No Union With Slaveholders!

KISSING THE CHAIN!

Shall Massachusetts stand erect no longer,

But stoop in chains upon her downward way,

Thicker to gather on her limbs, and stronger,

Day after day?’

In our last number, we gave a brief account of the ridiculous, spasmodic and inconsistent action of the House of Representatives of this State on the presentation of petitions, asking for a Convention of the People to devise measures for a peaceable secession of Massachusetts from the Union, for the intolerable grievances there in set forth; first, how those petitions were precipitately laid on the table by an overwhelming majority, and thus denied the courtesy of a reference; and how, the Whigs taking the alarm on seeing Mr. BOUTWELL (the ostensible leader of the Democratic party in the House) rise on his seat to object to such a course of action as a virtual denial of the right of petition, that vote was almost instantaneously reconsidered, and the petitions were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. What has since transpired, up to the time our paper goes to press, we proceed to inform our readers.

On Friday last, the Committee with hot haste (forty-eight hours after receiving the petitions) reported that the petitioners have leave to withdraw. Thus no time was afforded for the presentation of a large number of similar petitions still circulating for signatures, and no opportunity was given the petitioners to be heard in behalf of the object prayed for. Hitherto, for several years past, petitions of this nature have been regularly sent to the Legislature, and in every instance received without hesitancy, duly referred, deliberately considered, and repeatedly supported by counsel before the Committee, even the hall of the House of Representatives being granted on several occasions for a hearing. By the rules of the House, the report of the present Committee was laid over for that day; but, as if anxious to make a special display of ‘patriotism,’ and to exonerate the Free Soil movement from every suspicion of ‘fanaticism,’ Mr. Wilson, of Natick, the proprietor of the Boston Republican, moved that the rules be suspended, and that the vote on the report of the Committee be taken by yeas and nays, that no time be lost to signify to the country and the world where Massachusetts stands in regard to this ‘glorious Union’!! The motion prevailed, and the report was accepted—Yeas, ALL except 1—Mr. TOLMAN, (Free Soiler,) of Worcester. In common with a multitude of others, we are astonished and indignant at the conduct of Mr. WILSON in this matter—of one who has displayed, on so many occasions in the House, both as a Whig and as a Free Soiler, a manly front on the subject of slavery, and at all times received at the hands of the abolitionists his full share of the credit. What his motive was for thus precipitating action, we leave him to explain. If it was with any hope of personal or party advantage, he will assuredly find that he has ‘reckoned without his host.’ If, in his conscience, he really believes that an active and willing support of the Union involves nothing of criminality—if he believes that the Union is promotive of liberty and equality, instead of chains and slavery—why then we could not reasonably expect that he would sanction a movement for its dissolution. Nevertheless, it is none the less extraordinary—especially in view of all he has said and done respecting the aggressions of the Slave Power—that he should be eager to outstrip both Whig and Democrat in his zeal to do an act which he knew would give special pleasure to the Southern brokers in the trade of blood, and gain nothing for Massachusetts but there fresh contempt for her disgusting servility.

One man—only one man of the two hundred and fifty who voted—was found willing or able to stand erect in the HOUSE on a question of justice, to say nothing of liberty; and while a single member retains his manhood, we will not despair of the old Bay State! Mr. TOLMAN, by his solitary vote, had displayed an independence as rare as it is commendable, and a fearlessness of consequences which indicates the man of integrity immeasurably above the party politician. Let the time-serving sneer at him, and the vile and malignant abuse him; it shall only place in stronger contrast his worth and their baseness. Of course, we are not commending him as a disunionist—for he is not, otherwise he would not be found in the Legislature; but only for his sense of justice, and of what constitutes fair treatment. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he objected to its hasty report as equally unwise and unnecessary,—the subject presented for their consideration being one of the gravest character and greatest solemnity, justifying a patient hearing in its elucidation. He dissented not from the conclusion of the report, that the petitioners have to withdraw their petitions, but only from the haste with which intentionally made, so to give no opportunity to their signers to vindicate their course. This is all he meant to imply in giving his negative in the House; and for this he deserves the approbation of all decent, fair-minded, honorable men. He is no trading politician, but a working-man, a mechanic, of great integrity of character and lively conscientiousness, and must respected by those who know him. As a proof of his moral firmness, it deserves to be stated to his credit, in this connection, that he refused some profitable offers to furnish government wagons to be used in the Mexican war, regarding that war as he did as most wicked and inexcusable. It is so rare a thing for conscience to be stronger than the love of gain, that every instance like this is an oasis in the desert. It is evident that Mr. Tolman is not a man to be sneered or frowned down. In the House, he stood actually in the majority, for he was in the right and the right is with God, who is more than multitudinous.

