KISSING THE CHAIN!
Shall Massachusetts
stand erect no longer,
But stoop in chains
upon her downward way,
Thicker to gather on
her limbs, and stronger,
Day after day?’
In our last number,
we gave a brief account of the ridiculous, spasmodic and inconsistent action of
the House of Representatives of this State on the presentation of petitions,
asking for a Convention of the People to devise measures for a peaceable
secession of Massachusetts from the Union, for the intolerable grievances there
in set forth; first, how those petitions were precipitately laid on the table
by an overwhelming majority, and thus denied the courtesy of a reference; and
how, the Whigs taking the alarm on seeing Mr. BOUTWELL (the ostensible leader
of the Democratic party in the House) rise on his seat to object to such a
course of action as a virtual denial of the right of petition, that vote was
almost instantaneously reconsidered, and the petitions were referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. What has since transpired, up to the time our paper
goes to press, we proceed to inform our readers.
On Friday last, the
Committee with hot haste (forty-eight hours after receiving the petitions)
reported that the petitioners have leave to withdraw. Thus no time was afforded
for the presentation of a large number of similar petitions still circulating
for signatures, and no opportunity was given the petitioners to be heard in
behalf of the object prayed for. Hitherto, for several years past, petitions of
this nature have been regularly sent to the Legislature, and in every instance
received without hesitancy, duly referred, deliberately considered, and
repeatedly supported by counsel before the Committee, even the hall of the House
of Representatives being granted on several occasions for a hearing. By the
rules of the House, the report of the present Committee was laid over for that
day; but, as if anxious to make a special display of ‘patriotism,’ and to
exonerate the Free Soil movement from every suspicion of ‘fanaticism,’ Mr.
Wilson, of Natick, the proprietor of the Boston
Republican, moved that the rules be suspended, and that the vote on the
report of the Committee be taken by yeas and nays, that no time be lost to
signify to the country and the world where Massachusetts stands in regard to
this ‘glorious Union’!! The motion prevailed, and the report was accepted—Yeas,
ALL except 1—Mr. TOLMAN, (Free Soiler,) of Worcester. In common with a
multitude of others, we are astonished and indignant at the conduct of Mr.
WILSON in this matter—of one who has displayed, on so many occasions in the
House, both as a Whig and as a Free Soiler, a manly front on the subject of
slavery, and at all times received at the hands of the abolitionists his full
share of the credit. What his motive was for thus precipitating action, we
leave him to explain. If it was with any hope of personal or party advantage,
he will assuredly find that he has ‘reckoned without his host.’ If, in his
conscience, he really believes that an active and willing support of the Union
involves nothing of criminality—if he believes that the Union is promotive of
liberty and equality, instead of chains and slavery—why then we could not
reasonably expect that he would sanction a movement for its dissolution.
Nevertheless, it is none the less extraordinary—especially in view of all he
has said and done respecting the aggressions of the Slave Power—that he should
be eager to outstrip both Whig and Democrat in his zeal to do an act which he
knew would give special pleasure to the Southern brokers in the trade of blood,
and gain nothing for Massachusetts but there fresh contempt for her disgusting
servility.
One man—only one man
of the two hundred and fifty who voted—was found willing or able to stand erect
in the HOUSE on a question of justice, to say nothing of liberty; and while a
single member retains his manhood, we will not despair of the old Bay State! Mr.
TOLMAN, by his solitary vote, had displayed an independence as rare as it is
commendable, and a fearlessness of consequences which indicates the man of
integrity immeasurably above the party politician. Let the time-serving sneer
at him, and the vile and malignant abuse him; it shall only place in stronger
contrast his worth and their baseness. Of course, we are not commending him as
a disunionist—for he is not, otherwise he would not be found in the
Legislature; but only for his sense of justice, and of what constitutes fair
treatment. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he objected to its hasty
report as equally unwise and unnecessary,—the subject presented for their
consideration being one of the gravest character and greatest solemnity,
justifying a patient hearing in its elucidation. He dissented not from the
conclusion of the report, that the petitioners have to withdraw their
petitions, but only from the haste with which intentionally made, so to give no
opportunity to their signers to vindicate their course. This is all he meant to
imply in giving his negative in the House; and for this he deserves the
approbation of all decent, fair-minded, honorable men. He is no trading
politician, but a working-man, a mechanic, of great integrity of character and
lively conscientiousness, and must respected by those who know him. As a proof
of his moral firmness, it deserves to be stated to his credit, in this
connection, that he refused some profitable offers to furnish government wagons
to be used in the Mexican war, regarding that war as he did as most wicked and
inexcusable. It is so rare a thing for conscience to be stronger than the love
of gain, that every instance like this is an oasis in the desert. It is evident
that Mr. Tolman is not a man to be sneered or frowned down. In the House, he
stood actually in the majority, for he was in the right and the right is with
God, who is more than multitudinous.
