Horace Greeley, Henry Ward Beecher et al to Gerrit Smith, June 1865

June, 1865.

Gerrit Smith, Esq., New York:

Dear Sir, — The events which, with increasing emphasis are inscribing our national history, attract and impress the public mind. We think that information is needed and counsel required. We know that the interest which you have felt in the conflict which is passed, continues to the stages of its pacification and close.

Understanding your willingness to communicate with your fellow citizens on national topics, we would be pleased could you address a public meeting in this city, at the Cooper Institute, on the evening of next Thursday, the 8th instant, on the present attitude of the country.

Horace Greeley,

C. Godfrey Gunther,

E. H. Chapin,

Henry Ward Beecher,

Rich'd O'gorman,

David Dudley Field,

Sam'l L. M. Barlow,

Henry W. Bellows,

Hiram Ketchum.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 293

Gerrit Smith

As a general thing, they who in the late war fought for the salvation of our country, were poor. Included in this salvation were the estates of our rich men. It would be an expression of justice and gratitude toward the poor, and at the same time not at all oppressive to the rich, were our large estates made to pay, for a few years to come, a greater proportion than they now pay of the annual payment on our war debt. Moreover both the benevolence and patriotism of our rich men should make it a pleasure to them to pay ten per cent on incomes exceeding ten thousand dollars, and twenty per cent on incomes exceeding twenty thousand dollars.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 271-2

Gerrit Smith: Destroy Not Man's Faith In Man!, June 12, 1862

DESTROY NOT MAN'S FAITH IN MAN!

ACCEPT THE RIGHT MAN, WHICHEVER PARTY NOMINATES HIM!

A people are demoralized by being trained to the ready entertainment of charges of corruption against those, whom they select to be their rulers, teachers and exemplars. For, when they can easily suspect such ones of baseness and crime, their faith in man is destroyed. It scarcely need be added that, when they have no longer faith in man, they will be quick to acquiesce in the application of a very low standard of morality to their leaders, and a still lower one to themselves. I say a still lower one, inasmuch as they will, naturally, expect a less degree of moral worth in the masses than in the individual, who is, here and there, selected from the masses on account of his superior wisdom and virtue. How much better it would be to persuade the people that it is their duty to hold sacred the reputation of those, whom they elevate to posts of honor! For how much more like would they, then, be to elevate those only, whose reputation is worthy to be held sacred! Moreover, what could be more elevating to themselves than such carefulness in selecting their guides and representatives!

I have been led to make these remarks by seeing the recent calumnious and contemptuous treatment of the Chief Justice and such Senators as Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Trumbull. The flood-gates of defamation were opened upon Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Trumbull, because they voted for the acquittal of the President. I wish they had voted for his conviction. For, although I had not, previously, taken much interest in the proposition to impeach him, nevertheless, after reading those parts of his last Annual Message in which he traduces the colored citizens of our country, I was quite willing to have him removed from office. Were Victoria to take such an outrageous liberty with the Irish or Scotch or Welsh, she would quickly be relieved of her crown. I do not forget that insulting the negro is an American usage. But not with impunity should the President of the whole American people insult, in his official capacity, any of the races, which make up that people — least of all the race, which is, already, the most deeply wronged of them all. This gross violation of the perfect impartiality, which should ever mark the administration of the President's high Office — this ineffable meanness of assailing the persecuted and weak, whom he might rather have consoled and cheered, should not have been overlooked, but should have been promptly and sternly rebuked. How petty the President's affair with Mr. Stanton, compared with his unrelenting wicked war upon these black millions, to whose magnanimous forgiveness of our measureless wrongs against them, and to whose brave help of our Cause we were so largely indebted for its success!

I said that I wish Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Trumbull had voted for the conviction of the President. Nevertheless, in the light of their life-long uprightness, I have not the least reason to doubt that they voted honestly. Nay, in the light of their eminent wisdom, I am bound to pause and inquire of my candid judgment whether they did not vote wisely as well as honestly.

This clamor against the Chief Justice was not, as is pretended, occasioned by his conduct in the Impeachment Trial. That this conduct was wise and impartial, scarcely one intelligent man can doubt. This clamor proceeded from the purpose of preventing his nomination to the Presidency. It is said that he desires to be President. But a desire for this high Office is not, necessarily, culpable. Instead of being prompted in all instances by selfishness, it may in some instances be born of a high patriotism and a disinterested philanthropy. For one, I should rejoice to see the Chief Justice in the Presidency; — and I say this, after a-many-years intimate acquaintance with him — after much personal observation of the workings of his head and heart. I, however, expect to vote for Grant and Colfax. I like them both; and, in the main, I like the platform on which they stand. Nevertheless, if contrary to my expectations, the Democrats shall have the wisdom to nominate the Chief Justice, and along with him a gentleman of similar views and spirit — a gentleman honest both toward the Nation's creditors and toward the negro — I shall prefer to vote for the Democratic Candidates. And why, in the case of such nomination by the Democrats, should not every Republican be willing, nay glad, to sustain the nomination? If the Democrats, at last sick and ashamed, as I have no doubt tens of thousands of them are, of ministering to the mean spirit of caste — prating for “a white man's government,” and defying the sentiment of the civilized world — shall give up their nonsense and wickedness, and nominate for office such men as Republicans have been eager to honor — how wanting in magnanimity and in devotion to truth, and how enslaved to Party, would Republicans show themselves to be, were they not to welcome this overture, and generously respond to these concessions!

By all means should the Republicans let, ay and help, the Democratic Party succeed at the coming Election, provided only that its candidates be the representatives of a real and righteous, instead of a cutaneous and spurious, Democracy. That success would bring to an end this too-long-continued War between Republicans and Democrats. That success would turn us all into Republicans and all into Democrats. The old and absorbing issues about Slavery and its incidents would, then, have passed away. The “everlasting negro,” having gained his rights, would then have sunk out of sight. Doubtless, new Parties would, ere long, be formed. But they would be formed with reference to new questions or, more generally, to old ones, which, by reason of the engrossing interest in the Slavery Battle, have been compelled to wait very long, and with very great detriment to the public weal, for their due share of the public attention.

And, then too, when the quarrel between the Republican and Democratic Parties had ended, Peace between the North and the South would speedily come. Hitherto, the Republican Party has been so anxious to keep a bad Party out of power, that it has not been in a mood to use or study all the means for producing Peace between the North and South. It should, immediately on the surrender of the South, have inculcated on the North the duty of penitently confessing her share of the responsibility for the War—a share as great as the South's, since the responsibility of the North for Slavery, out of which the War grew, was as great as the South's. Quickly would the South have followed this example of penitent confession. And, then, the two would have rivalled each other in expressions of mutual forgiveness and mutual love. Amongst these expressions would have been the avowal of the North to charge no one with Treason, and to open wide the door for the return of every exile, who had not, by some mean or murderous violation of the laws of war, shut himself out of the pale of humanity. And amongst these expressions would have been the joyful consent of the North to let fifty or a hundred millions go from the National Treasury toward helping her War-impoverished sister rise up out of her desolations. The heart of the South would, now, have been won; and she would have manifested the fact by tendering to the North a carte blanche — feeling no fear that there would be any designed injustice in the terms of “Reconstruction,” which her forgiving and generous foe should write upon it. Yes, there would, then, have been Peace between the North and the South — a true and loving and enduring Peace. Ashamed of their past, they would unitedly and cordially have entered upon the work of making a future for our country as innocent and as happy as that past had been guilty and sorrowful. It is not, now, too late to have, by such means, such a Peace. We should, surely, have it, were there to be, at the coming Election, that oneness between Republicans and Democrats, which good sense and good feeling call for.

Is it said that the money, which in loans or (preferably) gifts to the South, I ask to have used in effecting this Peace would make the Peace cost too much? I answer that it would be returned tenfold. The improvement in our National credit, resulting from such a Peace, would, very soon, enable our Government to borrow at an interest of four per cent. Comparatively small, then, would be our taxes, and, by the way, comparatively small, then, would be the temptation to cheat the Nation's creditors.

Peterboro JUNE 12 1868.

G. S.

Bottom of Form

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 266-7; Smith, Gerrit. Destroy not man's faith in man! Accept the right man, whichever party nominates him! ... G. S. Peterboro. Peterboro, 1868. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/rbpe.12703100/. 

