UNION OF COLONIZATIONISTS AND ABOLITIONISTS.

Every one is aware of the growing interest of the public mind in the subject of anti-slavery and colonization. The continued prosperous operations of the Colonization Society, the rise and onward progress of the anti-Slavery Society, the labors of agents, the debates held on the subject, and the speeches and arguments which are published, are proof in point.

But what is the exact state of the case between colonization and abolition or anti-slavery? Abolitionists believe or effect to believe they are opposed to each other, or at least, that colonization is not adapted to work abolition, but to rivet the fetters of the slave. Colonizationists know abolition, as of late contended for, is opposed to colonization. But are colonization and abolition opposed to each other, after all? What is the object of abolition? To do away slavery and put the colored man in possession of the blessings and privileges of honorable citizenship and Christianity. And what is the object of colonization? The same. But, no,' says the abolitionist, it precludes forever the prospect of all this, and leaves the slave in servitude.' But is he right in this? The colonizationist says, 'no,' and we think with good reason. For first, the character of the founders of the Colonization Society forbids the supposition, and secondly, the actual operation of the society proves it to have a contrary effect. The state of the case, therefore, is mistaken by the abolitionist, and the colonizationist conceives it substantially as it is. The design, the object, the aim of both is the same. Abolition is the older, but colonization is a sister of the same family, of a little different complexion perhaps, but the same in benevolence and good will to the slave, and especially to Africa,-older too after all than abolition as lately revived.

To pass, however, all comparison of the two, the decision of the case whose views are right, is not essential to the successful efforts of each in behalf of the slave. The most the difficulty can amount to, even in the mind of the abolitionist, seems to be a mistake only in judgment on the part of the colonizationist, as to the best means of accomplishing the object. But it is no strange thing in any department of labor for two separate lines of effort to conspire to the same result, and colonization and abolition, though different in some respects, are not opposed, and colonizationists and abolitionists may work together. The question between them resolves itself into a question of expediency, Both are agreed as to the rights of man. As to abolitionists, there can be no question what their views are, nor need

there be as to the views of the colonizationists; and if any abolitionists deny it, they must be considered uncandid and uncharitable, for in doing it they unavoidably reflect on the memory of the good who are dead, and assail the purity and integrity of their brethren who are alive. It is gratuitous, too, to consider the abolitionist and colonizationist as necessarily interfering with each other, or embarrassing each other's efforts. If the abolitionists will spare direct attack, it is no interference or embarrassment to the colonizationist, that he urges complete and entire emancipation as the immediate and unqualified duty of the slaveholder; and what embarrassment or interference is it to the abolitionist, that the colonizationist urges the same, as fast as, considering the circumstances of the case, the thing is practicable or capable of being accomplished. If either would not agree that the single ultimate object sought is the redemption and happiness of the slave, then they would be at issue, but as the case is, there can be no necessary clashing or variance. Both evidently are travelling the same road, and have in view each an arrival at the same end of their journey, only the one thinks his horse will bear more of the spur and that he shall get there the sooner for goading him on, while the other thinks he is advancing already, as fast as, considering the nature and strength of the animal and the length and difficulty of the way, is consistent with the the greatest speed on the whole and the earliest safe arrival.-If the abolitionist, besides advocating immediate unconditional and unqualified emancipation, would advocate the education also of the people of color, why, so much the better, for the colonizationist wants such, that is, educated blacks, to send out to Liberia.-It would seem, therefore, as though nothing but a headlong, reckless purpose to amalgamate the blacks and whites, and an affected childish pity that any of them born in this country should leave it, can be a ground of difficulty between the two; and this while a colony is springing up, as fast as possible, under the auspices of the Colonization Society, inviting a retreat for people of color, whither they may withdraw with every facility for usefulness to themselves and the world, is certainly unworthy. Union therefore between colonizationists and abolitionists, is practicable.

It is also desirable. It is true the liability of difference among good men in a good cause is common. It is a circumstance, too, which Satan is ever ready to make the most of, to his advantage and the disadvantage of the cause of truth and righteousWe have occasion for caution, therefore, and wisdom in cases of delicacy and difficulty like the one under consideration.

ness.

There may be bad men, moreover, among both classes spoken of; slave-holders, or dealers, or men some way connected with such, who would perpetuate slavery, at least one generation more; abolitionists, too, who are impatient, rash, inflammatory, visionary and unreasonable. The slave-holding part of the country, and some of the colonizationists perhaps, are not enough impressed with the horrors of slavery, nor enough awake and determined to rid the land of the evil, and make it literally, as well as in name, a land of freedom. But the good men of both parties have the good of the slave and the speedier salvation of not only the slave but the world at heart. Now then is not union among good men desirable? It is always the devil's defeat in any cause. Union is strength, and strength among good men, is salvation to the country and the world. Union is desirable.