Mr. BOUTWELL, in contending for a reference of the petitions, as due to a just regard for the right of petition, pursued a course for which we intended to accord him our thanks and all due credit; but his subsequent behavior has vitiated an otherwise meritorious act. On Tuesday, as one of the committee, we requested him to present to the House sundry petitions from Boston and other places, numerously and respectably signed, on the subject of disunion, similar to those already presented; and also a remonstrance signed by FRANCIS JACKSON and others against the precipitate action of the Committee and the House on the petitions, and asking for a hearing as a matter of Justice. Much to our surprise, but more to his own discredit, Mr. BOUTWELL positively declined complying with the request! On the question of the Union he was eminently patriotic—very conscientious; he could never think, for one moment, of presenting such petitions. ‘But is it a matter of conscience, or a rule of action with you,’ we asked, ‘never to present a petition, except you can give it your sanction?’ He could not say it was. ‘Why, then, the present refusal? Do you believe there is any one, either in this Commonwealth or out of it, who would suppose that you were in favor of a dissolution of the Union merely from the fact of your presenting these petitions?’ He did not suppose there was. ‘you can make as many disclaimers as you may think proper; to these we do not object; these we are prepared to expect; but we still desire these petitions and this remonstrance to be laid before the House.’ He should prefer that some other person would present them. ‘But the same excuse that you make might be made by every other member; and where then would be the right of petition? If a memorial relating to the liberty of the people of Massachusetts, and to the millions in this country who are groaning in bondage, couched in respectful and solemn phraseology, is to be denied a presentation, so may all others of an inferior nature if the petitions are in error as to the form or substance of their request, is it not obviously the true way to allay popular agitation for the Legislature to show wherein they err?’ He had no doubt that the dissolution of the Union would be the abolition of slavery; but he went for the Union as the lesser of two evils! Humane man—upright moralist—profound logician! To cease ‘striking hands with thieves and consenting with adulterers’—to refuse any longer to join in the enslavement of three millions of the people of this country—would certainly give liberty to the oppressed, and put an end to all the woes and horrors of the slave system, but it would be injurious to ourselves!! How disinterested the action, how exact the calculation! See what folly it is to obey God by remembering them that are in bonds as bound with them, and loving our neighbors as ourselves! See how safe, profitable and. expedient it is to commit sin, perpetrate robbery, and exercise tyranny, on a gigantic sale! ‘The end sanctifies the means—I am for doing evil that good may come’—is the moral philosophy of this leader of the Democratic party.

Mr. BOUTWELL may reconcile—if he can—the consistency of his acts in refusing to present a disunion petition to the House; and then, after its presentation by other hands, protesting against its being summarily laid upon the table as a virtual denial of the right of petition, and advocating its reference to the Judiciary Committee. We are unable to reconcile discrepancies so glaring.

We admonished him—as we would admonish all politicians—that this great and solemn question is not to be dodged, crowded down, or shuffled out of sight, with impunity—that those who are pressing it are not lacking in intelligence or spirit, neither are they to be discouraged by defeat or intimidated by censure—that it is the religious element, it its purest and most disinterested manifestation, by which they are impelled—a dread of sin, a hatred of tyranny, a sacred love of liberty, and a sentiment of obedience to God, overriding all party ties and all constitutional requirements—and therefore not to be trifled with.

On Wednesday forenoon, Mr. TOLMAN presented the remonstrance of Francis Jackson and others, against the action of the House on Friday last, as follows:

To the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The undersigned, petitioners ‘for a Convention of the People of this Commonwealth to devise measures for a peaceful Secession of Massachusetts from the Union,’ respectfully ask for a reconsideration of the vote of the House, on Friday last, by which those petitioners had leave to withdraw their petition—basing their request and their remonstrance against the action of the house on the following grounds:—

1. That the petitioners had no opportunity to be heard before your Committee in support of the object prayed for; the action both of the Committee and the House manifesting, in the judgment of the undersigned, precipitancy, and being without any good precedent.

2. That if a patient hearing is cheerfully conceded to petitions touching matters of the smallest pecuniary interest, much more does the same, of right, belong to questions involving the welfare, honor and liberty of millions.