Gerrit Smith

As long as Andersonville shall live in the world's memory, (and can its sins and sorrows ever be forgotten?) so long shall it warn men not to trample upon nor forget the rights of their fellow-men. By the way, the guilt of Andersonville rests not alone on the South. The North has countenanced and justified the Southern contempt and denial of the rights of the black man. Nor was this by Democrats only. The Republican Party, though not so extensively, was also involved in the guilt. The doctrine that the black man has no rights, is still virtually subscribed to, not only by the mass of the Democrats, but by multitudes of Republicans also. Many a Northern church is still defiled by it. The religion and politics, the commerce and social usages of the North are all to be held as having a part in fashioning the policy which rules at Andersonville; the policy of ignoring the rights of prisoners of war, and of starving and murdering them. Moreover, many a prisoner there, if his sufferings have sufficiently clarified his vision for it, is able to see that he is himself chargeable with a responsible part in the production of those sufferings; — ay, that he is “hoist with his own petard.” In his political or ecclesiastical party, and elsewhere also, he has contributed to uphold the southern policy of excluding the black man from all rights; and consequently, as events have proved, of excluding himself too from them.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 264-5

Gerrit Smith: The News From England, January 3, 1862

Alas! that this news should find us still embarrassed, and still diddling with the negro question!  Alas! That we should still have one war upon our hands, while we are threatened with another?  Had we, as we should have done, disposed of this question at the beginning of the war, then would its beginning have also been its ending.  If slavery was not, as it certainly was, the sole cause of the war, it nevertheless, was that vulnerable spot in the foe at which we should have struck without a moment’s delay.  Instead of repelling the negroes, bond and free, by insults and cruel treatment we could have brought them all to our side by simply inviting them to it.  As it is, the war has grown into a very formidable one; and the threatened one whereas, had we not acted insanely on the negro question, we could have dreaded neither.  More than this, had we, as it was so easy to do, struck instant death into the first war, we should have escaped the threat of this second one.

For what is it that the English press threatens us with war? It is for compelling the English ship to give up the rebel commissioners, so it says. This is the ostensible reason. But would not England — she who is so famous for clinging to an almost entirely unqualified and unlimited right of search — have done the same thing in like circumstances? If she would not, then she would not have been herself. Had a part of her home counties revolted and sent a couple of their rebels to America for help, would she not have caught them if she could? And in whatever circumstances they might have been found? If she says she would not, there is not on all the earth one “Jew Apella” so credulous as to believe her. If she confesses she would, then is she self-convicted, not only of trampling in her boundless dishonesty on the great and never-to-be-violated principle of doing as we would be done by, but of insulting us by claiming that we ought to be tame and base enough to forbear to do that which her self-respect and high spirit would prompt her to do.

But perhaps England would not have done as we did.  Her naval captains have taken thousands of seamen from our ships — these captains constituting themselves the sole accusers, witnesses and judges in the cases. It was chiefly for such outrages that we declared war against her in 1812. The instance of the San Jacinto and Trent is not like these. In this instance there was no question, because no doubt, of personal identity. But I repeat, perhaps England would not have done as we did.  In a case so aggravated, she would, perhaps, may, probably, have taken ship and all.  By the way, it may be that we did act illegally in not seizing the ship as well as the rebels, and subjecting her to a formal trial; but if in this we fell into a mistake, could England be so mean as to make war upon us for it? — for a mistake which was prompted by a kind and generous regard for the comfort and interests of Englishmen? Surely, if England is not noble enough to refuse to punish for any mere mistake, She is, nevertheless, not monstrous enough to punish for the mistake, which grew solely out of the desire to serve her.

But wherein have we harmed England in this matter?  We have insulted her, is the answer. We have not, however, intended to insult her: and an unintended insult is really no insult.  If, in my eagerness to overtake the man who has deeply injured me, I run rudely through my neighbor’s house he will not only not accuse me of insulting him, but he will pardon so much to my very excusable eagerness as to leave but little ground of any kind of complaint against me.  Surely, if England were but to ask her own heart how she would feel toward men in her own bosom, who, without the slightest provocation, were busy in breaking up her nation, and in plundering and slaughtering her people, she would be more disposed to shed tears of pity for us that to make war upon us.

It is not possible that England will make war on us for what we did to the Trent, and for doing which she has herself furnished us innumerable precedents.  It is not possible that she will so ignore, nay, so deny and dishonor her own history. I will not believe that England, whom I have ever loved and honored almost as if she were my own country, and who, whatever prejudiced and passionate American writers have written to the contrary, has hitherto, during our great and sore trial done nothing through her government, nor through the great body of her people, to justify the attempt by a portion (happily a very small and very unworthy portion) of our press to stir up our national feeling against her — I say I will not believe that this loved and honored England will make war upon us for a deed in which we intended her no wrong; in which, so far as her own example is authority, there is no wrong; and in which, in the light of reason, and, as it will prove in the judgment of mankind, there is no wrong. She could not make such a causeless war upon us without deeply and broadly blotting her own character and he character of modern civilization. But, after, all, what better is our modern civilization than a mere blot and blotch if the nation which is preeminently its exponent, can be guilty, and without the least real cause of provocation, and upon pretests as frivolous as they are false, of seeing to destroy a sister nation? — a sister nation, too, whose present embarrassments and distresses appeal so strongly to every good heart? Moreover, how little will it argue for the cause of human rights, and popular institutions, if the nation, which claims to be the chief champion of that cause, can wage so wicked a war upon a nation claiming no humbler relation to that precious cause?

What, then, do I hold that England should do in this case?

1st. Reprimand or more severely punish the captain of the Trent for his very gross and very guilty violation of our rights in furnishing exceedingly important facilities to our enemy. This our government should have promptly insisted on, and not have suffered England to get the start of us with her absurd counter claim.  This is a case in which not we, but England, should have been made defendant.  It is her Captain who is the real offender.  Ours is, at the most, but a nominal one.  In the conduct of her Captain were in spirit and purpose, as well as the doing, of wrong.  The conduct of ours, on the contrary, was prompted by the spirit and purpose of doing right; and if, in any respect, it was erroneous, it was simply in regard to the forms of doing right.  Moreover, the guilt of her Captain can be diminished by nothing that was seemingly or really guilty in ours. The criminality of taking the rebels into the Trent was none the less, because of any mistakes which attended the getting of them out.  Nevertheless, England takes no action against him.  Her policy is to have her guilty Captain lost sight of in her bluster about our innocent one.  To screen the thief, she cries, “Stop thief!”  Her policy is to prevent us from getting the true issue before the public mind, by occupying it with her false one.

How preposterous is the claim of England to her right to make war, because we took our rebellious subjects from her ship!  The taking of them into her ship is the only thing in the case which can possibly furnish cause of war. That, unless amply apologized for, does, in the light of international law, furnish abundant cause of war.

Did every hypocrisy and impudence go farther than in England’s putting America on trial! Was there ever a more emphatic “putting the saddle on the wrong horse”? I overtake the thief who has stolen my watch, and jerk it from his pocket.  He turns to the people, not to confess his theft, but to protest against my rudeness, and to have me, instead of himself, regarded as the criminal!

An old fable tells us that a council of animals, with the lion at their head, put an ass on trial for having “broused the bigness of his tongue.” The lion (England) was constrained to confess that he had himself eaten sheep, and shepherds too.  Nevertheless, it was the offence of the ass (America) that caused the council to shudder with horror. “What! Eat another’s grass? O shame!” and so the virtuous rascals condemned him to die, and rejoiced anew in their conscious innocence.

Moreover, England, instead of turning to her own conscience with the true case, has the brazen effrontery to appeal to our conscience with her trumped-up case.  Which of the parties in this instance needs conscience-quickening, in no less certain than in the instance of the footpad and the traveler, when he had robbed of his bags of gold.  The poor traveler meekly asked for a few coins to defray his expenses homeward. “Take them from one of the bags,” said the footpad, with an air of chivalrous magnanimity; but on seeing the traveler take half a dozen instead of two or three, he exclaimed, “Why, man, have you no conscience?”  England, through her subject and servant, entered into a conspiracy against America.  America, through her subject and servant, forbore to punish the wickedness, and simply stopped it.  And yet England bids us to our conscience!

Why Should England protect her captain?  Her Queen, in her last May’s Proclamation, warned him that, for doing what he has done, he should, “in no wise obtain any protection.” He had full knowledge of the official character of the rebles, and at least inferential knowledge of their bearing dispatches with them.  But, besides that the whole spirit of it is against what he has done, her Proclamation specifies “officers” and “dispatches” in the list of what her subjects are prohibited to carry “for the use or service of either of the contending parties.

England did not protect the Captain of her mail-steamer, Teviot, who, during our war with Mexico was guilty of carrying the Mexican General Paredez.  He was suspended.  Why does she spare the Captain of the Trent?  Is it because she has more sympathy with the Southern Confederacy than she had with Mexico? — and is, therefore, more tender toward him who serves the former, than she was toward him who served the latter?  But it will, perhaps be said, that we have not demanded satisfaction in this case as we did in that.  England, nevertheless, knows that we are entitled to it; and that she is bound to satisfy us for the wrongs she did us, before she complains of the way we took to save ourselves from the deep injury with which that great and guilty wrong threatened us.  In this connexion, I add that if, upon her own principles and precedents, the Captain of the Trent deserves punishment for what he did, she is stopped from magnifying into a grave offence our undoing what we did.

