A Slave's Opinion of The War
At the Corn Exchange in Preston
 |
| The Corn Exchange in Preston. The Former Public Hall. |
When looking for information about the former Corn Exchange in Preston, I came across these articles in the from 1863 in the Preston Chronicle. The Corn Exchange in Preston is a listed building, but only a portion of it remains. It is now home to Preston's most unique Restaurant and Bar, called 1842.
I knew that the building had been used for meetings and performances later in the nineteenth century, as it had been modified to be the Public Hall. However, I always thought that when it was the corn exchange it sole purpose would have been commerce and trading. It is clear from the following articles that it was always used as a general public meeting place, even before it became the much grander Public Hall.
When contributing to the Historic England Missing Pieces Project, via their website, I noticed a 'Pinned Post' (one that's always at the top) relating to a public meeting about slavery in America. It seemed to be wrong in my mind, as most of the other similar meetings had been in local churches, theatres and halls. Not in markets searching through old copies of the Preston Chronicle proved the pinned post to be correct.
A SLAVE'S OPINION OF THE WAR.
THE Committee of the Union and Emancipation Society have the pleasure of announcing that the REV. SELLA MARTIN, of London, formerly an American slave, will give TWO LECTURES in the Corn Exchange, on Wednesday and Thursday, evenings next, the 2nd and 3rd September, upon the American question, with special reference to THE TREATMENT OF THE SLAVES IN THE SOUTH, AND THE NEGROES IN THE NORTH.
Doors open at half-past seven, chair to be taken at eight o'clock.
Front seats, 6d.; second seats, 2d.; back seats, 1d.
Tickets may be had of Mr. LAMBERT, Cannon-street; and at the Chronicle, Guardian, and Herald Offices.
Advertisements & Notices
Date: Saturday, Aug. 29, 1863
Publication: Preston Chronicle
Gale Primary Sources, British Library Newspapers:
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/Y3207462250/BNCN?u=lancs&sid=bookmark-BNCN&pg=1&xid=51390c6c
 |
| A Slave's Opinion of The War. Preston Chronicle, 1863. |
~
AN EX-SLAVE'S OPINION OF THE WAR.
On Wednesday evening, a lecture was delivered in the Corn Exchange, by the Rev. Sella Martin, formerly an American slave, on the "Treatment of the slaves in the South, and the negroes in the North." There was not a very numerous attendance. Mr. Councillor Benson occupied the chair.
After a few remarks from the chairman on the horrors of the war now waging in America, and a brief allusion to the slavery question, he introduced The Rev. SELLA MARTIN, who said that he was sure all his hearers had heard enough of American slavery from persons who from time to time bad come amongst them. n. It would be well, however, if they were made acquainted with all its gigantic endowments, and all its vices. Englishmen ought to be proud that they possessed such free institutions as they enjoyed. Whenever a slave puts his foot on English soil, he felt his liberty, no matter of what colour he may be, or whether he may have been born under an African or an Indian sun. English-men, he said, could not help being proud of this fact. They had heard much from the advocates of the South, but he took it for granted that those advocates had not yet been so successful as to blow sugar into their eyes, or cotton into their ears, and thus prevent them from seeing the horrors of slavery, and hearing the groans of the poor oppressed slave. The advocates of the South were not endowed with all the feelings of humanity. (Hear, hear.) He took it for granted that no high-sounding phrases would be able to deceive them, although they might fall from the lips of a great man. They had been told that the North was fighting for empire, and the South for in-dependence. They had been told the truth. The South was fighting for independence-independence to prevent others from becoming independent. The North was fighting for empire, the institutions of which were founded upon liberty, equality, and fraternity. If the North was fighting for empire, it was an empire the corner stone of which was liberty; it was fighting for freedom and equality at the ballot box, and the extension of the word of Jesus Christ. (Hear, hear.) He was sure they would not be by the advocates of the South. He thought they would view the matter with a careful consideration. There was not only a war in America with arms, but there was one of ideas. Any one who failed to look at this subject as it concerned them in this respect, failed to arrive at a proper conclusion on the question. (Hear, hear) The war in America was a war of ideas. Satan fought for independence, in order that, like Jefferson Davis he might be able to gratify his ambition; like The Jefferson Davis, he himself kept those who followed him in darkness. If they could go to-day and stand upon Bunker's Hill, where the greatest monument in America stands, and enquire what are the convictions of the people respecting this war, they would tell them that it was a war of ideas, a war between freedom and slavery, and a question of civilization and, humanity. The South never dared to mention this subject. If they would go to South Carolina, and stand beneath the palmetto trees and ask what are the opinions of the people there, they would toll them that it was not a question of tariffs, but one of freedom or slavery. They were not to rely on the evidence of mon three thousand miles away from the scene of action concerning the causes and circumstances of the war-men who gathered their information from one-sided newspaper articles and correspondence; but upon persons who had witnessed the atrocities of slavery. They had heard people give their opinion about it, and he wished them to allow him, as a slave-as an ex-slave to give his.