Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1837-09-25
LETTERS TO CATHERINE f. BEECH
Err.
No

BRooKLiNE, Mass, 6 month, 18th, 1887.
Mr. DEAR FRIEND:
feel mnch obliged to thee for the interest
thou hast expressed in me, and the effort thou
hast made to convince me oil my Ignorance &
error. | very much regret that thy book has
appeared just at time, when, from The nature
Of my engagements, it will be impossible for
mo to give it that attention which the subject
demands. The only way in which | can re-
ply 10 it, under existing circumstances, is by
desulIory letters, thrown from my pen as trav.
el from place TO place. prefer this mode TO
that Of taking as long time 10 answer it as
thou didst TO answer my Appeal.
On the I'd page, find that thou thinkest
have not been sufficiently informed in regard
to the feelings and opinions of Christian fe-
males al the North On the subject OF slavery,
for that in fact they hold the same principles
with Abolilionsts, though they condemn their
measures. AS thou hast appeared the cham
pion of this class OF Northern women, wilt thou
permit me TO receive their principles from thy
pen---to assume that however misnformed |
may heretofore have been, now can learn
them exactly from thy book. Let us examine
them, to see how far they CORES pond with the
principles held by Abolitionisls.
The great fundamental principle OF Adolf
tionism is, that man cannot rlghifnlIy hold his
fellow man property. Aboliilonists, there
lore, affirm that every Shareholder is a mansteG-
Ter. They do so, for the following reasons: +
To steal man, is TO rob him of himself; it
matters not whether this act is done on the
coast Of Guinea, or on the shores of Carolina !;
man is man, let him be found where he
may; and as man, he has certain inatienable
rights, among which is the right 10 liberty
Now if every man has an inalierable right to
liberty, then it certainly follows, as a matter of
course, that he cannot rightiully be reduced 10
slavery. But find in these U. S., 1880 900
of men, women and children, deprived of their
liberty, robbed of that to which they have an
inalienable right. How has this happened p
Can man be punderod without any one be-
ing guilty of the crime Of plundering him? If,
then, the slaves Of the U. S. are robbed OF their
liberty, would inquire, who has robbed them?
Not the man who stole their forefathers from
Africa, but the man who now holds them in
bondage no matter hop they came into his
possession, whether he received them by inner
iante, or for given price, or whether they
were born on his plantation The only differ
ence can see between the original man steal
ell who caught the African in his native coun-
try, and the American stakeholder, is, that the
former committed one act OF robbery, and sold
his victim to some save-rader, while the other
is eoery day peIpetratng a continued series OF
the crime of man-siealng. For what is slave
hodng, but "A permanent exercise OF the man
stealing powcr?' II every slave has a right 10
freedom then surely the man who withhods
thatrighl from him to-day is a man-stealer, tho
hc may not be the first person who has robbed
him OF it. Hence we find that w esley says
'men-buysrs are eractly on level with mem
iteaters' And again. much less is it possible
that any child of man should ever be born a
slave appeal TO Jonathan Edwards also for
the truth of this opinion. ITO hold man in
a state Of slavery, is to be every day guiliy OF
robbng him of his Liberty, or Of man. stealing. >
And Grotius says-'Those are men-stealers
who abduct, keep, sell or buy Slaves or free
'men. To steal man is the highest kind OF
theft
These are Abolition sentiments on the sub
ject OF saveholding; and although our princi-
pies are universally hello by our opposers at
the North, yet am told on the 44lh page OF
thy book, that the word man-stealer has one
peculiar Specification, and is no more synony-
nous with stakeholder than it is with sheep.
steoler.' Where, then, | would ask, is the
similarity in our views2 | confess | am en-
iirely at a loss to Discovers; and therefore con-
clude that abolitionists and anii-abolitonsts
hold principles no more similar than those ac-
ted out by tue sheep stealer, and man-stealer /;
the one being guilty Of stealing a sheep, and
the other Of stealing man. must acknow-
edge that thou hast only confirmed my opinion
OF the difference which had believed 10 exist
between aboIitionists and their opponents. As
well might Saul have declared, that he held
similar views with Stephen, when he stood by
and kept the raiment of those who slew him.
know that such persons draw a broad line
OF distraction between our principles and our
measures, and that they are very anxious 10
'ayold the appearance of evil'-vsry DESTROYS
Of retaining the fair character of enemies TO
slavery. Now, our measures are simply the
carrying out Of our principles; and we find,