men whom they often denounce as destitute of all Christian and truly generous feeling,) voluntarily and instantly to surrender property to the value of $500,000,000! If it is not extravagant to expect this, it certainly is not extravagant to expect that the whole nation may contribute for the promotion of a cause equally glorious, $10,000,000—which is only one fiftieth part, or four months' interest, of the sum to be sacrificed by the slaveholders! But Mr. Birney will say, the colonization of America did not Christianize the natives of America, and there is no reason, therefore, to believe that the Colonization of Africa will Christianize Africa. We are surprised that Mr. B. should suffer himself to build arguments on such loose analogies. What resemblance is there in the two cases? The colonists and natives in America were men of different colors and different races. In the English colonies they did not amalgamate, and the natives there melted away before the whites; but wherever the two races have amalgamated, as they have in Mexico and many parts of South America, the mixed race have uniformly adopted the mauners and religion of the white man. Can any man doubt that the colonists and natives in Africa will analgamate-men of the same color and of the same race, and who can trace themselves to a common aucestry, by going back, in most cases, less than one century! There can be no doubt on this point, and if Christians in this country and in the colony do not wholly neglect their duty, there can be no doubt that the united race will adopt the manners and religion of the colonists.

Admit, however, for argument's sake, that the cases of Africa and America are in all respects parallel. Let now Mr. Birney throw himself back in history for two centuries; let him imagine himself in Great Britain, in 1620, and let the problem be proposed to him, How can North America. be filled in the speediest manner with a civilized and Christian people? Would he say, 'Forbid all white men from landing on its shores, except Christian missionaries!" How many civilized men and Christians would there have been in America at the present day, if this course had been pursued, taking the success of British Christians, meanwhile, in converting other portions of the heathen world, as the criterion of what they would have done for North America? Will not even Mr. Birney admit that the American colonists, (shamefully as they have neglected their duty) have probably employed more missionaries among the Indians, and have done more for their conversion, than would have been done by the parent country if no colonies had been planted? Will he not admit that, taking whites and Indians together, the number of Christians in North America at the present time, is greater than it would have been if his missionary plan had been adopted? Will he not admit, that in a little more than three centuries, from the landing of the pilgrims on the rock at Plymouth, there will be in North America 200,000,000 Protestant Christians, as the fruits of the plan of colonization! Can he believe that any results of equal importance would have followed the efforts of Christian missionaries laboring alone among bands of savages? Will he not admit, then, that on the whole, the plan of colonization may have been the best mode of spreading civilization and Christianity in North America? And if the cases of North America and Africa are in all material respects parallel, as his argument supposes, is it not possible that, on the whole, Colonization may be the best mode of dif fusing civilization and Christianity in Africa?

PROFESSOR STOWE ON COLONIZATION.

Sketches of Professor Stowe's remarks at a meeting in behalf of the American Colonization Society, held in the Second Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, on the evening of June 9th, 1834.

MR. CHAIRMAN,-I am not accustomed to speak in public, except on subjects connected with my own profession, and nothing would have induced me to appear before this assembly on the present occasion, but the conviction that great injustice has been done to the friends of the American Colonization Society. I have for some time been acquainted with the Society, and have always supposed that its intentions were benevolent, and its influence beneficial; nor have I yet reason to change my opinion. Many are now zealously engaged in laboring to destroy public confidence in this institution, and with some of the men who are thus engaged, I am personally acquainted, and I know them to be men of intelligence, integrity and Christian feeling; but on this point it seems to me that they have sorely misjudged. To illustrate the nature of the hostility to which I refer, I will make a few extracts from recent publications. When speaking of a late document of the managers respecting the debt of the society, one writer expresses himself as follows:

"We need only extract from this document that part which relates directly to the debt, to show to every man who unites honesty with a moderate share of intelligence, that the society is still conducted, as it has been, with a total want of principle."--Anti-Slavery Reporter, vol. 1, p. 50.

Another writer has these remarks:

"The Superstructure of the Colonization Society rests upon the following pillars: 1. Persecution. 2. Falsehood. 3. Cowardice. 4. Infidelity. If I do not prove the Colonization Society to be a creature without heart, without brains, useless, unnatural, hypocritical, relentless, unjust, then nothing is capable of demonstration. W.L. GARRISON." In the Anti-Slavery Reporter, vol. 1. p 49, I find the following:

"But if they could make Liberia a paradise, the plan would be liable to two objections. 1. It would involve a despair of gaining a victory over prejudice here. 2. It would involve an immense waste of labor in doing that at a distance, which could be done more easily at home." Again on the same page:

"We regard the Colonization scheme, under whatever modifications, and by whomsoever advocated: as but the out-breaking of that spirit of slavery which rivets the chains of two millions of our brethren. In saying this, we do not as a matter of course, impeach the motives of all those who advocate it. Some there are who may be permitted to save their benevolence at the expense of their wisdom."

