On Tuesday evening, Mr. Wells Brown, a man of colour, lately escaped from slavery, delivered a lecture on Slavery in America, before a large audience, in St. Andrew’s Hall, which was quite filled with people. J. H. GURNEY, Esq., presided, and in a brief address introduced the lecturer to the meeting.
MR. WELLS BROWN, who spoke English fluently, and in a full clear tone of voice, said, the subject which they had that evening to consider was American Slavery, and at no period since the settlement of the United States, at no period since the commencement of the discussion on slavery in that country, had the people of all countries looked with more interest upon the subject, and upon the actions of the American people in relation thereto, than at the present time. The discussion upon slavery in the United States for the last ten years, had prepared the people of this country, and the people of the world to some extent, to expect that a crisis would arrive that would either abolish slavery or extend it over the entire southern portion of the country in the United States. The congress that was now assembled, and now discussing the question, they had had reason to believe was the congress that would decide upon the abolition of slavery, or would at least prepare the way for the abolition of slavery in America. But before he considered the present aspect of slavery in that country, they would allow him to commence with a few remarks on the history of slavery. The American people by their inconsistency, had placed themselves in the position of being looked upon by the people of the entire world as a set of men not wishing to carry out the principles of freedom, and not wishing to carry out the principles of Christianity. The declaration of American independence that was adopted in 1776, stated, “we hold these principles to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which rights are those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There could not be a higher, holier, or more noble sentiment. There could not be a sentiment more in accordance with the principles of Christianity than that portion of the declaration of American independence; and had the people of America carried out the ideas that they there set forth, had they stood by the declaration they there made, the United States instead of being at the present time a reproach, instead of being a nation to which the people of the world pointed the finger of scorn, that country would not be what it was sometimes called by the Americans themselves, but miscalled, “the land of the free, the home of the brave.” It would be, in fact, an asylum for the oppressed, if that people carried out the noble views they promulgated at the time they felt the chains as they said clanging upon their ears; but instead of that, the American people after setting forth those high and holy principles, adopted a constitution making slavery in that country legal; in fact, legalizing the existence of slavery, legalizing the African slave trade for 20 years, and giving to southern slave owners what they never had before, the lawful and constitutional right of pursuing their fugitive slaves in the free-states, of catching the victims flying from their cruelty, and of dragging them back again into interminable bondance. They engrafted into their constitution a clause making it binding on every citizen, on every foreigner, on every Englishmen who might go to the United States and adopted that country as his home, to help to restore the bondman again to his chains, after making his escape from slavery, if he were found in the territory of the United States. Such was the state in which the country was placed for a number of years. From 70,000, slaves had grown to between 3,000,000 or 4,000,000. The anti-slavery agitation then commenced, and it had gone on and on until now the question was being discussed all over the American Union. The American Congress, that 70 years since had a gag rule that would not allow the subject to be discussed,—that had a rule to cast under the table every petition praying for the abolition of slavery, or any thing of the kind,—in that same Congress, in 1850, there is not question thought more worthy of discussion than the existence of slavery. So much for the agitation of 15 or 20 years; and now the question of slavery, as some have said, threatened the dissolution of the American union. No wonder that it threatened a dissolution of the union. The states, as they were composed of free states and slave states, had the very elements of dissolution in themselves. It was only needed that the question should be brought before the people, and that they might be made calmly to look at it to induce them to sever themselves from the slavegrowers of that country, and to abolish slavery. But it had not come to the question of the abolition of slavery yet; but the question really was, should slavery in America be spread over a new territory, and the slave-owners have more power in the American Congress, or should slavery exist no more than it was at the present time, and ultimately perish by its own discordant elements. Many great and noble men were in the Congress pleading the cause of freedom. The slave-owners also had their champions, and their men were watching what they called their peculiar institution. The great champion of slavery had ceased to exist. The steamer before the last brought the news that C. Calquhoun, the great defender of slavery in that country, had gone to mother earth. The same steamer brought also the sad intelligence, that Daniel Webster had taken his place, and become the great defender of slavery. The Congress of the United States was not the only place where the subject was canvassed; for the great battle of freedom was being fought through the different states, at the firesides, and in the chapels, and in the school-houses, in the domestic circle, and upon the platforms, in the religious towns and hamlets. The cause was going on and not the combined influence of Daniel Webster and the few distinguished clergymen of that country who had surrounded him, not all the slave owners in the country, could put back the cause of emancipation. It was going on, and it would go on.