It is almost mathematically certain that the Colonization Society with its present sentiments and organization, can never effect the abolition of slavery in the United States. This Society was organized, January 14, 1817. During the seventeen years of its existence it has, (free blacks aside) transported on an average almost sixty a year who had been slaves, but which were not emancipated by the society. The increase of our slave population is known to be about 60 thousand a year, or about 170 a day. Should things continue in this ratio, it may be seen, that while the society (bankruptcy of $40,000 aside) is transporting one emancipated black to Liberia, which it has done nothing toward manumitting, more than a thousand have been added by births! When a distinguished friend, therefore, of the society acknowledges that if the society should remove the whole in a hundred years it is as soon as could reasonably be expected, has he not fixed the period quite too soon? Would not the end of time be quite a probable? Besides, who can doubt that from a population of 2,000,000 as many as that would have been manumnitted had no such society existed. And had the funds which have been expended for their outfit, transportation, and mal-administration of the colony, been appropriated to their education and comfortable settlement in this their native country, how much more honorable as well as righteous in those who have so long and sorely oppressed them!

A New-England citizen thinks he has presented the public with a good offset to calculations like the above, by stating that Mr. G. (the American Wilberforce) has been engaged for several years, and the Anti-Slavery society two years and have emancipated one boy in Boston. And thinks the enquiry "When will the society remove the entire population of our country?” will apply with more force to the Anti-Slavery society, than that of the Colonization. And especially (he thinks) as when it is remembered that laws preventing emancipation and oppressing the colored people, have been passed in many states since the Liberator and other similar publications have been in circulation. But who does not see a wide difference in the prospective view of these societies? As the Colonization Society disavows any intention to interfere with the RIGHT of the slave holder, why, of course, he may dwell in peaceable fellowship with him forever, whether he is willing to release another slave or not. Now the Anti-slavery Society not only avows for its object the abolition of slavery entirely, but its object is to act on the entire population EN MASSE whose prerogative it is to remove oppressive laws, and to awaken and correct public sentiment on this subject, against which no system of wickedness can long hold out, whether legalised or not. The emancipation of the boy in Boston therefore, is but an incidental affair; while at the same time it is a test of the society’s sincerity and efficiency. Should the Colonization Society ever exceed the prescribed limits of their object, so as to turn their attention to an enslaved boy in Boston or elsewhere, it will doubtless refuse to incur the expense and trouble of a prosecution and wait patiently the pleasure of his holder to voluntarily release him, which perhaps will be at the termination of the slave’s life.

While therefore, the above mentioned case is a test of the vigor of the society, it may also stand like the Egyptian which Moses slew and the Hebrew which he defended, prelusive of the final and complete deliverance of that unhappy and enslaved people. He supposed that his brethren would by his hand deliver them; “but they understood it not.” As to the oppressive laws enacted since the efforts of the friends of liberty, I should hardly have thought that a man with the views and feelings of a New-England man would have dared to utter them, as it cannot fail to call up to the mind of every reader the policy of Pharaoh and his counsellors. It appears then, that there is the strongest analogy between the two immediate precursors of the Hebrew’s deliverance, and circumstances among ourselves, viz: their increase of population and their increased oppression; “and when the time drew near” “the people grew and multiplied in Egypt. Acts VII, 17. “For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered them at all.” Ex. V-23. I hope the opposition will not be carried to the same extent as it was by the Anti-abolitionists of Egypt, because I love my country. It is believed by many thinking men that slavery cannot hold out thirty years longer in this country; and that its extermination, or the dissolution of our union is near. If these men are fanatics, is it not a little singular that they are so on this subject only?

The reason which a “New-England man” and others love to assign why they cannot co-operate with abolitionists is, that Mr. G. has uttered and published some extravagant things. This objection is as unsatisfactory as it is disingenuous. Many of the friends of the anti-slavery society have thought so too, and regretted it. Be this as it may, they think it unfair for the fourth of July orators to be constantly calling out those expressions, which they deem exceptionable, and presenting them in a garbled manner, without their qualifications, and in senses quite different from what was intended, and then attempting to fix an odium on the society. No allowance is made for the peculiar & extraordinary situation in which Mr. G. has been, and still is placed. He is the first man who has dared to publish a paper devoted to the cause of the oppressed colored man of this country. He has been thrown into prison; five thousand dollars offered for his apprehension  by the legislature of a state, and two thousand five hundred by an association of Gentlemen in S. Carolina, denounced as the veriest fanatic that ever existed; and doubtless has enlisted a combination of the worst passions against himself, that ever occupied the human breast. No body doubts that Mr. G. has the most numerous and virulent enemies of any other individual in this country. Add to this that he has thrown his whole soul into the cause which he pleads, and who that retains a vestige of candor will refuse to overlook the sally of an unguarded expression, or make a man an offender for a word? If the objection above-mentioned by sufficient to justify the refusal to co-operate, why, on the same principle we may cling to Popery, and refuse to co-operate in the Protestant cause. Nothing tried the friends of Luther more than his violent and daring expressions. They were considered by both friends and foes as injurious to the cause he advocated; yet it is a question not fully settled whether a man less ardent and more prudent, would have succeeded quite as well. He saw distinctly as did many others that his cause on the main was right; and many now perceive, (their number fast increasing) that the prominent features of the abolitionists are those of truth and justice, and will most assuredly prevail.   N.B. (author)