-(Applause.) The war had its elements aroused in 1850 through the passing of the fugitive slave law. Northern people were not at that time, and were scarcely now, in such a position as he could like them. The Southern States violated the constitution by seceding. They had the opportunity of submitting terms of secession; but they dared not submit them, even to their own states. They had no right to secede according to the constitution. If they wore dissatisfied with the constitution, it was their duty to seek for its amendment, which could only be done by the sanction of two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the votes of the people. But this they did not think proper to do. When they went into secession it was quite enough for them to be content with the territory in their own boundaries; but they were not so; they laid violent hands upon the United States property; they robbed the United States treasury; they fired upon Fort Sumter-United States property. Well, then the war bogan, and a horrible war it was. It was the South who fired the first canon, and the responsibility of the war alone rested upon the South. The North had done all it could do to keep out of the war; it was the South who wished to commence action. From the very hour that Fort Sumter was fired upon, there was a difference of opinion as to the dispositions of the South. The only hope in the North was the preservation of the Union, and the and the emancipation of slavery. It had been said that the North were not sincere in this respect; that they did not entertain the respect which they professed to do for the slave. The advocates of secession had done a good deal; but the fact was that the advocates of the South pleaded for interest, even if they did not know it; but there were some who did know it they built ships for the Confederates, and others received benefit from the Confederate scrip. He constantly met, with gentlemen who said that slaveholders were gentlemen, in all respects; that they were magnanimous. He would not deny that they were gentlemen of culture and education; but if his audience had about one hundred slaves, from whom they took their wages, and compelled them by force to obey their dictation, they would become magnanimous too. (Applause.) The people of the North, however, were keen of money, but they learned to be so from the English. (Hear, hear.) They had learned to be so from the English merchants in former years. He did not defend their covetousness. But what was the difference between the North and the South The Southerners squeeze the slave to their breasts, and thus squeeze all the humanity out of him.- (Applause, and laughter.) He is deprived of his earnings, the comforts of his family, his freedom, and religious instruction. The North allow the negro his freedom, his earnings, and all the benefits of liberty. The slaveholders were surely not honourable men when they treated their fellow-beings in such a manner. Advocates had sprung up to defend the slaves; but how had they been treated? Charles Sumner, for instance, the great advocate for the freedom of the slaves, was assaulted from behind with a bludgeon in the senate, by a chivalrous gentleman from the South. (Hear.) The lecturer then described the atrocities of the Confederates towards the coloured men who had fallen into their hands in various, battles. He next described the position of the slaves in the South, and added that if the slaveholders were willing to be kind they could not. It was said that the slaves were contented in their bondage, but if the slaves were comparatively contented, they had no right to be so at the expense of white men.-(Hear, hear.) He, as an ex-slave, said they were not contented.
It was all very fine for people who had an income of £1,000 a year, and who were protected with their families, to say that the slaves in America were contented. How could they know? Where did they learn it? He knew that they (the slaves) were not. As an instance to prove his statement that slaveholders could not help being cruel,. the lecturer described two or three cases that had fallen under his own observation, when in the Southern States, of cruelty to slaves in order to enforce obedience and humility to their masters, and as a warning to those who should disobey the commands of their superiors. Up to 1850, however, it was a fact that all through the Northern States there were negro carriages on the railways, negro seats in the chapels, negro burial grounds, &o. Why was this? It was all to please the South; slavery was then predominant. The lecturer said that that feeling was now being obliterated; and gave several instances where coloured men had been elected to high positions in the Northern States. He went on to show that black men were quite equal to white men, as respected either physical or moral attainments, but deplored that a great number were kept by their masters from the enlightenment of civilization. The lecturer drew attention to the election of President Lincoln, and to the arming of the coloured people in the Northern States. He said that the arming of the blacks had not been compulsory, but that it was done at their own wish, because they know that if the Union was not, maintained their lot would be a sad one; they know that if the South gained its independence the gates of Africa would again swing open on its black hinges, and the slave trade with all its horrors would again be re-opened. A vote of thanks to the chairman and the lecturer brought the proceedings to a close.