3. That while your petitioners are subjected, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore of this Commonwealth, to heavy fines for obeying the law of God, and refusing to deliver up the fugitive slave, or giving him aid and protection, they feel that they have a right to be heard in asking to be relieved from such immoral obligations.

4. That while citizens of this Commonwealth, on visiting Southern States, are seized, thrust into privation, condemned to work with felons in the chain-gain, and frequently sold on the auction block as slaves;—and while the governments both of the United States and of the Southern States have refused, or made it penal, to attempt a remedy—and while this Commonwealth has given up all effort to vindicate the rights of its citizens as hopeless and impracticable, under the present Union—it is manifestly the duty of the Commonwealth, as a Sovereign State, to devise some other measure for the redress and prevention of so grievous a wrong, which your petitioners are profoundly convinced can be reached only by a secession from the present union.

5. That while the matter touched on in said petitions has attracted so much attention, and awakened so deep an interest in all parts of the country, it is clearly the duty of the legislature, in the opinion of the undersigned, either to hear the reasons on which the petitioners found their request, or, at least, to make a plain statement of the petitioners’ mistake as to the form or substance of the remedy prayed for.

6. That on a subject so momentous, the precipitate rejection of a petition, without reason given therefore, or opportunity offered to the petitioners to support their request, is a virtual denial of the right of petition.

FRANCIS JACKSON,

WM. LLOYD GARRISON,

EDMUND QUINCY,

WENDELL PHILLIPS,

WM. I. BOWDITCH,

JOHN ROGERS,

EDMUND JACKSON,

CHARLES F. HOVEY,

CHARLES K. WHIPPLE,

SAMUEL MAY, JR.,

JOHN M. SPEAR,

ROBERT F. WOLLCUT,

BOURNE SPOONER.

Mr. Tolman made a few sensible remarks, defining his own position, and expressing his conviction that the petitioners had not been fairly treated. He therefore moved that the remonstrance he referred to the Committee of the Judiciary.

Mr. Codman, of Boston, moved that the remonstrants have leave to withdraw their remonstrance; and on this the yeas and nays were ordered—41 to 125.

Mr. Earle, of Worcester, moved to refer the remonstrance to the Special committee on Slavery, and supported his motion in some earnest and forcible remarks. A long debate ensued—Messrs. Earle and Tolman, Griswold of Greenfield, Branning of Tyringham, and Wilson of Natick, supporting the commitment, and Messrs. Codman, Schouler and Kimball of Boston, Hoar of Concord, and Smith of Enfield, (the last named an orthodox deacon, in appearance ‘a sleek oily man of God,’) opposing it.

Mr. Williams, of Taunton, demanded the previous question, which was ordered, thus cutting off the motion to commit.

The yeas and nays were then taken on Mr. Codman’s motion to give the remonstrants leave to withdraw, and the motion was carried—yeas 192, nays 63—Mr. Boutwell, of Groton, voting in the affirmative.

It is due to Mr. Wilson of Natick, to say that his course on this occasion was manly, explicit and commendable. In explanation of his vote on Friday, he said he was not aware that the petitioners desired a hearing: if he had been, he would not have voted that they should have leave to withdraw their petitions until they had been fully and fairly heard. We accept the explanation, and so would mitigate the severity of our censure; at the same time wondering that he should have supposed that he should have been the first to hasten the action of the House on this subject. Well, this is our defence—

‘Though we break our fathers’ promise, we have nobler duties first:

The traitor to Humanity is the traitor most accurst!

Man is more than Constitutions—better rot beneath the sod,

Than be true to Church and state while we are doubly false to God!’

SOURCE: “No Union With Slaveholders!” The Liberator, Boston, Massachusetts, Friday, February 22, 1850, p. 2, cols. 5-6

