This Society do not wish to see any coercive or dangerous measures pursued. They wish for universal emancipation, because they believe it is the only way to _prevent_ insurrections. Almost every individual among them, is a strong friend to Peace Societies. They wish to move the public mind on this subject, in the same manner that it has been moved on other subjects: viz., by open, candid, fearless discussion. This is _all_ they want to do; and this they are determined to do, because they believe it to be an important duty. For a long time past, public sympathy has been earnestly directed in the wrong way; if it could be made to turn round, a most happy change would be produced. There are many people at the South who would be glad to have a safe method of emancipation discovered; but instead of encouraging _them_, all our presses, and pulpits, and books, and conversation, have been used to strengthen the hands of those who wish to perpetuate the "costly iniquity." Divine Providence _always_ opens the way for the removal of evils, individual or national, whenever man is sincerely willing to have them removed; it may be difficult to do right, but it is never impossible. Yet a majority of my countrymen do, in effect, hold the following language: "We know that this evil _cannot_ be cured; and we will speak and publish our opinion on every occasion: but you must not, for your lives, dare to assert that there is a possibility of our being mistaken."
If there were any apparent wish to get rid of this sin and disgrace, I believe the members of the Anti-Slavery Society would most heartily and courageously defend slave-owners from any risk they might incur in a sincere effort to do right. They would teach the negro that it is the Christian's duty meekly and patiently to _suffer_ wrong; but they dare not excuse the white man for continuing to _inflict_ the wrong.
They think it unfair that all arguments on this subject should be founded on the convenience and safety of the master _alone_. They wish to see the white man's claims have their due weight; but they insist that the negro's rights ought not to be thrown out of the balance.
At the time a large reward was offered for the capture of Mr. Garrison, on the ground that his paper excited insurrections, it is a fact, that he had never sent or caused to be sent, a single paper south of Mason and Dixon's line. He _afterwards_ sent papers to some of the leading politicians there; but they of course were not the ones to promote negro insurrections. "But," it has been answered, "the papers did find their way there." Are we then forbidden to publish our opinions upon an important subject, for fear _somebody_ will send them _somewhere_? Is slavery to remain a sealed book in this most communicative of all ages, and this most inquisitive of all countries? If so, we live under an actual censorship of the press. This is like what the Irishman said of our paved cities--tying down the stones, and letting the mad dogs run loose.