Notwithstanding this sweeping denunciation and its saving clause, I must still say that I am a friend to the Colonization Society; and yet no friend to slavery, and neither a knave nor a dupe; at least, I hope not.

I have endeavored to make myself acquainted with the objections which conscientious men feel against the Colonization Society; and if I understand them, they may all be comprised under the following:

1st. Its undertaking is chimerical:

2d. It is founded in prejudice.

3d. It encourages and tends to perpetuate slavery.

4th. It obstructs the elevation and improvement of the colored people in this country.

I am certain that these objections do not lie against any scheme of Colonization which I am interested to defend.

The principles on which I advocate colonization are the following:

1. I regard it as a necessary means of immediate relief from the miseries of slavery, where nothing else can afford relief:

I will illustrate this principle by an example. In the year 1776 the Friends in the United States declared slavery to be inconsistent with the principles of christianity; and prohibited it among members of their body. Many of this denomination at that time held slaves in states where the education of the blacks and their emancipation upon the soil were forbidden by law. The Friends of the yearly meeting of North Carolina, including a part of Tennessee and Virginia, amounting to seven or eight thousand in number, petitioned the Legislature of North Carolina for permission to emancipate their slaves. It was refused. They continued to press the Legislature with petition after petition for forty years, and with no better success. They at length, without law, emancipated their slaves upon the soil, and of those emancipated slaves more than one hundred were taken up and sold into perpetual and hopeless bondage, under the laws of the state. Emancipation on the soil was plainly impossible in the existing state of public feeling. They contrived to put their slaves out of their hands that they might no longer hold them as private property, by transferring them to the trustees of their society, by whom they were nominally held as public property. But this course exposed them to vexatious and expensive law suits, and the society was sued for the recovery of more than forty slaves held in this manner. As the only possible remedy left, they have for ten years past expended more than $20,000, in procuring asylums for one thousand of their slaves in the free states, as

Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, in Hayti, whither they have sent 119, and in Liberia.At length the free states were shut against them. They applied to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, but in vain. No place seemed open but Canada, and that is too cold for blacks born in North Carolina. About two years since, they embarked one hundred of their liberated slaves for Pennsylvania. They were refused a landing in the state. They went over to New Jersey. The same refusal met them there. They were then left to float up and down the Delaware river without a spot of dry land to set their feet upon, till the Colonization Society took them up and gave them a resting place in Liberia.

They have now five hundred slaves left, whom they are anxious to liberate; and what shall they do? Get the laws of the state altered? They labored after that for forty years, and more than one whole generation of black men died in bondage while their masters were striving to effectuate immediate emancipation. IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION they found to be so slow a process that they were obliged to resort to COLONIZATION, in order that something might be done immediately. And in such instances, what possible mode of immediate relief is there except colonization? Shall they resist the laws of the state?— This would be contrary to the principles of Quakerism: and on this point at least, the unlawfulness of aggressive resistance even to legalized oppression, the wrongfulness of des. troying human life for the attainment of any political purpose-on this point I must conceive that Quakerism is christianity.

Does colonization, founded on this principle, encourage slavery, or obstruct the improvement of the negro race? Is it chimerical, or founded in prejudice? It may be said, indeed, that the oppressive laws are founded in prejudice, but is prejudice that induces us to aid the oppressed in escaping from those laws? And even supposing it were so; should a man in distress reject the only means of relief, for an apprehension that he who proffers the relief, or some one else, with whom he is in some way connected, entertains à prejudice against him? To illustrate my reasoning by an analogous example. At present the Jews in Persia are exposed to the most cruel oppression, while the emperor of Russia indulges them with peculiar privileges. If now an association should be formed in Persia, to relieve the Jews from their sufferings, and aid them in emigrating to Russia, and some friends of the Jews should rise up and say: 'Do not go to Russia, it is mere prejudice that occasions your sufferings, and the same prejudice actuates the members of the emigration society; therefore stay here and be quiet;' would such a procedure be thought indicative of the wisdom of benevolence? If the opposers of emigration had it in their power to change the spirit of the government, or if any good purpose could be effected by the Jews remaining in Persia, which could not be effected otherwise, then indeed there would be more reason to oppose their emigration; but I much fear that generation after generation of the oppressed Israelites would groan and wither and perish under their sufferings, while their disinterested friends were effecting an immediate change in their favor. 2. I approve of colonization, because I suppose it to be necessary as a preliminary step to emancipation.