It is too a duty. The considerations just suggested show it, and others, proving the same, are not wanting. Contemplate the subject a moment, and mark how they rise, overwhelming in number and magnitude, in connexion with the benevolent efforts of the day and the interests of the church and the world. Africans are a part of the Gentiles, all whose fulness is to be brought in preparatory to the ingathering of the Jews and the final triumph of Christianity. They therefore are not alone concerned in what is done for them. The emancipation of them is connected with the emancipation of all nations-with their emancipation too from religious and political delusion, from ignorance, degradation, vice, immorality and debasement; it is a part of that grand achievement by which the world is to be regenerated, and in the accomplishment of which, the whole human family is to be carried forward to the acme of perfection, when the top-stone of the spiritual building shall be laid with shoutings of, GRACE, GRACE unto it. Especially is it the only hope for Africa and the slave in particular. Without colonization, Africa must remain as she is, degraded, oppressed and enslaved; with it, she may rise among the nations, and participate in the common bounty and salvation of God. Without abolition, too, the slave must remain a slave, forever denied the rights and privileges to which by nature he is as much entitled as his master. I know it is said the slave may remain in this country, although emancipated, and so we have no need of colonization; but the idea of their remaining and amalgamating with the whites, is a wild chimera, fit only for the brain of a zealot or an enthusiast of the most visionary character. And if they remain and do not amalgamate, the whites of the South must migrate to the North, and give the blacks the country;

which would be to tear the whites from their home, as much as it would be to tear the blacks from theirs, to colonize. Both colonization and abolition, therefore, are necessary, and their union a duty. Our obligations to the world and to Africa and the slaves in particular demand it.

So do the interests of the whites at the South, our brethren of this American Israel. To go on as they are going, they cannot. At every step, the prospect darkens, and the no distant result is appalling. Already do they begin to feel their insecurity and their danger. And though this were not the case; suppose them safe from insurrection and blood shed, what is to become of the progress of the Gospel among them, and how are its principles to take effect? Known and felt they may be by some, but piety must ever weep over the not-to-be-named immoralities and abominations inseparable from slavery.

But the interests of the whites at the South are not the only interests which plead for union. A reason for it may be found in the interests of the country at large. The South and the North, the East and the West in this great Republic, are all intimately connected. The pulsations of a common life are constantly beating through them all, and the union of the states, is the happiness and glory of the country. Indeed, the dissolution of the Union would cast a gloom over the entire prospects of the whole human family, and seem to indicate that Satan was yet to reign awhile before he should be bound. Despots and tyrants would laugh in their sleeves, and cast reproach upon a country which boasted of her light and liberty and ability to govern herself, but from which had now departed her glory and her pride. And what but a direct way to mar this union and bring on a rupture between the North and the South, the East and the West, is the agitation, in a hostile manner, of the subject of slavery between abolitionists and colonizationists The sensitiveness of the nation on great points of national interest, is well known, and need not be dwelt upon; nor need the evidence of its inflammatory tendency, as manifest from what has taken place within the last year or two, especially on the subject of the Tariff.

The artifice of Satan in tempting good men to differ, has been alluded to, and the union of abolitionists and colonizationists may be further urged on the ground of the apostolic injunction Resist the Devil.' It is not a slight consideration either, nor is it in a single instance only, brought to view in the Scriptures. We have the example of Christ in it for imitation. One apostle would not have us ignorant of the devices of Satan, or that he has devices, by which to ensnare us, if not wary. He commands us also not to give place to him. And another apos

tle charges us to resist him steadfast in the faith, or in adherence to right motives and right principles of conduct. We are to guard also against being led astray by the wicked, and our daily prayer should be that we may not be led into temptation, but be delivered from evil, even the evil one, or adversary.

I might urge, too, as a motive for union, the unseemliness of discord among brethren, and the folly of contending how we shall do a good thing, taking warning in this respect from Paul and Barnabas.

Wisdom also in making the most of time, strength, means, and effort, requires that we should be united. The effort of contention, whether on the part of colonizationists or abolitionists, is a misdirected, and therefore a lost effort. Wisdom requires that both direct their efforts to the single object, as early attained as possible, of putting every slave in possession of all the blessings, not only of freedom and individual relative right, but of elevation in personal character as to intelligence and moral resemblance to Jesus Christ. O how loud and imperious the call of wisdom to union!

Think, moreover, of the high and holy character of the general enterprize of benevolence in which the good of all parties. in this and other countries throughout the world are engaged, and see how the consideration of this calls for union. I am doing a great work,' let every one say, 'I cannot come down to the arena of contention.' No; let the abolitionist press abolition, not seek to destroy the colonizationist; and the colonizationist, let him press still harder colonization, since that is what he is engaged in. Let each do his own work, as a coadjutor of the other in a common cause.

And one consideration more-a regard to personal responsibility in the case. This calls for union. The most stupid, one would think, must see that amazing results are depending here, -results in view of which, it ought to be a solemn question with every one, 'How is my influence likely to bear in the case? The awful grandeur-political, moral, and spiritual, is overwhelming. The purity, happiness, and rising elevationnay, the preservation and inviolability of the union of one nation, with the question of another's emancipation and exaltation, or continued bondage and degradation-the enjoyment in this life of millions born and unborn, and their eternal salvation in the life to come-these are the results depending in the case. And does it not become every one, therefore, to see not only that he be not dronish and inactive, but that he lay out his activity and expend his energy at the right point? The thought expands to the introduction of other things beside the