—[Applause.] But one of the measures brought before Congress, and probably the most infamous that was ever brought before the people, was to give further power to the slave owners of the United States, in recapturing their fugitive slaves. In addition to their having the United States Supreme Court and judges, there was not a proposition to create some 4000 or 5000 new judges before whom the fugitive slave might be dragged from his hiding place, and by them condemned back to slavery. There was a proposition to make every post-master in the United States, with all other officers who received their appointment from the slave-holding President, or cabinet, or government, to make all these men competent to judge whether a man was a slave or not; in short to add to the already existing bloodhounds, some four or five thousand two-legged bloodhounds to be put on the chase after bondmen. And Daniel Webster and others have avowed their willingness to vote for it. They said the constitution of the United States demanded it, and they said they must live up to the constitution, and they must carry out the principles of the constitution. But while Daniel Webster avowed these sentiments, he (Mr. Brown) rejoiced that a noble man from the state of New York had made a speech, and instead of adopting the views of the constitution, he declared that there was a constitution higher and more binding, and that the constitution of God was more binding than that of America. And so long as they found some men in the American senate willing to avow that they would not place the laws of God under or beneath the laws of man; or, in other words, would consider the laws of God more binding that the laws of man, they might hope that the cause of freedom would not entirely flag in the American congress. If he returned back to the United States, he was liable to be caught and carried back to slavery. There was not a foot of soil in the American states on which he could stand and be protected by law. There were already men in the country in the free state of Massachusetts, by whom he could be given up to the slave-owner, and be dragged back to slavery, there to be tortured till the slave-owner was satisfied, because he had run away. And the question was, now, whether the slave-owner should have more power of catching him than he had at the present time? Now, when the cause of freedom was being discussed throughout Europe; when the liberty of mankind was the great question of the day in Europe; in the democratic republic of America, instead of discussion questions to benefit mankind, they were discussion the question of how much more torturing to inflict, and how much better opportunity the slave-owners should have of catching their slaves and of dragging them back to slavery. While they were discussing this question in the Congress, and while in America they were engaged in the domestic slave trade; in the British parliament they were now discussing the question of putting down the African slave-trade, by adopting means of abolishing the traffic in human beings from the coast of Africa. While this was being discussed in the British Parliament, in the United States they were discussing the question of making slave property more valuable, by securing to the master greater rights in carrying on the trade. In the Times a few days since, he saw an account of a man who sued the captain of a vessel for his wages. The man had been imprisoned in an American jail on account of the colour of his skin. He was put in prison in Charleston, South Carolina, until the vessel was ready to sail. He returned to England and demanded his wages, which the captain refused to pay him, upon the ground, that he had not his services during two months. The man had been taken by the authorities of a slave-holding state, and put in prison, and kept from labour two months, and then the captain was compelled to pay for the board of that man during the two months. That was the way their republican brethren got boarders for their inns. It had been suggested through the Times, that the English government should take every red-haired American they could find, and imprison him in retaliation. He [Mr. Brown] did not think that there was any danger of his being put in prison on account of the colour of his hair, not being a democratic republican enough to cause the English Government to take any offence at it. He did not recommend war, being opposed to war in every shape; but he thought, if there was anything which would cause the people of this country to take offence at the acts of the Americans, it would be taking an innocent man, thrusting him into a loathsome prison, and keeping him there because his skin was not in accordance with the American constitution. He thought they should examine into this matter, and see whether it was in accordance with the treaties and stipulations between the United States and Great Britain. They all knew that it was not; and herein the arrogance of the people in the slave states was exhibited, in daring to do it. Herein was shown the want of courage on the part of the free people in the free states, in not seeing that foreigners were well treated when they arrived at an American port. The slave trade was still carried on in the United States, and in the Congress there were men who, while they pretended to legislate for the good of the people, were men engaged in buying and selling human beings. What could be expected from an American Congress, when one-third of its members were slave owners, and traders in slaves, and who made their living by rearing human beings for the market, and selling them to the highest bidder? It was preposterous to expect anything from such men, or to think that they would do anything for the cause of freedom. It was only with the hope of giving an alarm throughout the country, that they spoke at all of the American Congress, for it was not worthy of being mentioned at the same time with the cause of freedom.—There was a great difference in the notions of freedom, of the men of Congress and those who were labouring with all their souls for the overthrow of American slavery. The slave trade was carried on in the capital of the United States, and it was no wonder, therefore, that in one of the southern ports they should take an Englishman and thrust him into prison. These prisons were let out to parties who wished to traffic in the bodies and souls of human beings, and the Congress made a contract with them, that for a certain sum of money they might buy and sell their fellow men; and now, in the very capital of the country, they were carrying on this trade not in human beings brought from the coast of Africa, but in those born and brought up in the United States. No man was any more safe in the capital, than he was at Charleston, South Carolina, where an Englishman was imprisoned a few weeks since. Any free-coloured man, from a free state, on going to the city of Washington, might be imprisoned if he could not prove himself to be free, and might be sold into interminable slavery, even if he could prove that he was free, for if he could not pay his jail fees, then he was sold as a slave. Such was the law of the country. Mr. Brown proceeded at great length to expatiate on the injustice, inhumanity, and horrors of slavery, and he related many anecdotes, showing the manner in which slaves made their escape, following the north star till they reached Canada, where they could not be re-taken. He sat down amid loud applause.
The SHERIFF, [J. Colman, Esq.,] addressed the meeting, and moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Brown for his lecture.—The Rev. J. Crompton seconded the motion, which was carried by acclamation.
Mr. Brown acknowledged the compliment, and sang a song of his own composition, relative to his escape from slavery, in a very pleasing manner.—Many copies of a narrative published by him were bought on the orchestra. The meeting dispersed soon after ten o’clock.
“Lecture on Slavery in America.” Norfolk Chronicle (London, UK), 4 May 1850.