Mr. BOUTWELL, in
contending for a reference of the petitions, as due to a just regard for the
right of petition, pursued a course for which we intended to accord him our
thanks and all due credit; but his subsequent behavior has vitiated an
otherwise meritorious act. On Tuesday, as one of the committee, we requested
him to present to the House sundry petitions from Boston and other places,
numerously and respectably signed, on the subject of disunion, similar to those
already presented; and also a remonstrance signed by FRANCIS JACKSON and others
against the precipitate action of the Committee and the House on the petitions,
and asking for a hearing as a matter of Justice. Much to our surprise, but more
to his own discredit, Mr. BOUTWELL positively declined complying with the
request! On the question of the Union he was eminently patriotic—very conscientious;
he could never think, for one moment, of presenting such petitions. ‘But is it
a matter of conscience, or a rule of action with you,’ we asked, ‘never to
present a petition, except you can give it your sanction?’ He could not say it
was. ‘Why, then, the present refusal? Do you believe there is any one, either
in this Commonwealth or out of it, who would suppose that you were in favor of
a dissolution of the Union merely from the fact of your presenting these
petitions?’ He did not suppose there was. ‘you can make as many disclaimers as
you may think proper; to these we do not object; these we are prepared to
expect; but we still desire these petitions and this remonstrance to be laid
before the House.’ He should prefer that some other person would present them. ‘But
the same excuse that you make might be made by every other member; and where
then would be the right of petition? If a memorial relating to the liberty of
the people of Massachusetts, and to the millions in this country who are
groaning in bondage, couched in respectful and solemn phraseology, is to be
denied a presentation, so may all others of an inferior nature if the petitions
are in error as to the form or substance of their request, is it not obviously
the true way to allay popular agitation for the Legislature to show wherein
they err?’ He had no doubt that the dissolution of the Union would be the
abolition of slavery; but he went for the Union as the lesser of two evils!
Humane man—upright moralist—profound logician! To cease ‘striking hands with
thieves and consenting with adulterers’—to refuse any longer to join in the
enslavement of three millions of the people of this country—would certainly
give liberty to the oppressed, and put an end to all the woes and horrors of
the slave system, but it would be injurious to ourselves!! How disinterested
the action, how exact the calculation! See what folly it is to obey God by
remembering them that are in bonds as bound with them, and loving our neighbors
as ourselves! See how safe, profitable and. expedient it is to commit sin, perpetrate
robbery, and exercise tyranny, on a gigantic sale! ‘The end sanctifies the
means—I am for doing evil that good may come’—is the moral philosophy of this
leader of the Democratic party.
Mr. BOUTWELL may
reconcile—if he can—the consistency of his acts in refusing to present a
disunion petition to the House; and then, after its presentation by other
hands, protesting against its being summarily laid upon the table as a virtual
denial of the right of petition, and advocating its reference to the Judiciary
Committee. We are unable to reconcile discrepancies so glaring.
We admonished him—as
we would admonish all politicians—that this great and solemn question is not to
be dodged, crowded down, or shuffled out of sight, with impunity—that those who
are pressing it are not lacking in intelligence or spirit, neither are they to
be discouraged by defeat or intimidated by censure—that it is the religious
element, it its purest and most disinterested manifestation, by which they are
impelled—a dread of sin, a hatred of tyranny, a sacred love of liberty, and a
sentiment of obedience to God, overriding all party ties and all constitutional
requirements—and therefore not to be trifled with.
