The testimony of the two decoy pigeons was, that they had liberty enough; more than they knew what to do with.  They showed plainly enough that they knew nothing of the law they lived under.  The testimony of the Rev. Mr. Fish was more directly against us.  Some may think I do wrong to mention this gentleman’s name so often.  But why, when a man comes forward on a public occasion, should his name be kept out of sight, though he be a clergyman.  I should think he would like to make his flock respected and respectable in his speech, which he well knew they never could be under the then existing laws.  Is it more than a fair inference that it was self-interest that made him do otherwise, that he might be able to continue in possession of his strong hold?  If he had said to the Indians, like an honest man, “I know I have no right to what is yours, and will willingly relinquish what I hold of it,” I do not doubt that the Indians would have given him a house, and a life estate in a farm; and perhaps have conveyed it to him in fee simple, if he had behaved well.  Such a course would have won him the love and esteem of the Indians, and his blind obstinacy was certainly the surest means he could have taken to gain their ill will.  He may think slightly of their good opinion, and I think, from his whole course of conduct, that we are as dogs in his sight.  I presume he could not die in peace if he thought he was to be buried beside our graves.

It is the general fault of those who go on missions, that they cannot sacrifice the pride of their hearts, in order to do good.  It seems to have been usually the object to seat the Indians between two stools, in order that they might fall to the ground, by breaking up their government and forms of society, without giving them any others in their place.  It does not appear to be the aim of the missionaries to improve the Indians by making citizens of them.  Hence, in most cases, anarchy and confusion are the results.  Nothing has more effectually contributed to the decay of several tribes than the course pursued by their missionaries.  Let us look back to the first of them for proofs.  From the days of Elliott, to the year 1834, have they made one citizen?  The latter date marks the first instance of such an experiment.  Is it not strange that free men should thus have been held in bondage more than two hundred years, and that setting them at liberty at this late day, should be called an experiment now?

I would not be understood to say, however, that the Rev. Mr. Fish’s mission is any criterion to judge others by.  No doubt, many of them have done much good; but I greatly doubt that any missionary has ever thought of making the Indian or African his equal.  As soon as we begin to talk about equal rights, the cry of amalgamation is set up, as if men of color could not enjoy their natural rights without any necessity for intermarriage between the sons and daughters of the two races.  Strange, strange