blish colonies in Africa, which will diffuse the light of civilization and Christianity over the whole of that continent.

All will admit that to Christianize Africa is a glorious enterprise; and if it can be accomplished by colonization, no philanthropist, and especially no Christian, will say that colonization ought to be lightly abandoned. And can it not be accomplished by colonization? What stands in the way? It is certain that territory to an almost unlimited extent can be procured from the natives of Africa at a very moderate expense. Let then Colonization Societies continue to purchase territory and select the most eligible spot for settlement-let them clear the lands, divide them into farms, erect comfortable dwellings and barns, provide agricultural implements, and multiply comforts and conveniences of every kind, till they can offer these farms to actual settlers on such terms as will tempt 100,000 of the sober and industrious colored men of this country to go to Liberia and occupy them; let care be taken to send out with every company of emigrants a schoolmaster for every 100 children, and an evangelical colored minister, (well educated in some seminary established for the purpose in this country) for every 1,000 souls; let benevolent individuals and societies endow schools and colleges in the colonies, supply every family with Bibles and Tracts, support temperance agents, and keep all the machinery of moral reform in constant motion-and what is to prevent these 100,000 from growing by natural increase, like the first settlers of this country, in twenty-five years to 200,000; in fifty years to 400,000, and in two hundred years to 12 or 15,000,000 free, enlightened Christians, constituting at the end of that time a nation as numerous and powerful as the people of the United States now are, and exerting in every period of its history, through its missionary and other benevolent societies, the most salutary influence over Africa?

Why is not all this possible? The Anti-colonizationist will say, perhaps, "if the people are treated as they ought to be treated in this country, 100,000 of them could never be induced to go to Liberia." But why not? If a company of benevolent men were to purchase territory in Illinois or Mis souri, cut it up into farms, clear the land, and every where put up schoolhouses and meeting-houses at convenient distances, could they not offer these farms on terms that would tempt 100,000 New Englanders to quit their native mountains and emigrate thither? Are not New-Englanders, in fact, constantly emigrating to the West by thousands without any such temptation? And do these emigrants leave their native country because they are cruelly treated there? Do they not merely change a good country for one which, on the whole, is more eligible. And may we not treat the colored people as they ought to be treated in this country, and still offer them sufficient inducements to emigrate to Liberia?

Perhaps it will be said that the people of this country will never voluntarily contribute the large sums which will be wanted to clear the land, build the houses, and provide the other conveniences necessary to tempt 100,000 colored people to Africa. Why not? Suppose that the sum wanted should be $100 for every man, woman, and child, or $500 for every family; (and surely there are colored men enough in the United States who could be tempted by $500 to take up their residence in such a country as Liberia would be on the plan proposed,) even at this rate the whole sum wanted would be only $10,000,000. And is it visionary to expect from the people of this country the voluntary contribution of $10,005,000 for the accomplishment of all the glorious objects embraced in the establishment of the proposed colony? This objection comes with an ill grace from anti-colonizationists. They are expecting to persuade one-third part of the people of the United States, (and ibat part the slaveholders !

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 manners 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 ancestry, 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 kim, 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 Re porter, 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. Erancipation 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 Liberfa.— 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 it 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 a 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.

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 a much 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

design, that the different races of men should continue to be distinct, and each reside in the climate best adapted to their physical and intellectual developement.

In all animals the physical organization is adapted to the climate and modes of life appropriate to each; and with a great change of these, either the physical organization changes, or the race degenerates, and finally becomes extinct. All men are descended from the same common stock; and all differences among them are the results of the cause above-mentioned. These differences are no greater than changes which have been known to take place in other animals, extensively migratory, such as the dog, the sheep, &c.— Blumenback selects the swine as affording instances of variety nearly as great as that which exists in the human species. In Normandy this animal is almost perfectly white, and the stiff bristles are exchanged for a warm coat of nearly the softness of hair. In the year 1519, the first swine were carried by the Spaniards to the Island of Cuba; and now the swine of that Island, though all descended of the common species, are of twice the usual size, and with a solid instead of divided hoof. There are differences equally great in the bones of this animal, as the cranium, legs, &c.; as found in different climates and different modes of life.

Man resists changes of this kind more effectually than any other animal; still they have an influence upon him. A man of English descent, of second or third generation, in a tropical climate, unless his physical structure has been in some degree changed, has not the capacities and energies of an Englishman of the temperate regions. The woolly hair and dark skin are evidently adapted to warm climates; and those are the situations for the physical and intellectual developement of the negro race. Where shall we find the most favorable exhibitions of the negro character? In the cold regions of the north? or in Egypt and Ethiopia? in Carthage and Morocco? in the West Indies and Brazil ?

They need not go to Africa, to find a place fitted for their residence, unless they choose to do so; there are places enough on this continent, and within the limits of the United States, should it be found expedient and for their advantage that they should remain here. The Colonization Society advocates no coercive removal; and I am for having the rights of the black man fully recognized on this soil, and then leaving it to his own free choice, whether to emigrate or not.

Should the two races ever become entirely equal, and should there remain no accidental associations of superiority or degradation connected with the external physical differences, I have not a doubt that they would harmoniously and entirely withdraw from each other on the principle of elective affinity. A desire to tyranize over inferiors, or to associate with superiors, may hold the two races together while this unnatural distinction exists; but let it be removed, and without prejudice or hatred, each will hage a simple preference for its own kind.

These are the principles on which I defend colonization; and if the American Colonization Society, as such, acts on principles in any way contrary to these, let me see the evidence of the fact, and I will no longer be its friend; but while it has such principles and such purposes in view, nothing shall induce me to join in the crusade against it.

True, it has nothing to do with the emancipation of slaves, and it ought not to have.-This would but encumber and impede its operations. Let there be other associations to promote the great and good work of emancipation; but let not the Colonization Society deviate from its specific, definite and good purpose of helping those colored people to Africa, who wish to go there. It is essential to success and usefulness, that every institution pursue its own peculiar, specific object, without intermeddling with others. Why should theological seminaries make it a prominent object of pursuit, to prevent the explosion of steamboat boilers? This is undoubtedly a good object, but not exactly appropriate to theological institutions.

Having spoken thus far in behalf of colonization, I must be permitted to add, that I have sometimes heard things said by colonization men, and seen things published in colonization documents, which I by no means approve, and which do not accord with the sentiments of those colonizationists with whom I sympathize. A few words on these points and I will close.

1. I do not advocate colonization, because I suppose the prejudice against the colored people in this country to be either justifiable or invincible.

"God hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth;" and when Bishop Meade said that the colored people were created in the image of God, in some respects, I doubt not but he meant they are the image of God, in as muny respects as the white people are. The prejudice which exists in this country against the negro race has no good foundation; neither nature, nor religion, nor humanity sanction it. There is nothing in the physical or intellectual nature of the negro, that can be offensive to the man unperverted by early and wicked associations.

History gives full testimony that this prejudice against the negro color and features has no foundation in nature. The ancient Egyptians and Ethiopians were clearly of the black race. Herodotus affirms that the Colchians must have been descended from the Egyptians, "because," says he, "they have black skins and frizzled hair;" and Buckhardt affirms that the Ethiopians are distinguishable from the negroes of the interior of Africa, not by the color of hair, but by the superior beauty of their forms, and the greater softness