2. The next thing that England should do is to give instructions, or rather repeat those in the Queen's Proclamation, that no more rebel commissioners be received into her vessels.

3. And then she should inform us whether, in the case of a vessel that shall hereafter offend in this wise, she would have us take the vessel itself, or take but the commissioners. It is true that whatever her preference, we would probably insist on taking the vessel in every case: — for it is not probable that we shall again expose ourselves in such a case to the charge of taking too little. It is, however, also true, that, should she prefer our taking the vessel, we will certainly never take less.

But such instructions and information, although they would provide for future cases, would leave the present case unprovided for; and England might still say that she could not acquiesce in our having, in this case, taken the Commissioners instead of the vessel.  What then?  She ought to be content with the expression of our regret that we did not take the mode of her choice, and the more so as that mode could not have been followed by any different result in respect to our getting possession of the Commissioners.  But this might not satisfy her: — and what then?  She should generously wait until that unnatural and horrid war is off our hands; and if the parties could not then agree, they should submit the case to an Umpire.  If, however, she should call for an Umpire now, then, although the civilized world would think badly of her for it, and our own nation be very slow to forgive her for it, I would nevertheless, in my abhorrence of all war, have our government consent to an Umpire now. Nay, in the spirit of this abhorrence, and for the sake of peace, I would go much farther.  If no other concession we could make would satisfy England, I would have our Government propose to surrender the rebels, Mason and Slidell, in case the English Government would say, distinctly and solemnly, that it would not itself disturb neutral vessels having on board rebels who had gone out from England in quest of foreign aid to overturn the English Government.  An ineffably base Government would it prove itself to be should it refuse to say this, and yet declare war on the ground of our capture of the rebels who were on their way for foreign help to overturn our government.

I spoke of my abhorrence of all war.  Our lifelong opponents of war find themselves unexpectedly in sympathy with mighty armies.  They have to confess that they never anticipated a rebellion so fast; still less did they ever anticipate that England would be guilty of coming to the help of such a satanic rebellion.

I have said that England will not go to war with us in the case of the Trent. Nevertheless I am not without fear that her government will be driven to declare war against us. The Government of no other nation (and this is honorable to England) is more influenced by the people.  By such an affair as the capture of Mason and Slidell, the patriotism of the least-informed and superficial and excitable part of her people is easily and extensively wrought upon. With this part of her people the inviolability of the British flag is more than all earth besides.  But it is not by that capture, nor by those classes to whom it appeals with such peculiar power that the Government will be moved. If an irresistible pressure comes upon the government, it will come from those portions of the people who long for the cotton and free trade of the South, and who have allowed themselves to get angry with the North by foolishly misconstruing our high tariff (which is simply a war measure) into a hostile commercial measure. The capture of Mason and Slidell will be only the pretext, not the provocation; only the occasion, not the cause of war.

If England wishes to go to war with us for any wrongs we have done her, she shall not have the chance—for we will promptly repair the wrongs, at whatever sacrifices of property or pride. But if, as I still honor and love her too much to believe, she wishes to go to war with us at any rate, and chooses this our time of trouble as her time to make us an easy prey, then will she be gratified.  It will be but fair, however, to advertise her that she must not take our fighting in the war with the rebels as a sample of what will be our fighting in the war with herself.  The former is fooling.  The latter will be fighting.  On all subjects connected with slavery, and therefore in a war about slavery, we Americans are fools.  We cannot help it.  We have worshipped the idol so long and so devoutly, that when in its all-influential presence, we cannot be men. The powers of our moral nature are, however, not destroyed; they are but perverted.  And such an outrage as the English press threatens us with will restore their legitimate use.  Our manhood is not dead; it but sleeps.  And as it was when the Philistines fell upon the bound Samson, that the Spirit of the Lord came to his help, so, when the English shall fall upon the worse-bound Americans, this sleeping manhood will awake.  And it will awake to assert itself, not merely against the English, but against the rebels also.  And It will do this mightily, because it will, and the same time, be asserting itself against its own life-long degradations, and the hateful cause of them.  Let us but know that England, to whom we have done no wrong, has resolved to come to the help of the Pro-Slavery Rebellion, and our deep indignations against her, combining with our deeper indignation against ourselves, will arm us with the spirit of the power to snap the “cords,” and “green withs,” and “new ropes,” with which slavery has bound us to dash to dust the foul idol whose worship has so demented and debased us.  Yes, let us hear this month that England has declared war against us, and this month will witness our Proclamation of Liberty to every slave in the land.  No thanks will be due her for the happy effect upon us of her Declaration of war.  No thanks will be due her that the Declaration will have the effect to save us — to save us by making us anti-slavery.  No more half-way measures, and no more nonsense on the Subject of slavery, shall we then propose.  There will be no more talk then of freeing one sort of slaves, and continuing the other in slavery; but we shall then invite every negro in the land, bond and free, to identify himself, “arm and soul,” with our cause.  And then there will be no more talk of swapping off taxes for negroes, and no more talk of colonizing and apprenticing them.  Then we shall be eager to lift up the negroes into the enjoyment of all the rights of manhood, that so we may have in them men to stand by our side, and help us make short work with the present war, and with that with which we are threatened.

Owing to the bewitching and debauching influence of slavery upon our whole nation, there are, even in the Free States, divisions among us in regard to the present war.  But should England so causelessly, cruelly and meanly force a war upon us, there will be no divisions among us in regard to that war: — nor, indeed, will there then be in regard to the other. And so deep and abiding will be our sense of her boundless injustice, that there will never be any boundless injustice, that there will never be any among us to welcome propositions of peace with England, until her war with us shall have reached the result of our subjugation, or of her expulsion from every part of the Continent of North America.  Moreover, we shall rejoice to hear of the crushing of her power every where — for we shall feel that the nation which can be guilty of such a war is fit to govern no where — in the Eastern no more than in the Western hemisphere.

SOURCES: “News from England by Geritt Smith,” The Liberator, Boston, Massachusetts, Friday, January 3, 1862, p. 4; An abstract of thes article appears in Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 262-3

Gerrit Smith, 1864

The President of the United States is both a great and a good man. But neither greatness nor goodness would be manifest in consenting to a peace, which, however admirable in other respects, failed nevertheless to secure the ballot to the black man, and left him therefore, at the mercy of his enemy and ours — of his and our demonized enemy. Happily, among the highest proofs that the President is both great and good, is his willingness to grow and change. Such willingness is not found in little and mean men.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 260

Gerrit Smith to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, June 6, 1864

PETERBORO, June 6, 1864.

MRs. E. CADY STANTON, New-York:

MY DEAR Cousin: I have your letter. It would be too great labor to answer all, who seek to know my choice amongst the presidential candidates. But I must answer you.

I have no choice. The first of September will be time enough for me and for every other person to have one. Intermediate events and changes will be indispensable lessons in our learning who should be the preferred candidate. To commit ourselves in time of war to a candidate one month before it is necessary, is worse than would be a whole year of such prematureness in time of peace. Then there is the absorbing, not to say frenzying, interest, which attends our important elections. That it is frenzying is manifest from the scornful reproach and wild invective, which the press is already heaping up on Lincoln and Fremont — both of them honest and able men, and both of them intent on saving the country. How unwise, nay how insane, to let this absorbing and frenzying interest come needlessly early into rivalry with our interest in the one great work of crushing the rebellion! For more than half a year have I frequently and faithfully, both with lips and pen, deprecated the premature agitation of the question who should be the chosen candidate. If, therefore, the Cleveland and Baltimore Conventions shall have the effect to divide the loyal voters so far as to let a pro-slavery and sham Democrat slip into the Presidency through their divisions, I, at least, shall not be responsible for the ruin that may come of it.

My concern whether it shall be Lincoln or Fremont or Chase or Butler or Grant who shall reach the presidential chair is comparatively very slight. But my concern to keep out of it a man, who would make any other terms with the rebels than their absolute submission is overwhelming. For any other terms would not only destroy our nation, but lessen the sacredness of nationality everywhere, and sadly damage the most precious interests of all mankind.

Since the Rebellion broke out, I have been nothing but an anti-rebellion man. So unconditionally have I gone for putting it down unconditionally, as to make no stipulations in behalf of m most cherished objects and dearest interests. And so shall I continue to go. I love the anti-slavery cause. Nevertheless, I would have the rebellion put down at whatever necessary expense to that cause. I love the Constitution; and deprecate the making of any even the slightest change in it. Nevertheless, I make infinitely less account of saving it than of destroying the rebellion. I love my country. But sooner than see her compromise with the rebels, I would see her exhaust herself and perish in her endeavors to defeat their crime — that greatest crime of all the ages and all the world. I do not forget that many of my old fellow abolitionists accuse me of having been unfaithful to the anti-slavery cause during the rebellion. My first answer to them is — that to help suppress the rebellion is the duty which stands nearest to me: and my second answer — that in no way so well as in suppressing it can the anti-slavery cause or any other good cause be promoted. There is not a good cause on the earth that has not an enemy in the unmixed and mighty wickedness of this rebellion.

