establishment, a friend with whom I was dining informed me, that
a few days before a woman and child had been sold to thee, whose
husband and father was a free man, who, in his distress, had
been offering to bind himself for a term of years, in order to
raise the sum (I think $800) demanded for them; but, as he had
been unable to do so, my friend had no doubt they had been sent
off with the very lot of slaves, which, we were told by thyself
had just been forwarded to New Orleans from thy prison. _Who_ is
most guilty in this atrocious transaction--the slave owner, who
sold thee the woman and child at Baltimore--_thou_, the
transporter of them for ever from their husband and parent--_the
purchasers_ of the mother and child at New Orleans, where they
may be for ever separated from each other--or the _citizen_ who,
by his vote and influence, creates and upholds enactments which
legalize this monstrous system, is known only to Him before whom
the secrets of all hearts are unfolded."]

"To thy remark that thy business was necessary to the system of
slavery, and an essential part of it--and if slave-_holding_
were to be justified at all, the slave-_trade_ must be also--I
certainly can offer no valid objection; for I have never been
able to discover any moral difference between the planter of
Virginia and the slave dealer of Baltimore, Richmond, and
Washington. Each has his part to act in the system, and each is
necessary to the other. And if the matter were not, in all its
bearings, painfully serious, it would be amusing to witness the
absurd contempt with which the slave owner of Maryland or
Virginia professes to look upon the trader, whose purchase of
his surplus slaves alone enables him to retain the residue in
his possession; for it seems very evident that the only