avery Society. That Society was not only made answerable for
all which the abolitionists _really_ said, and _really_ designed, but
for things they never said, and never designed. No Society was more
conspicuous for the simplicity of its principles, or the harmony of
views subsisting among its members. All regarded slave-holding as
sinful. All considered immediate emancipation to be the duty of the
master and the right of the slave. All deprecated the thought of a
servile insurrection to effect the extinction of slavery. All abhorred
the doctrine that "the end sanctifies the means." But all deemed it a
solemn duty to pursue, with energy and boldness, the overthrow of
slavery; all were one in believing and teaching, that the means
adopted should be honest, holy, peaceful, and moral. It had been said
that the only weapon should be "persuasion." He (Mr. T.) believed that
if no other weapon than "persuasion" was resorted to, slavery would be
perpetual. He believed that the gathered, concentrated, withering
scorn of the whole world, Pagan and Christian, must be brought down
upon slave-holding America, ere much effect could be produced. If this
was insufficient, it would be the duty of Britain to consider well
whether it was right to hold the destinies of the slaves of America in
her hand and not act accordingly. It would be the duty of the friends
of the slave to point to slave-grown produce, and cry, "touch not,
taste not, handle not" the accursed thing! Great Britain had the
power, by adopting a system of prohibitory duties or bounties, to
affect very materially the question at issue, and he (Mr. T.) doubted
not, that, if some such course was adopted, certain of the slave
States would immediately abolish slavery that they might find a
readier market and a higher price for their produce.

Notwithstanding, however, the precision with which the abolitionists
had stated their principles, and the wide publicity they had given
them, designs the most black, and measures the most monstrous and
wicked, had been charged upon them. They had been represented as
"firebrands," "incendiaries," "disorganizers," "amalgamatists"--as
promoting "disunion," "rebellion," and the "intermixture of the
races." Again and again, had they solemnly disclaimed the views
imputed to them, and pointed to their published "constitutions" and
"declarations;" but as often had their enemies returned to their work
of calumny and misrepresentation. How totally ab