You will rightly infer from what I have said, that my vote will be cast just where I shall judge it will be like to go farthest in keeping a disloyal man out of the Presidency. My definition of a disloyal man includes every one who would consent to obtain peace by concessions to the rebels – concessions however slight. Should the rebellion be disposed of before the election, I might possibly refuse to vote for any of the present candidates. When voting in time of war, and especially such a fearful war as the present, for a Governor or President, I vote for a leader in the war rather than for a civil ruler. Where circumstances leave me free to vote for a man with reference mainly to his qualifications as a civil ruler, I am, as my voting for thirty years proves, very particular how I vote. In 1856, Fremont was in nomination for the Chief Magistracy. I honored him — but I did not vote for him. In 1860, Lincoln was nominated for it. I had read his Debate with Senator Douglas, and I thought well of him. But neither for him did I vote. To-day, however, I could cheerfully vote for either to be the constitutional head of the army and navy. I go further, and say, that to save the Presidential office from going into the hands of one who would compromise with the rebels I, would vote for a candidate far more unsound on slavery than the severest abolition critic might judge either Lincoln or Fremont to be. But were there no such danger, I would sternly refuse to vote for any man who recognizes, either in or out of the Constitution, a law for slavery, or who would graduate any human rights, natural or political, by the color of the skin.

This disposition to meddle with things before their time is one that has manifested itself, and worked badly, all the way through the war. The wretched attempts at “Reconstruction” are an instance of it. “Reconstruction” should not so much as have been spoken of before the rebellion was subdued. I hope that by that time all loyal men, the various doctrines and crotchets to the contrary notwithstanding, will be able to see that the seceded States did, practically as well as theoretically, get themselves out of the Union and Nation — as effectually out as if they had never been in. Our war with Mexico ended in a treaty of peace with her. Doubtless our war with the South will end in like manner. If we are the conqueror, the treaty will, I assume, be based on the unconditional surrender of the South. And then the South, having again become a portion of our nation, Congress will be left as free to ordain the political divisions of her territory, as it was to ordain those of the territory we conquered from Mexico. Next in order, Congress will very soon, as I have little doubt, see it to be safe and wise to revive our old State lines. Nevertheless, I trust, that such revival would never be allowed until Congress should see it to be clearly safe and wise. We hear much of the remaining constitutional rights of the loyal men in the seceded States. But they, no more than their rebellious neighbors, have such rights. It is true that the rebellion is their misfortune instead of their crime. Nevertheless, it severed every political cord as well between the nation and themselves as between the nation and those rebellious neighbors. The seceded States embarked in a revolution, which swept away all the political relations of all their people, loyal as well as disloyal. Such is the hazard, which no man, however good, can escape from. If the major part or supreme power of his State carries it to destruction, he is carried along with it. A vigilant, informed, active, influential member of his body politic does it therefore behoove every good man to be. In his haste for “Reconstruction,” the President went forward in it — whereas he is entitled to not the least part in it, until Congress has first acted in it. In the setting up of military or provisional governments, as we proceed in our conquests, his is the controlling voice — for he is the military head of the nation. But in regard to the setting up of civil governments in the wake of those conquests, he is entitled to no voice at all until after Congress has spoken. Another instance of meddling with things before their time is this slapping of the face of France with the “Monroe Doctrine.” I was about to say that doing so serves but to provoke the enmity of France. There is, however, one thing more which it provokes and that is the ridicule of the world. For us, whilst the rebels are still at the throat of our nation, and may even be at her funeral, to be resolving that we will protect the whole Western Continent from the designs of the whole Eastern Continent, is as ludicrous a piece of impotent bravado as ever the world laughed at. And still another instance of our foolish prematureness is the big words in which we threaten to punish the leaders of the rebellion. It would be time enough for these big words when we had subdued the rebellion and captured the leaders. In the mean time there should be only big blows. Moreover, if we shall succeed in getting these leaders into our hands, it will be a question for the gravest consideration whether we should not beg their pardon instead of punishing them. What was it that stirred up the rebellion? The spirit of slavery. That alone is the spirit by means of which Southern treason can build up a fire in the Southern heart whose flames shall burst out in rebellion. Slavery gone from the South, and there will never more be rebellions there to disturb the peace and prosperity in which North and South will ever after dwell together. Who was the guiltier party in feeding and inflaming that spirit? The pro-slavery and preponderant North. The guiltier North it was, that had the more responsible part in moulding the leaders of the rebellion. Does it then become this guiltier North to be vengeful toward these her own creations—her own children ?—and, what is more, vengeful toward them for the bad spirit which she herself had so large a share in breathing into them? — for the Satanic character which she herself did so much to produce in them? But I shall be told that the North has repented of her in upholding slavery, and thereby furnishing the cause of the rebellion; and that the South should have followed her example. But if her repentance did not come until after the rebellion broke out, then surely it came too late to save her from responsibility for the rebellion. Has it, however, come even yet? I see no proof of it. I can see none so long as the American people continue to trample upon the black man. God can see none. Nor will he stay his desolating judgments so long as the American Congress, instead of wiping out penitently and indignantly all fugitive slave statutes, is infatuated enough to be still talking of “the rights of slaveholders,” and of this being “a nation for white men.” Assured let us be, that God will never cease from his controversy with this guilty nation until it shall have ceased from its base and blasphemous policy of proscribing, degrading, and outraging portions of his one family. The insult to him in the persons of his red and black children, of which Congress was guilty in its ordinance for the Territory of Montana, will yet be punished in blood, if it be not previously washed out in the tears of penitence. And this insult, too, whilst the nation is under God’s blows for like insults! What a silly as well as wicked Congress! And then that such a Congress should continue the policy of providing chaplains for the army! Perhaps, however, it might be regarded as particularly fit for such a Congress to do this. Chaplains to pray for our country's success whilst our country continues to perpetrate the most flagrant and diabolical forms of injustice! As if the doing of justice were not the indispensable way of praying to the God of justice! It is idle to imagine that God is on the side of this nation. He can not be with us. For whilst he is everywhere with justice, he is nowhere with injustice. I admit that he is not on the side of the rebellion. From nothing in all his universe can his soul be further removed than from this most abominable of all abominations. If we succeed in putting it down, our success, so far as God is concerned, will be only because he hates the rebellion even more than he hates our wickedness. To expect help from him in any other point of view than this, is absurd. Aside from this, our sole reliance must be, as was the elder Napoleon's, on having “the strongest battalions.” I believe we shall succeed — but that it will be only for the reasons I have mentioned — only because we are the stronger party and that God is even more against the rebels than he is against us. How needful, however, that we guard ourselves from confounding success against the rebellion with the salvation of the nation! Whether the nation shall be saved is another question than whether the rebellion shall be suppressed. In the providence of God, even a very wicked nation may be allowed to become a conqueror — may be used to punish another wicked nation before the coming of its own turn to be conquered and punished. But a nation, like an individual, can be saved only by penitence and justice.

SOURCES: Gerrit Smith, Speeches and Letters of Gerrit Smith (from January 1863, to January 1864), on the Rebellion, Volume 2, p. 14-8

Gerrit Smith’s Speech on the Fort Pillow and Plymouth Massacres: Peterboro, Massachusetts, April 26, 1864.

The whole civilized world will be startled and horrified by this slaughter of probably not less than five or six hundred persons. The excuse in the case of a part of the slaughtered is, that they were traitorous citizens of the Confederacy: in the case of another part, that they were whites fighting by the side of blacks: in the case of the remainder, including women and even children, that they were blacks. That these were blacks, was cause enough why, though numbering three or four hundred, they should be murdered — murdered in utter contempt of all the sacred rights of prisoners of war. It is of the crime against these, I would now speak.

Who are to be held amenable for this crime? The rebels. Yes, but not the rebels only. The authorship of this crime, so matchless in its worst features, is very comprehensive. The responsibility for it is wider than our nation. England shares in the authorship and responsibility, because it was she who planted slavery in America, and because it is slavery out of which this crime has come. Our own nation, however, is the far guiltier one. The guilt of this crime is upon all her people who have contributed to that public sentiment, which releases white men from respecting the rights of black men. Our highest Court says that this satanic sentiment prevailed in the early existence of our nation. Certain it is, that it has prevailed in all the later periods of that existence. Who are they who have contributed to generate it? All who have held that blacks are unfit to sit by the side of whites in the church, the school, the car and at the table. All who have been in favor of making his complexion shut out a black man from the ballot-box. All who have been for making a man's title to any of the rights of manhood turn on the color of the skin in which his Maker has chosen to wrap him. All, in short, who have hated or despised the black man.