~
On Thursday evening, the Rev. Sells Martin gave a second lecture on the same subject, in the Corn Exchange. Mr. John Haslam occupied the chair. The audience was rather more numerous than that of the previous evening. After a few introductory remarks from the chairman, the lecturer said, that every movement had its Rubicon, and some Cæsar to cross it. The abolition movement in America had its Cæsar, in the person of William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison, he said, had been the friend of the slaves; he had done much to spread their cry of claim for freedom, in a little paper he published in a garret, which had now become the winding sheet of slavery. He had suffered imprisonment on their behalf, and the more he was persecuted, the more he rose in estimation; he told the people of America that he was in earnest, and demanded to be heard, in his exclamations against slavery, and in his expressions of sympathy for the slaves. Garrison had had as a right hand supporter Wendell Philips. He passed a high encomium upon their characters. He (the lecturer) was sure that Englishmen had done much to obtain their freedom; how much then ought they to sympathise with and support the op-pressed slaves, who were seeking to obtain that freedom which they enjoyed? The lecturer next spoke of the disturbances between the several religious denominations in America on the question of slavery and freedom. The North were wishful for the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery; but the slaveholders were in favour of the severance of the Union for the purpose of preserving slavery. He differed from those who imagined that there was more probability of the abolition of slavery if the South gained its independence, than there would be if the Union was maintained. People wrote to newspapers upon that question without understanding it. It was a moral duty that compelled them to look after the interests and rights of the slave; but people, in a crisis like this, were too apt to look more to national interests than to those of the slave. He asked why should the South abolish slavery, when they reap such large benefits from it, and by which they were enabled to indulge in all the luxuries of wealth? Was there any people who ever gave up their rights before they were taken from them f- (Hear, hear.) They were anxious to keep the South in the Union in order that they might shed a light upon its prisons by their free presses.--(Hear, hear.) If England did not use her influence now to blot out slavery in America, she would not be able to do it when the independence of the South was established. If the South got her independence how could they get slavery abolished?
If the independence of the South was established, England could do no more than demand that she should abolish slavery; and if she persisted in her demand for abolition a war would be the result.
Let the North, then, go on and accomplish their object, which they would do if they would give them time.- (Applause.) The lecturer then described the various societies in the North, the disposition of the Republicans with respect to the war, and the great interest the Democrats had in the preservation of the Union. He also alluded, at some length, to the atrocities committed towards the negroes in the South, which had fallen under his own observation when he was a slave, and detailed the various punishments which the law empowered to be exercised upon insubordinate slaves, and the penalties to which the parents of a white child were subjected if the child was caught in the act of teaching a negro to read the Bible. The lecturer also described the great love which the negroes generally possessed for their families, the great affection they paid to localities, and the great amount of trust they placed in Providence. He said that the Negroes entertained an idea that Canada was a great country, and that there was a great sea between them, and that it required a ship to take them there. He denied that the slaves generally were contented, and gave several instances of the manner in which they had bought their freedom. He was sure that his audience could not sympathise with a slaveholding power. He was anxious for the time to come when he could go back to the place of his childhood, and tell them that there were people over the water who sympathised with them. (Applause.) Mr. BENSON proposed, and Mr. PENNY seconded, a vote of thanks to the lecturer, which was unanimously accorded; and acknowledged by the Rev. Sella Martin.
Mr. J. DUTHIE proposed a vote of thanks to the chair-man, which was seconded by the lecturer, for his presidency, which, having been acknowledged, brought the proceedings to a close.
AN EX-SLAVE'S OPINION OF THE WAR.
Date: Saturday, Sept. 5, 1863
Publication: Preston Chronicle
Gale Primary Sources, British Library Newspapers:
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/Y3207462311/BNCN?u=lancs&sid=bookmark-BNCN&pg=7&xid=39d35060
~
 |
| The Reverend John Sella Martin (1832-1876) |
John Sella Martin (1832-1876)
John Sella Martin, who eventually became an influential minister, was born enslaved in Charlotte, North Carolina on September 27, 1832, to Winnifred, a mulatto, and the nephew of her owner. At the age of six, Martin along with his mother and his sister Caroline, were sold to a slave trader who took them to Columbus, Georgia. There they were sold to a medical doctor and owned them for three years until bankruptcy forced him to sell his slaves and break up Martin’s family. Martin’s mother Winnifred was sold to an Alabama minister, his sister was sold to a Mobile, Alabama slaveholder, and John, now nine, remained in Columbus with another slaveholder. Martin would never see his relatives again...
[Continued on the Black Past website]
https://blackpast.org/african-american-history/martin-john-sella-1832-1876/
~
Further reading an other sources of information
The former Corn Exchange of 1822-24 remodelled as a meeting hall and entertainment complex known as the Public Hall in 1881-82, partly demolished in 1986, and now used as a public house.
The Former Public Hall, as listed on the National Heritage List for England.
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1292350
.
Anon., ‘An Ex-Slave’s Opinion of the War’, The Preston Chronicle,
Preston, Lancashire, England, 5 September 1863, p.7.
Published by: Edinburgh University Press. (2024)
https://www.jstor.org/content/pdf/oa_chapter_edited/10.3366/jj.13982267.77.pdf
.
Book Title: Nineteenth-Century African American Speeches in Britain and Ireland
Book Editor(s): Celeste-Marie Bernier, Hannah-Rose Murray
Published by: Edinburgh University Press. (2024)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/jj.13982267.75
~
Comments
Post a Comment