Hi!
I went to the article you marked. I read the entire article carefully, and after reading the comments of the writer about the change in Leland’s position, I wonder why they couldn’t have included one or two more pointed quotoations of Leland from the end of his life, where he is said to be anti-abolitionist.
So I went back and just read the quotations with the words of Leland himself several more times.
My thoughts: Leland could not render a solution for any immediate or simulataneous freeing of the slaves without putting the slaves themselves in grave jeopardy. Where would they go? How would they operate? It seemed large numbers of them would have died of starvation or exposure. Would crippling the southern economy by sudden simulataneous emancipation be to their benefit or to their damage? Leland could not know.
Thus, the last quote in the article finds Leland still pleading with the slave owners to release the slaves (though not necessarily immediately or simulataneously), and until their emancipation, (an admonition to the owners) remember that the owners answer to God for their treatment of the slaves (and used the Scriptures in this regard).
Reading only the words of Leland that the writers used in the article, I do not see the severity of ANTI-abolition sentiment suggested by the writers-—but I would need to read more of the writings or speeches of Leland to which they refer before I make any further determination.
What is most interesting is that the article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (one which you may have access to, but I haven't paid a subscription for). So the author may have been excoreated in subsequent issues.
But it does seem rather inconsistent with the rest of his life, as little as I know about it. An interesting mystery.