Even President Lincoln, whom God now blesses and will yet more bless for the much he has done for his black brethren, is not entirely innnocent of the Fort Pillow and Plymouth massacres. Had his plan of “Reconstruction” recognized the right of the black men to vote, it would thereby have contributed to lift them up above outrage, instead of contributing, as it now does, to invite outrage upon them. By the way, it is a pity that he undertook “Reconstruction.” It was entirely beyond his civil capacity to do so: and it was entirely beyond his military capacity to have a part in setting up any other than a military or provisional government. Moreover, this is the only kind of government which it is proper to set up in the midst of war. The leisure and advantages of peace are necessary in the great and difficult work of establishing a permanent government. In this connection let me advert for a moment to the doctrine, “Once a State always a State” — a doctrine so frequently wielded against “Reconstruction” on any terms. Where is the authority for this doctrine? In the Constitution, it is said. But nowhere does the Constitution say that a State may plunge into war, secure at all hazards from some of the penalties of war. But amongst the penalties of war is whatever change the conqueror may choose to impose upon the conquered territory. I admit that it is very desirable to have all the revolting States reestablished — reinstated. But that there is any law by which this becomes inevitable is absurd. Nowhere does the Constitution say that a State is to be exempt from the operation of the law of war. Nowhere does it undertake to override the law of war. How clear is it, then, that by this paramount law these revolted States will, when conquered, lie at the will of the conqueror! And how clear is it, that it will then turn not at all upon the Constitution, but upon this will of the conqueror, backed by this paramount law of war, whether the old statehood of these States shall be revived, or whether they shall be remanded to a territorial condition, and put upon their good behavior!

There is another instance in which the President has contributed to that cruel public sentiment, which leaves the black race unprotected. I refer to his so strangely long delay in promising protection to the black soldier, and to the even longer and not yet ended delay in affording it. The President is a humane as well as an honest man; and the only explanation I can find for his delay to protect the black soldier and to put an end, so far as in him lies, to the various, innumerable, incessant outrages upon the freedmen is in the continuance of his childish and cowardly desire to conciliate his native Kentucky and the Democratic party.

I argued that even President Lincoln is responsible in some degree for that public sentiment, which invites outrage upon the black man and leaves him a prey to the wicked. Those Members of Congress, who are opposing the reasonable measure of letting the black man vote in the Territories, are also guilty of favoring that public sentiment which broke out in the crime at Fort Pillow and Plymouth. Similarly guilty are those members who would make the pay of a black soldier less than that of a white one. And so are those members who consent to leave a fugitive slave statute in existence. In a word, all should tax their consciences with the sin of this public sentiment and with the resulting crime at Fort Pillow and Plymouth, whose influence, by either word or deed, has been to keep up in this heathen land the caste-spirit—that preeminent characteristic of heathenism. I call this a heathen land. To the Christ-Religion — that simple religion of equal rights and of doing as you would be done by — there can be no greater insult than to call a nation in which, as in this, the most cruel and murderous caste-spirit prevails, a Christian nation.

Both on the right hand and on the left, I hear that our nation is to be saved. But my fears that it will not, often become very strong. That the Rebellion is to be crushed, I deeply believe. Often in the course of Providence a wicked people, which is itself to be afterward destroyed, is previously to be used in destroying another and generally more wicked people. There are striking illustrations of this in the Bible. The duty of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, Democrats and Republicans, to work unitedly, incessantly, and unconditionally for the overthrow of the Rebellion I have not only never doubted, but ever urged. I hold it to be unpatriotic and even traitorous for the Abolitionists to make any conditions in behalf of their specialty, and to propose, as some of them do, to go against the Rebellion only so far as going against it will be going against slavery. So too are those Democrats unpatriotic and even traitorous who can favor the War, only under the stipulation that it be so conducted as to harm neither the Democratic party nor the Constitution. To put down the Rebellion is an object immeasurably higher than to save a party or to save the Constitution, or even to save the country. No man is right-minded, who would not have it put down, even though it be at the expense of the last man and the last dollar.

If anything makes me doubt that the Rebellion will be crushed it is the omission of Congress to abolish slavery, now when it is so clearly seen that the abolition of slavery is an indispensable means to the abolition of the Rebellion. The proposed Amendment to the Constitution I take no interest in. One reason why I do not, is, that it is not a proposition to abolish slavery now. Another is, that war is not the time to be tinkering at constitutions. I see it denied that Congress has the power, even as a war measure, to abolish slavery. Amazing delusion! There is in every nation an absolute power for carrying on war. The nation that disclaims it may as well give up being a nation. In our own, this power is vested in Congress. Congress is to declare war: and Congress is “to make all laws necessary and proper (itself of course the sole judge of the necessity and propriety) for carrying into execution” the declaration. Is it the institution of apprenticeship, which it finds to be in the way of the successful prosecution of the war — then is it to sweep it out of the way. Is it the abomination of slavery? — then is it to strike at that.

There is, however, one thing more which sometimes, though not often, raises a doubt in me whether the Rebellion will be crushed. It is the premature agitation of the Presidential question. When the Rebellion broke out, I assumed that it would be put down in a few months — for I assumed that this greatest crime against nationality and humanity would arouse and unite the whole North. How greatly was I mistaken Very soon the Democratic party was seen to prefer itself to the country. The Republican party stood by the country. But at the present time there is no little danger that the country may be sacrificed in a strife between the members of the Republican party. For, taking advantage of this strife, the Democratic party may succeed in getting the reins of Government into the hands of one of its pro-slavery peacemakers. But I may be asked — will not the rebels be conquered and the country saved before the next Election? I still hope so — and until the last few months I believed so. But is there not some reason to fear that the North will be wrought up to a greater interest in this year's Presidential than in this year's military campaign In other words, is there not some reason to fear that, for the coming six months, politics instead of patriotism will be in the ascendant?

I still say, as through the past winter I have frequently said, written, and printed — that the Presidential question should not have been talked of, no, nor so much as thought of, until midsummer. The first of September is quite early enough to make the nomination; and in the mean time, undistracted by this so distracting subject, we should be working as one man for the one object of ending the Rebellion — and of ending it before reaching the perils of a presidential election. And such working would best educate us to make the best choice of a candidate. Moreover, it is the condition the country will be in three or four months hence, rather than the condition it is now in, that should be allowed to indicate the choice. Great and rapidly successive are the changes in the circumstances of a country in time of war. To nominate a President in time of peace, six months earlier than is necessary, all would admit to be great folly. But greater folly would it be to nominate him in time of war even a single month earlier than is necessary. The Baltimore Convention is understood to be a movement for renominating President Lincoln, and the Cleveland Convention one for nominating General Fremont. Would that both Conventions were dropped Would indeed that the whole subject were dropped until July or August! — and would too that it were dropped with the understanding, that it should then be taken up, not by the politicians, but by the people!

The people would present a loyal and an able candidate: and whether it were Lincoln or Fremont, Chase or Butler, Dickinson or Dix, the country would be safe.

I recall at this moment the large and respectable meeting for consultation held in Albany last January. What a pity that the meeting took fright at the temperate and timely resolutions reported to it! What a pity that the meeting saw in them danger to the country, or perhaps, more properly speaking, to a party! One of these resolutions and its advocates urged the importance of postponing until the latest possible day the whole subject of a Presidential nomination: and, had it been adopted and published, it would not unlikely have exerted sufficient influence to bring about such postponement. Time has proved the wisdom of the other resolutions also. I wish I could, without seeming egotism, say that slavery, and slavery alone, having brought this war upon us, they, who have given but little thought to slavery, should be too modest to toss aside indignantly and sneeringly the suggestions of those who have made it their life-long study. Were these resolutions now published, almost every man who opposed them, would wonder that he had so little foresight as to oppose them.

And there is still another thing which should perhaps be allowed to suggest a doubt whether the rebellion will be crushed. It is, that we are so reluctant to pay the cost of crushing it. Our brave soldiers and sailors give their lives to this end. But we who stay at home shrink from the money tax which is, and which should be far more largely put upon us. Our nation is imperiled by the incessant outflow of a big stream of gold. Wise and patriotic as he is, our Secretary of the Treasury will nevertheless labor in vain to diminish this stream unless importations shall be taxed far more heavily. Deeply disgraceful are these importations when it is by all that is precious in the very life of our nation that they are forbidden. Surely it is no time now to be indulging in foreign luxuries: and as to necessaries, our own country can furnish them all. Luxuries, whether foreign or domestic, should all come now with great cost to the consumer. And only a small return for protecting their estates from the rebels would it be for the rich to pay over to Government one fourth, and the very rich one half of their incomes. Let me add in this connection that the State Banks should be so patriotic, as to rejoice in the national advantage of an exclusively National currency.

