at present, when the passions of every man in the South are
inflamed to the utmost, such an accusation will be most serious.
In the present instance there does not seem that there is a shadow
of excuse for your conduct. You simply heard cries of a slave
being flogged. You deliberately leave the road and enter these
people's plantation and interfere without, so far as I can see, the
least reason for doing so. You did not inquire what the man's
offense was; and he may for aught you know have half murdered
his master. You simply see a slave being flogged and you assault
his owner. If the Jacksons lay complaints against you it is quite
probable that you may have to leave the state. What on earth can
have influenced you to act in such a mad-brained way?"

"I did not interfere to prevent his flogging the slave, mother, but to
prevent his flogging the slave's wife, which was pure wanton
brutality. It is not a question of slavery one way or the other. Any
one has a right to interfere to put a stop to brutality. If I saw a man
brutally treating a horse or a dog I should certainly do so; and if it
is right to interfere to save a dumb animal from brutal ill-treatment
surely it must be justifiable to save a woman in the same case. I
am not an Abolitionist. That is to say, I consider that slaves on a
properly managed estate, like ours, for instance, are just as well off
as are the laborers on an estate in Europe; but I should certainly
like to see laws passed to protect them from ill-treatment. Why, in
England there are laws against cruelty to animals; and a man who
brutally flogged a dog or a horse would get a month's
imprisonment with hard labor. I consider it a disgrace to us that a
man may here ill-treat a human being worse than he might in
England a dumb animal."