On Wednesday
forenoon, Mr. TOLMAN presented the remonstrance of Francis Jackson and others,
against the action of the House on Friday last, as follows:
To the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
The undersigned,
petitioners ‘for a Convention of the People of this Commonwealth to devise
measures for a peaceful Secession of Massachusetts from the Union,’
respectfully ask for a reconsideration of the vote of the House, on Friday
last, by which those petitioners had leave to withdraw their petition—basing their
request and their remonstrance against the action of the house on the following
grounds:—
1. That the
petitioners had no opportunity to be heard before your Committee in support of
the object prayed for; the action both of the Committee and the House manifesting,
in the judgment of the undersigned, precipitancy, and being without any good
precedent.
2. That if a patient
hearing is cheerfully conceded to petitions touching matters of the smallest
pecuniary interest, much more does the same, of right, belong to questions
involving the welfare, honor and liberty of millions.
3. That while your
petitioners are subjected, by the Constitution and laws of the United States,
and therefore of this Commonwealth, to heavy fines for obeying the law of God,
and refusing to deliver up the fugitive slave, or giving him aid and
protection, they feel that they have a right to be heard in asking to be
relieved from such immoral obligations.
4. That while citizens
of this Commonwealth, on visiting Southern States, are seized, thrust into privation,
condemned to work with felons in the chain-gain, and frequently sold on the
auction block as slaves;—and while the governments both of the United States
and of the Southern States have refused, or made it penal, to attempt a remedy—and
while this Commonwealth has given up all effort to vindicate the rights of its
citizens as hopeless and impracticable, under the present Union—it is
manifestly the duty of the Commonwealth, as a Sovereign State, to devise some
other measure for the redress and prevention of so grievous a wrong, which your
petitioners are profoundly convinced can be reached only by a secession from
the present union.
5. That while the
matter touched on in said petitions has attracted so much attention, and
awakened so deep an interest in all parts of the country, it is clearly the
duty of the legislature, in the opinion of the undersigned, either to hear the
reasons on which the petitioners found their request, or, at least, to make a
plain statement of the petitioners’ mistake as to the form or substance of the
remedy prayed for.
6. That on a subject
so momentous, the precipitate rejection of a petition, without reason given
therefore, or opportunity offered to the petitioners to support their request,
is a virtual denial of the right of petition.
Mr. Tolman made a
few sensible remarks, defining his own position, and expressing his conviction
that the petitioners had not been fairly treated. He therefore moved that the
remonstrance he referred to the Committee of the Judiciary.
Mr. Codman, of
Boston, moved that the remonstrants have leave to withdraw their remonstrance;
and on this the yeas and nays were ordered—41 to 125.
Mr. Earle, of
Worcester, moved to refer the remonstrance to the Special committee on Slavery,
and supported his motion in some earnest and forcible remarks. A long debate
ensued—Messrs. Earle and Tolman, Griswold of Greenfield, Branning of Tyringham,
and Wilson of Natick, supporting the commitment, and Messrs. Codman, Schouler
and Kimball of Boston, Hoar of Concord, and Smith of Enfield, (the last named
an orthodox deacon, in appearance ‘a sleek oily man of God,’) opposing it.
Mr. Williams, of
Taunton, demanded the previous question, which was ordered, thus cutting off
the motion to commit.
The yeas and nays
were then taken on Mr. Codman’s motion to give the remonstrants leave to
withdraw, and the motion was carried—yeas 192, nays 63—Mr. Boutwell, of Groton,
voting in the affirmative.
It is due to Mr.
Wilson of Natick, to say that his course on this occasion was manly, explicit
and commendable. In explanation of his vote on Friday, he said he was not aware
that the petitioners desired a hearing: if he had been, he would not have voted
that they should have leave to withdraw their petitions until they had been
fully and fairly heard. We accept the explanation, and so would mitigate the
severity of our censure; at the same time wondering that he should have
supposed that he should have been the first to hasten the action of the House
on this subject. Well, this is our
defence—
‘Though we break our fathers’ promise, we have nobler duties first:
The traitor to Humanity is the traitor most accurst!
Man is more than Constitutions—better rot beneath the sod,
Than be true to Church and state while we are doubly false to God!’
SOURCE: “No Union
With Slaveholders!” The Liberator,
Boston, Massachusetts, Friday, February 22, 1850, p. 2, cols. 5-6