I expressed my belief that the rebellion will be crushed — but my doubt whether the nation will be saved. A guilty nation, like a guilty individual, can be saved through repentance only. But where are the proofs that this nation has so much as begun to repent of the great sin, which has brought the great calamity upon her? She has, it is true, dome much to prove that she regards slavery as a political and economical evil, and a source of great peril to the nation: but she has done exceedingly little toward proving that she has a penitent sense of her sin in fastening the yoke of slavery on ten to twenty millions of this and former generations. It is only here and there — at wide intervals both of time and space — that has been heard the penitent exclamation, “We are verily guilty concerning our brother;” — only at these wide intervals that has been seen any relaxation of the national hatred and scorn for the black man. “Abolitionist,” which, when the nation shall be saved, will be the most popular name in it, is still the most odious and contemptible name in it. That the fugitive slave statute is still suffered to exist, is ample proof that this nation has still a devil's heart toward the black man. How sad that even now, when because of the sin of slaveholding, God is making blood flow like water in this land, there should be found members of Congress, who claim this infernal statute to be one of the rights of slaveholding! As if slaveholding had rights! As if any thing else than punishment were due to it! — punishment adequate to its unmingled, unutterable, and blasphemous wrongs!

I shall, however, be told that slavery will soon be abolished by an Amendment of the Constitution. And what will such an Amendment say? Why, nothing more than that slavery ought not to be — must not be — when it shall no longer be constitutional. What, however, the American people need to say, is, that be it constitutional or unconstitutional, slavery shall not be. So they are always prepared to say regarding murder. But slavery is worse than murder. Every right-minded man had far rather his child were murdered than enslaved. Why, then, do they not affirm that, in no event, will they tolerate slavery any more than murder? The one answer is — because it is the black man, and the black man only, on whom slavery falls. Were white Americans to be enslaved in a Barbary State, or anywhere else, our nation would respect no pleadings of statutes or even of constitutions for their enslavement. In defiance of whatever pleas or whatever restraints, she would release them if she could. The most stupendous hypocrisy of which America has been guilty, is first professing that there is law for slavery — law for that which all law proclaims an outlaw — law for that in which there is not one element of law, but every element of which is an outrage upon law; and second, in professing it, not because she has a particle of belief in it — but simply because blacks instead of whites are the victims of her slavery. America declared that John Brown was “rightly hung.” How hypocritical was the declaration, may be inferred from the fact that had they been white instead of black slaves whom he flung away his life to rescue, she would have honored him as perhaps man has never been honored. And she would have made his honors none the less, but heaped them up all the more, if, in prosecuting his heroic and merciful work, he had tossed aside statutes and broken through sacred constitutions. Oh! if this nation shall ever be truly saved, it will no longer regard John Brown as worthy of the fate of a felon; but it will build the whitest monuments to his memory, and cherish it as the memory. of the sublimest and most Christ-like man the nation has ever produced! Some of the judgments of John Brown — especially such as led him to Harper's Ferry — were unsound and visionary. Nevertheless, even when committing his mistakes, he stood, by force of the disinterestedness and greatness of his soul, above all his countrymen.

Would Congress contribute most effectively to put down the rebellion, and to save the nation by the great salvations of penitence and justice — the only real salvations? Would it do this? — then let it pass, solemnly and unanimously, a resolution that there never was and never can be, either inside or outside of statutes or constitutions, law for slavery; and then another resolution that whoever shall attempt to put the yoke of slavery on however humble a neck, black or white, deserves to be put to death.

A word further in regard to the proposed Amendment. Were the impudent and monstrous claim of its being law set up for murder, no one would propose an amendment of the Constitution forbidding murder. The only step in that case would be to make the penalty for the crime more sure and if possible more severe. Such an amendment would be strenuously objected to, in that it would stain the Constitution with the implication that murder had been constitutional. And now, if we shall have a Constitutional Amendment, which, in terms, forbids slavery, (it is already forbidden by the spirit, principles, and even provisions of the Constitution,) shall we not be virtually admitting to the world and to posterity that this nation had been guilty of tolerating, if not indeed of positively authorizing, in its Constitution the highest crime of earth o God save us from an admission, which shall serve both to stamp us with infamy and to perpetuate the infamy!

PETERBoro, April 26, 1864.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 260; Gerrit Smith, Speeches and Letters of Gerrit Smith (from January 1863, to January 1864), on the Rebellion,  Volume 2, p. 7-13

Gerrit Smith’s Speech on the Rebellion and the Draft: Oswego, New York, July 29, 1863

I am embarrassed at the very outset. For I recollect that I am an abolitionist; and I recollect that in the public esteem he who is an abolitionist can not be a patriot. How then can I get a hearing from you? For surely you are not willing to hear any other than a patriot on National affairs. I must propitiate you if I can. I will try the power of a confession to that end. My confession is — that if a man can not be a patriot whilst yet an abolitionist, he should cease to be an abolitionist — that he should renounce his abolition if it at all hinders him from going for his country. I add that I go no longer for the Anti-Slavery Society, nor for the Temperance Society, no nor for my Church, if they go not for my country.

But what is it to go for one's country? Is it to go for her right or wrong? It is not. The true man goes for nothing in himself that is wrong. The true patriot goes for nothing in his country that is wrong. It is to go for all her boundaries, and to yield up no part of them to her enemy. It is to be unsectional — and to know no North and no South, no East and no West. It is to go for the unbroken and eternal union of all her sections. It is to love her with that Jewish love of country, which takes pleasure in her very stones and favors even the dust thereof. How very far then is he from going for his country who would surrender a part of her to appease the men who have rebelled against her And let me here say that he does not go for her who, for the sake of securing the abolition of slavery, would consent to dismember her. Another way for going for one's country is to cling to her chosen form of government — in a word, to her Constitution. I do not mean that it is to prate for her Constitution and to affect a deep regard for it, whilst sympathizing with its open enemies — ay, and to affect this regard for the very purpose of thereby more effectively serving those enemies. It is, as in our case who have so excellent a Constitution, sincerely to value and deeply to love its great principles of justice, liberty and equality — those very principles which caused the Southern despots to make war upon it and fling it away — those very principles which caused the Northern sympathizers with these despots to hate it in their hearts whilst yet their false lips profess to love it. To go for one's country is also to make great account of her cherished names and of all that is precious in her institutions, traditions, and memories. But of all the ways of going for one's country that of going against her enemies is at once the most effective and the most evidential of sincerity and earnestness.

Let us glance at some of our duties in this crisis.

In the first place, we are to stand by the Government. Not to stand by it is not to stand by the country. Were the Government unfaithful I would not say so. But it is faithful. It is intent on saving the country. And it is not the weak Government which it is accused of being. In both Houses of Congress the cause of the country has many able advocates. There are strong men in the Cabinet. The President is himself a strong man. His Pro-Slavery education is almost the only thing in him to be lamented. That education is still in his way. It was emphatically so in the early stages of the war. It entangled him with the Border Slave States, when he should have been free with the Free States. Nevertheless, I take pleasure in both his ability and honesty; and this I do notwithstanding I did not vote for him and that I never voted for his party. Some of the richest and sublimest comments on the Declaration of Independence which I have ever read are from his pen. His letter to the officers of the Albany Democratic Convention, is a monument of his vigorous common-sense, of his clear and convincing logic, of his reasonableness and moderation, of his candor and frankness. On the whole, Washington always excepted, we have had no President who is to be more esteemed and beloved than Abraham Lincoln.

I said that not to stand by the Government is not to stand by the country. Every man who in time of war busies himself in slandering the Government and weakening the public confidence in it, is among the meanest and worst enemies of the country. How base and pernicious the slander that the Government is no longer prosecuting the war to save the country! A State Convention in Pennsylvania — and that too, at the very time when the State was invaded and her capital threatened — improved upon this slander by deliberately resolving that the Government avows and proclaims that the saving of the country is no longer its object in the war. What wonder that there should be mobs against drafting soldiers when there are such incitements to such mobs —when there is so much industry and so much art to persuade the people that the drafted soldiers are to be used, not for the one legitimate purpose, but for some sinister or party purpose! These mobs, though they fill us with sorrow, do nevertheless not surprise us. For we see them to be the natural and almost necessary fruit of those incessant declarations by unprincipled politicians that the Government has turned away from the object of saving the country, and is now calling for men and money where with to promote other and odious objects. Upon these knavish and lying politicians rest the blame and the blood of all these mobs.

