Abolitionist then is, to put the American slave and the American colored man in possession of the blessings and privileges of honorable American citizenship, and the blessings and privileges of Christianity enjoyed in America. It is to this citizenship, and to these blessings, if to any, that the slave, the colored man has just claims. To no citizenship or privileges in any other country than that of his birth, has he any rightful claims-to none other is his oppressor, or is any one, botind to restore him. To deny the obligation of restoring him these, is to deny the obligation of restoring him any. Of none other has he been deprived: none other would be to him an equivalent. On this point, the colored man has a right to speak for himself, and he has spoken, in terms not to be misunderstood.

Is it then, true that the Colonizationist and the Abolitionist, are "both agreed as to the rights of man?” What says the Colonization Society, and its leading friends, on this point? The sentence already quoted from Gen. Harper's letter, published by the Society at its first commencement, and recently approved by its present Secretary, is sufficiently explicit.. "In no other way," can emancipation be attained, "than by a plan of universal Colonization." In other words "the colored man" must either be held "a slave," or banished from the enjoyment of his unalienable birthright, "the possession of the blessings and privileges of honorable" American "citizenship and Christianity" in his native land. With Abolitionists it

certainly is not "affected," if it be a "childish pity," that makes them feel such "tender mercies" to be "cruelty." They have not thus learned "the rights of man," nor can they comprehend why a banishment from the enjoyment of his rights of "citizenship" should be offered to the American "colored man," under the imposing name of a restoration of them. They see no need either of their amalgamation with the whites, nor of the white man's emigration to give them room. The presence of the colored slave has never scared the white man from his home. Nor need we fear that the colored free man would be either more dangerous or more polluting. Such, at least, are the principles held by Abolitionists. If Colonizationists deem them "wild.chimeras, fit only for the brain of a zealot, or an enthusiast of the most visionary character," and turn with horror from the sober facts of history and geography, teaching that such things are, and have been; the fact but adds fresh emphasis to the enquiry" How can Abolitionists

'press abolition,' according to their views of its essence and of "the rights of man," without "opposing the Colonizationist ?"

6. How can the Abolitionist "press abolition" without opposing the absurd and unrighteous modern prejudice against color, known only in North America, which practically denies that God has made of one blood all the nations of the earth? On what but this sinful and infidel prejudice, is the whole system of American slavery founded? Nothing. Who believes that the slaves could be held in bondage a fortnight, should their features and complexions become the same as our own?-or should that prejudice become as unknown and inoperative here, as it is in Europe? No one. What else but the same prejudice, withholds from the colored man, for an hour, "the blessings and privileges of honorable" American "citizenship and Christianity?" Nothing. What but the removal of that prejudice can restore him to those blessings and privileges? Nothing. What can the Abolitionist effect, until he has removed that prejudice? Nothing. What else, has he to effect? NOTHING. How is he to remove that prejudice, but by opposing it! Will change of place-will "citizenship" in Liberia remove it? It will not. It does not. Liberian Sheriffs and Lieut. Governors, travelling among us, cannot ride in our northern mail stages, on account of this prejudice. Is it then, invincible to the force of Christian truth? No. Truth, and truth alone can triumph over error. Holy love can displace contempt, hatred and sin. Every Abolitionist believes this. And he "presses abolition" by teaching and proving it. He can "press abolition" in no other way. In no other way have they ever, either in England or America attempted it.

But what is the Abolitionist, of necessity, doing, when he opposes this unholy prejudice? Does he not, of necessity, oppose whatever sustains it? Do not his labors unavoidably tend to undermine whatever is founded upon it?

But what is the Colonization Society doing? and on what is it founded? Does it not say repeatedly and repeatedly-I need not quote its voluminous documents-does it not, and do not its friends, at every turn, and with every breath, assure us that this prejudice is insurmountable? Does not the writer in the Spirit of the Pilgrims assume this when he rejects, as "visionary" the idea of the whites remaining with the blacks at the South (i. e. after they shall become free-I know not whether he thinks freedom will increase the prejudice) and supposes that the whites must remove to the north? And what can sustain the prejudice in question, so effectually as such grave assurances of its invincibility?

Nay, more. On what is the American Colonization Society founded? On what can it rest, for a single hour, but on this same prejudice? What, but this prejudice induces the desire to send the mass of the colored people out of the country? It is useless to speak here, of the utility of a colony, and of the good of Africa. Neither the welfare of the colony nor of Africa can require, or admit, the removal of even the annual increase of our colored population. The Liberian officers have attested this, and we all know it to be true. The only solid ground for the removal of the mass of our colored population must be the existing prejudice against color. And this is the plea actually made, when we are told that they cannot rise, in this country. And if this prejudice should instantly disappear, or the whole colored population become white, who then would piead for "the plan of universal colonization?" No one.

The Abolitionist, therefore, whenever he "presses abolition" -in other words whenever he presses against this prejudicethe sole cause that upholds slavery, and the removal of which alone can remove it, cannot avoid "pressing," or seeming to press against the Society that sustains it, and is founded on it. If the Abolitionist succeeds in overcoming this prejudice, there remains no foundation for the Colonization Society, on its present plan. It ceases to exist, of course. On the other hand, if the plea of the Colonizationist respecting the invincibility of this prejudice, proves to be correct, then the Abolitionist fails, of course, in his efforts, and can never succeed in putting "the colored man in possession of the blessings and privileges of honorable" American "citizenship and Christianity;" this being the only country in which he is entitled to them, or, indeed, in which, it is expected by any one, that the mass of the race now in this country and their posterity, will ever exist. [I assume, in this last assertion, the very remarkable fact, that notwithstanding all that has been said of Colonization, as "the only hope" of the colored man, no individual has ever yet been found by the writer, who, after sitting down, for fifteen minutes, to an arithmetical computation, has not frankly owned the prospective removal of the entire mass to Africa, an incredible and improbable consummation.]

How then stands "the exact state of the case, between Colonization and Abolition, or Anti-slavery," under the item we are now considering. Why, in one word, simply thus. If the prejudice against color be perpetuated, the Colonization Society continues its operations, but not otherwise. If that preju

dice gives way, the Abolitionist succeeds in his efforts, but not otherwise. At least, such is the apparent state of the case. Is