much

People in slave-holding communities generally regard slavery as an evil, but an evil which has grown so interwoven with the texture of society, that disruption would be a greater calamity, than slavery itself. They are apt to think with themselves, 'either that WE or the SLAVES must be sacrificed. We are the superiors; it is, therefore, reasonable that the slaves should be kept in ignorance and subjection, in order to prevent greater evil. With them, accordingly, slavery is a prohibited topic; they will enter into no argument, they will hear no reason on the subject, unless in connection with some plan by which their own safety can be secured, while the rights of the slave are restored. Colonization affords such a plan, and in connection with colonization the whole subject of slavery can be introduced and discussed, without awakening fears and exciting prejudices which preclude conviction. This is the great thing necessary to produce universal emancipation. On this point I will introduce the testimony of a gentleman familiar with this whole subject, and a zealous friend of emancipation. I refer to the Rev. Mr. Young, president of the college at Danville, Ky. and president also of the Emancipation Society in that state. In a letter to a gentleman in this city, he observes: 'I speak that which I know, when I say that the Colonization Society has done immense service to the cause of emancipation in our state.' (Ken.) 'There is not an intelligent man in the State, but will bear me out in this declaration, that we are much further advanced on the road to emancipation, than we could have been, if the Colonization Society had never existed.' The Colonization Society has already produced the emancipation of not far from three thousand slaves, and the education and consequent elevation of hundreds. By this means the negro character is vindicated, and the deep and damning wrong of slavery illustrated; for it is my firm conviction, that it is a sort of half persuasion that the negro was made for slavery, and is fit for nothing else, is the great thing that makes men of principle quiet in the possession of slaves. Let them see that the negroes are really men, and they cannot bring their consciences to grind into the earth and brutify by slavery the intelligent souls and the immortal spirits of their fellow men.

In advocating colonization on this principle, is there any thing chimerical, or prejudiced, or encouraging to slavery, or adverse to the improvement of the colored race?

3. I am in favor of colonization, because I suppose it to be right, and agreeable to God's

to light the lamp of science to the world, and rear those stupendous mains of which, after so many centuries, astonish even those who ha to all that Greek and Roman and modern art can achieve. The ne spect, inferior to the white man, and in appropriate circumstances, b the rank which he anciently held. Notwithstanding the iron bonda sed him in modern times, and paralyzed his energies, the occasional s uals shows that the race has not lost its place among the human spe attainments of Lislet, of Arno; of Derham, of New-Orleans; of Touis were enough to extort the admiration of the most prejudiced.

Men always hate and despise those whom they oppress, and thus silence conscience. It is because the negro has been oppressed, despised. The Jews were for ages the objects of bitter oppression then hated and despised; while their distinctive features and peculiar them out for insult and abuse. It is but little more than fifty years. Germany contributed largely to the rebuilding of a village that had b and having occasion to pass that way two years after, he was forbid lage, because the inhabitants would not have their soil polluted by th I am not informed whether the village was called CANTERBURY, but serves as high a note in the trumpet of fame. During the wars of Bo came rich, and in some instances got possession of the lands and ma The populace were enraged to see the hated Jews thus prosperous; they rose at Meningen, at Wurtsburg on the Rhine, at Hamburg, a murdered many of them in cold blood, and the utmost efforts of the military scarcely saved them from a general massacre. This pre seems quite unaccountable to us; but it has exactly the same founda dice against negroes. It is founded in oppression and wickedn against the negro arises from oppression and wickedness, it is its therefore it is neither justifiable nor invincible. I will never admit rests on the perpetuity of human wickedness, I will not believe tha the human heart, which the gospel cannot cure.

But this prejudice, unjust and wicked as it is, will not be subdued negro find immediate emancipation from the oppression of public senti that it will require any less time and effort and expense to subdu bring up the race to their proper standing in the face of it, than it w tant asylum for them all, and transport and provide for them there. this prejudice is not universal and unbroken. By the constitution States, Maine, New-Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Is they are freeholders,) New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, N. Ca Tennessee, black men are allowed to vote and are eligible to office England I have known a negro to be elected to a city office for sev sion, by the suffrages of the citizens; I have known three black men, doin College, Mitchell of Dartmouth, and Jones of Amherst, to stud graduate with honor in three different New England colleges; and duced a black man (a Mr. Butler, of Canada) to the students of Dart he wished to address; and they listened to him with the utmost decor sympathy. Would to heaven that such incidents were more frequen 2. I do not advocate colonization because I suppose it to be an slavery, much less the only remedy.

The pecuniary interests and the prejudices of the white man are be regarded; but the natural and inalienable rights, the long-continu of the black man, also claim our attention and our sympathy. Mar remain in this country, and they are needed, especially in the S Union.

I suppose that emancipation is safe, and that the negroes can easil taking care of themselves. Many of them certainly do maintain the