In the second place, we are to insist on the immediate and unconditional submission of the rebels. Nothing short of this would suffice for their humiliation and their good. Moreover, nothing short of this would save our Government and our country from being deeply and indelibly disgraced — ay, totally wrecked and ruined. Therefore there must be no armistice, no terms. To bargain with them; to give them time; to make concessions to them; to purchase peace from them; to make any peace with them, whilst as yet they have arms in their hands, would be to leave them with even a more incorrigible spirit than they now have, and it would also be to leave ourselves without a nation. That which would be left to us would be but a nominal nation — and it would be liable to be broken up in a twelvemonth. What is more, neither the world, nor we ourselves, could ever have any respect for it. A nation that is compelled to yield to traitors may be respected by both other nations and itself. But a nation which has power to overwhelm the traitors, and yet is too corrupt or cowardly to wield it, must be, ever after, a stench both in its own and in others' nostrils. In the light of what I have just said it is not too much to add that whilst Americans who counsel peace on any lower terms than the absolute submission of the rebels are traitors, those speakers and writers in foreign lands who do likewise are hypocrites, because they well know that what they counsel for our nation they would, were it counseled for their own, promptly and indignantly reject.

In the third place, we must not be speculating on what is to be done with the rebels after they shall be conquered. Such speculation is wholly unseasonable and it but tends to divide us. Whilst as yet the rebels are unconquered, we can not afford to be divided. The needless, foolish, guilty, and exceedingly hurtful differences among us are what alone make our conquest of the rebels uncertain. When we shall have conquered them, then we can talk to our heart's content of what should be done with them and their possessions. Besides, we know not now in what mood they will be then; and therefore we know not now what it will be proper for them to receive at our hands. If they shall be impenitent and defiant, we shall need to impose very careful restrictions upon them; but if penitent and humble, then we can risk being trustful and generous toward them. And then, too, notwithstanding their enormous crimes against their country — against. earth and heaven — we shall gladly look upon our sorrowful Southern brethren as our brethren still.

In the fourth place, we must insist that other nations shall let us alone. Ours is a family quarrel, and none but the family can be allowed to meddle with it. We can tolerate neither intervention nor mediation. We shall repel both. Mediation, proffered in however friendly a spirit, we shall regard as impertinence; and intervention, although bloodless and unarmed at the beginning, we shall from the beginning construe into war. And here let me add, that whilst we very gratefully acknowledge, the able advocacy of our cause by many distinguished men of Europe, and no less gratefully the true, intelligent, and generous sympathy with it of the masses of Europe; and that whilst we would not discourage our citizens from going abroad to plead that cause; we, nevertheless, are entirely convinced that the work to be done for our country is to be done in it — to be done by earnest appeals from Americans to Americans, and by hard blows from a loyal upon a disloyal army.

Let us now pass on to consider what should be the character of our opposition to the rebellion. I said that the rebels must be unconditional in their submission. I add that our opposition to the rebels must also be unconditional. The surrender of ourselves to our high and holy cause must be absolute. We must stipulate for nothing. We must reserve nothing in behalf of our Democratic, or Republican, or Abolition, or Temperance, or any other party — nothing in behalf of any individual interests. Nay, we must make no conditions in behalf of either the Constitution or the country. We have now but one work. The putting down of the rebellion is the supreme duty which America owes to herself, to mankind, and to God. Is it said that recent events have given us another work to do? the work of putting down and keeping down mobs? I answer that these mobs are nothing more nor nothing less than Northern branches and Northern outbreaks of the Southern rebellion, and that the rebellion ended, the mobs will also be ended. This, by the way, being the true character of these mobs, the Federal war power is as clearly bound to lay its restraining hand on those who get them up as on any other parties to the rebellion. It should spare no traitorous press, because of its great influence, and no traitorous politician because of his high office, when it is clear that they have been at work to generate the passions and prejudices, the treason and anarchy which have resulted in disturbances, so frightfully marked, in some instances, by fire and blood.

These mobs, by the way, aside from their destruction of innocent and precious life, are not to be regretted. Nay, they are to be rejoiced in, because they reveal so certainly and so fully the animus of the leaders of this “Northern Peace Party,” and therefore serve to put us more upon our guard against these desperate leaders. I am not at all surprised at hearing that many an honest man, who had sympathized with this party, is so far enlightened by these mobs as to turn away from it forever.

The motto of every man among us should be: “Down with the Rebellion at whatever cost!” It must go down, even though Constitution and country go down with it. If the rebellion is to live and triumph, then let all else, however dear, die.

Not Constitution nor country, not our farms nor our merchandise, not our families nor our own lives, could be any longer of value to us. Are there Republicans who, in this trial hour of integrity, are intent on keeping their party in power? then are they false to their country. In time of peace let there be parties to represent the different views in regard to the proper character, and conduct of the Government. But in time of war to cling to party is treason to the country. For then the great question is, no longer as in time of peace, how the Government shall be shaped and administered, but the infinitely greater one — whether we shall have a country to govern. Are there Democrats who, at such a time, are intent on getting their party into power? False to their country are they also. Is it their plea that they are talking for the Constitution? I answer, that their talk should be against the rebels. This talking for the Constitution, whilst not talking against the rebels, is but hypocrisy. Are there Abolitionists who say that they can not help put down the rebellion unless the Government will pledge itself to put down slavery? Let me say, that with such one-idea men I have no sympathy. Like the sham Republicans and sham Democrats I have referred to, they are but workers for the rebels. To all who feel this unseasonable and treasonable solicitude for party, let me say that the true doctrine is: “Come what will of it to the Republican, or Democratic, or Abolition, or any other party — though they all go to flinders and be reduced to a heap of ruins — the Rebellion, nevertheless, shall be put down!” Moreover, notwithstanding our differences in other relations and other respects, we are all to be brothers and close fellow-laborers in the work of putting down the Rebellion. The laborers in this work we are not to know as Democrats, or Republicans, or Abolitionists, or Temperance men, but only as anti-rebellion men. During the greater part of my life I have tried to do something against slavery and drunkenness. But in this great battle against the Southern rebels and their Northern allies, whose success would, in its results, be the entire overthrow of free Government, not only here and in Mexico, but wherever it exists, I am ready to fight alongside of all who will fight alongside of me: with, if you please, the biggest drunkard on the one side and the biggest pro-slavery man on the other. Whilst I am against all who are for the rebels, I am for all who are against them. Until the Rebellion is crushed we should know but two parties: the one made up of those who, in standing by and strengthening the Government, prove themselves to be the friends of the country; and the other made up of those who, in assailing and weakening the Government, prove themselves to be the enemies of the country. Are there, I repeat, Abolitionists who, in such a time as this, stand back and refuse to join in putting down the Rebellion save on the condition that slavery also shall be put down? If there are, then are they also among those who embarrass the Government, and then are they also to be numbered with the enemies of the country. If there are such Abolitionists, I am persuaded they are few. But whether they are few or many, let me say that it is very little to their credit to let the crime of slavery fill the whole field of their vision and blind them to the far greater and more comprehensive crime of the rebellion. Will they reply, that the rebellion is but slavery — slavery in arms? Then upon their own ground they should be helping to put it down, since the putting of it down would be the putting down of slavery also.

I referred to Mexico. If our rebellion shall succeed, her fate is sealed. If it should fail, then it may even be that Napoleon's is sealed. I say not that our Government would be disposed to meddle with him. But I do say that our people would be. Tens of thousands of our disbanded troops would hasten to Mexico to make common cause with their outraged republican brethren. I add, that whilst despots everywhere would exult in the triumph of our rebellion, despots everywhere will tremble at its overthrow.

Some of my hearers may think, because I said we must make no conditions in its behalf, that I am not suited with the Constitution. I am entirely suited with it. I have always opposed changes in it, and probably always shall. No Democrat even has spoken or written so much for it just as it is as I have. Let not a word in it be altered. It is exactly what we want of a Constitution, both in peace and war. Governor Seymour says, in his Fourth of July speech that the Government has suspended it. If it has, it has done very wrong. I do not see that it has in even the slightest degree. But there are some things which the Governor and I see with very different eyes. For instance, the Governor and the men of his school see that the blame of the war rests chiefly upon the North. On the other hand, I see that every particle of it rests on the South. They say that our talking and legislating against slavery annoyed the South; and we, in turn, say that her talking and legislating for it annoyed the North. But we deny that the annoyance did in either case justify war. As to the talking — it must be remembered that our Southern and Northern fathers agreed upon a Government, which tolerates talk — talk even against good things — against things which, if that be possible, are better than even slavery. So the South should not make war upon us because we talk against her slavery; and we should not make war upon her because she stigmatizes our noble farmers and noble mechanics as “the mudsills of society.” Then, as to the legislation, it must be remembered that whilst we were willing to have the constitutionality of ours passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States, she threatened to murder and actually drove from her the honorable men whom we deputed to visit her for the purpose of getting her consent to such a testing of her pro-slavery legislation. Truly, truly do I pity the man who is so perverted as to divide the blame of this war between the North and the South. The North is not only mainly but entirely innocent of it.

I eulogized the Constitution. Let not the eulogy be construed into my overrating of a Constitution. I frankly say that if I thought that our Constitution stood at all in the way of our most effective prosecution of the war, I should rejoice to have it swept out of the way. The country is more than the Constitution. I would not exchange one of her majestic mountains or rivers for all the Constitutions you could pile up between earth and heaven. God made the country. But man made the Constitution. The loss of the country would be irreparable. But if the Constitution is lost, we will j, upon his inspirations of the human mind for another.

I spoke disparagingly of one-idea men. There is a sense in which I wish that all of us were one-idea men. I would that all of us might be one-idea men until the Rebellion is put down. To put it down — this, this is the one idea of which I would have every man possessed to the exclusion of every rival idea. For the sake of no other idea would I have conditions made with this paramount idea. Were we all such one-idea men the North would triumph speedily — and so grandly too as to win the admiration and esteem even of the South. And then would the North and the South again become a nation — not, as before, an inharmonious and short-lived one, but a nation at peace with itself, at peace with every other nation, and therefore a permanent nation. God grant us this glorious and blessed future! And he will grant it, if we are so manly and patriotic, so wise and just, as to postpone every other claim to that of our country and every other duty to that of putting down the Rebellion.

Let us now take up the Conscription Law. Some say that it is unconstitutional. I can not see any thing unconstitutional in it — though perhaps I could were I a lawyer. Some go so far as to deny that the Constitution gives Congress the right to compel persons to defend the country. All I can say is, that if it did not give the right, it should not have empowered Congress to declare war and raise and support armies. For thus to have empowered it was in that case but to mock it. It was only to seem to give much whilst really giving nothing.

For one, I do not look into the Constitution for proof that the National Legislature has the right to compel persons to fight the battles of the country. It is enough for me to know that this vital right inheres in a National Legislature — that the supreme power of a nation necessarily has it — and that a Constitution which should deny or in the slightest degree restrict it, would be fit only to be thrown away. For the credit of the Constitution, I am happy that it recognizes and asserts the right. But the Constitution does not create it. My refusal to look into the Constitution for the origination of this right rests on the same principle as that by which I am withheld from looking into the Bible for the origination of the parent's right to take care of his children. It is, I admit, one of the merits of this best of books that it recognizes the right and enjoins its exercise. But the right is older than the Bible. It dates as far back as the time of the first parent. It is an inherently parental as the other is an inherently national right.

It is also said that the Conscription Law favors the rich, and oppresses the poor. The National and State militia laws do so; but the Conscription Law spares the poor and spares not the rich. Members of Congress, Postmasters, and a score of other classes, making in all no very small share of the men, are, under those laws, exempted from military service; whilst under the Conscription Law none but poor men are exempted, save only the Vice-President, the Heads of Departments, the United States Judges, and the Governors of the States. And now mark how numerous must be the several classes of the exempted poor.

1st. The only son of the widow dependent on his labor.

2d. The only son of aged or infirm parents dependent on his labor.

3d. One of the two or more sons of such parents.

4th. The only brother of orphan children not twelve years old dependent on his labor.

5th. The father of motherless children under twelve years of age dependent on his labor.

6th. Where there are a father and sons in the family, and two of them are in the army and in humble positions in it, the residue not exceeding two are exempt.

Now, was there ever a law less sparing of the rich and more tender to the poor? And yet this law, so exceedingly honorable to the heads and hearts of its makers, is denounced as oppressive and cruel by demagogues who, to get themselves into power, would destroy the popular confidence in the Government and destroy the country also.

But, it is held, that the commutation or three hundred dollar clause is oppressive to the poor. It is, on the contrary, merciful to the poor. But for it the price of a substitute might run up to three or four times three hundred dollars — a price which a poor man would scarcely ever be enabled to pay. The three hundred dollars, however, many a poor man can, with the help of friends, be able to raise. But why not, it may be asked, have favored the poor by making the maximum no more than fifty or a hundred dollars? This, instead of favoring, would have but oppressed the poor. For the Government, not being able to procure substitutes at the rate of fifty or a hundred dollars, would have been compelled to repeat its drafts. And thus tens of thousands of poor men who had paid their fifty or a hundred dollars in order to keep out of the army would after all be obliged to enter it.

Alas! this clamor against the unconstitutionality of the Conscription Law! How sadly it betrays the prevailing lack of patriotism! Had there been no unpatriotic person amongst us, there would have been not only nothing of this clamor, but not so much as one inquiry into the constitutionality of the law. The commonness of this inquiry indicates how commonly the love of country must be very weak in the American bosom. Why is it so weak 2 Some say it is because of our characteristic or Yankee greed of gain; and some say it is because of our long-continued and soul-shriveling practice of persecuting and outraging an unfortunate race. . . . Some ascribe it to one thing and some to another. But whatever the cause, the effect is obvious.

Oh! how base must they have become who, when rebels are at the throat of their nation, can hie themselves to the Constitution to see how little it will let them off with doing against those rebels — how little with doing for the life of that nation! Our noble Constitution should be used to nourish our patriotism; but alas! it is perverted to kill it!

I have noticed the action of the authorities of several of the cities of our State, in regard to the Conscription Law. In some of them this action is very bad. The sole object of the law is to raise an additional force for completing the destruction of the Rebellion. Now, the city of New-York and some other cities would take advantage of its humane feature of commutation to defeat this sole object of the law. For they would take advantage of it. to buy off the mass of their drafted citizens. This wholesale buying violates to the last degree the spirit of the law; deprives the country of the benefit of the legitimate and intended effect of the law; and saves the Rebellion from being crushed by the faithful and fair carrying out of the law. If one city may resort to this wholesale buying, so may every other; so may every county, and so may every State; and so may the Conscription Law be rendered unavailing.

I admit the duty of the wealthy to avail themselves of this commutation clause to save, here and there, from going to the war the man to whom it would be a peculiar hardship to go. I also admit that every city, disposed to do so, can very properly vote the three hundred dollars to every drafted man who serves or to his substitute. I care not how much the cities help the soldiers. The more the better. I am glad that Oswego voted ten thousand dollars two years ago, and five thousand last spring to the families of her soldiers. Let her vote hereafter as much as she pleases to the soldiers and their families. I will pay cheerfully what share of the tax shall fall on my property in the city; and more cheerfully would I take part in voluntary contributions. I have sometimes heard the remark that neither the rich nor the poor should be allowed to procure substitutes. The remark is both ill-natured and foolish. Among the drafted will be both rich and poor men, who ought to be spared from going to the war. I am not sorry that so many rich men have gone to the war. Nevertheless, let as many rich men as will remain at home to continue to give employment to the poor in manufactories and elsewhere, and to maintain a business and a prosperity which can be heavily taxed to meet the expenses of the war. Men of property should be heavily taxed to this end; and my only objection to the Income Tax, is that it is not more than half large enough. It should be six and ten instead of three and five per cent.

But I must close. How unreasonable, how unpatriotic, how wicked to murmur at this draft! The South, to serve her bad cause, is, at this moment, responding to the call for absolutely all her able-bodied white males between the ages of eighteen and forty-five; whilst the call to serve our best of all causes is for not more than about one seventh or one eighth between those ages. And yet we murmur at the draft; and in a few localities there is a rabble so far under the sway of traitorous demagogues, as to resist it with force and arms. These demagogues, by the way, as silly as they are wicked, instead of seeing in this resistance only another argument with the Government for proceeding promptly, very promptly with the draft, flattered themselves that the Government would succumb to the mobs and abandon the draft; would surrender to anarchy instead of maintaining law.

Our people need to be loyally educated. When they are, they will be eager to serve their imperiled and beloved country in any way, however expensive or hazardous. I rejoice to see that in many parts of the country the draft is met in a cheerful and patriotic spirit. May this spirit soon obtain everywhere.

The love of country — the love of country — that is what we lack. Would that we had somewhat of that love of country which Robert Emmet felt for his dear Ireland; somewhat of that love of country which awakens the sublime utterances of Kossuth for his dear Hungary; somewhat of that love of country which stirs the great soul of Garibaldi, as he contemplates his still, but not-ever-to-be, disunited Italy; somewhat of that love of country which arms her young men, ay and her young maidens too, to battle for their down-trodden and dear Poland! Let us have somewhat of such love — and then when our bleeding country makes her call upon us, we shall not pause to inquire whether it is couched in Constitutional words; but we shall hasten to obey it, simply because it is our country that makes it, and our country that needs our obedience.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 259 (excerpted); For the full text of the speech: Gerrit Smith, Speeches and Letters of Gerrit Smith (from January 1863, to January 1864), etc, Volume 1, p. 35-44