Lydia Maria Child to Governor Henry A. Wise

In your civil but very diplomatic reply to my letter, you inform me that I have a constitutional right to visit Virginia, for peaceful purposes, in common with every citizen of the United States. I was perfectly well aware that such was the theory of constitutional obligation in the Slave States; but I was also aware of what you omit to mention, viz.: that the Constitution has, in reality, been completely and systematically nullified whenever it suited the convenience or the policy of the Slave Power. Your constitutional obligation, for which you profess so much respect, has never proved any protection to citizens of the Free States, who happened to have a black, brown, or yellow complexion; nor to any white citizen whom you even suspected of entertaining opinions opposite to your own, on a question of vast importance to the temporal welfare and moral example of our common country. This total disregard of constitutional obligation has been manifested not merely by the Lynch Law of mobs in the Slave States, but by the deliberate action of magistrates and legislators. What regard was paid to constitutional obligation in South Carolina, when Massachusetts sent the Hon. Mr. Hoar there as an envoy, on a purely legal errand? Mr. Hedrick, Professor of Political Economy in the University of North Carolina, had a constitutional right to reside in that State. What regard was paid to that right, when he was driven from his home, merely for declaring that he considered Slavery an impolitic system, injurious to the prosperity of States? What respect for constitutional rights was manifested by Alabama, when a bookseller in Mobile was compelled to flee for his life, because he had, at the special request of some of the citizens, imported a few copies of a novel that everybody was curious to road? Your own citizen, Mr. Underwood, had a constitutional right to live in Virginia, and vote for whomsoever he pleased. What regard was paid to his rights, when he was driven from your State for declaring himself in favor of the election of Fremont? With these, and a multitude of other examples before your eyes, it would seem as if the less that was said about respect for constitutional obligations at the South, the better. Slavery is, in fact, an infringement of all law, and adheres to no law, save for its own purposes of oppression.

You accuse Captain John Brown of “whetting knives of butchery for the mothers, sisters, daughters and babes” of Virginia; and you inform me of the well-known fact that he is “arraigned for the crimes of murder, robbery and treason.” I will not here stop to explain why I believe that old hero to be no criminal, but a martyr to righteous principles which he sought to advance by methods sanctioned by his own religious views, though not by mine. Allowing that Capt. Brown did attempt a scheme in which murder robbery and treason were, to his own consciousness, involved, I do not see how Gov. Wise can consistently arraign him for crimes he has himself commended. You have threatened to trample on the Constitution, and break the Union, if a majority of the legal voters in these Confederated States dared to elect a President unfavorable to the extension of Slavery. Is not such a declaration proof of premeditated treason? In the Spring of 1842, you made a speech in Congress, from which I copy the following: —

“Once set before the people of the Great Valley the conquest of the rich Mexican Provinces, and you might as well attempt to stop the wind. This Government might end its troops, but they would run over them like a herd of buffalo. Let the work once begin, and I do not know that this House would hold me very long. Give me five millions of dollars, and I would undertake to do it myself. Although I do not know how to set a single squadron in the field, I could find men to do it. Slavery should pour itself abroad, without restraint, and find no limit but the Southern Ocean. The Camanches should no longer hold the richest mines of Mexico. Every golden image which had received the profanation of a false worship, should soon be melted down into good American eagles. I would cause as much gold to cross the Rio del Norte as the mules of Mexico could carry; aye, and I would make better use of it, too, than any lazy, bigoted priesthood under heaven.”

When you thus boasted that you and your “booted loafers” would overrun the troops of the United States “like a herd of buffalo,” if the Government sent them to arrest your invasion of a neighboring nation, at peace with the United States, did you not pledge yourself to commit treason? Was it not by robbery, even of churches, that you proposed to load the mules of Mexico with gold for the United States? Was it not by the murder of unoffending Mexicans that you expected to advance those schemes of avarice and ambition? What humanity had you for Mexican “mothers and babes,” whom you proposed to make childless and fatherless‘? And for what purpose was this wholesale massacre to take place? Not to right the wrongs of any oppressed class; not to sustain any great principles of justice, or of freedom; but merely to enable “Slavery to pour itself forth without restraint.” Even if Captain Brown were as bad as you paint him, I should suppose he must naturally remind you of the words of Macbeth:

“We but teach,

Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return

To plague the inventor: This even-handed justice

Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice

To our own lips.”

If Captain Brown intended, as you say, to commit treason, robbery and murder, I think I have shown that he could find ample authority for such proceedings in the public declarations of Gov. Wise. And if, as he himself declares, he merely intended to free the oppressed, where could he read a more forcible lesson than is furnished by the State Seal of Virginia? I looked at it thoughtfully before I opened your letter; and though it had always appeared to me very suggestive, it never seemed to me so much so as it now did in connection with Captain John Brown. A liberty-loving hero stands with his foot upon a prostrate despot; under his strong arm, manacles and chains lie broken; and the motto is, “Sic Semper Tyrannis;” “Thus be it ever done to Tyrants.” And this is the blazon of a State whose most profitable business is the Internal Slave-Trade! — in whose highways coffles of human chattles, chained and manacled, are frequently seen! And the Seal and the Coffles are both looked upon by other chattels, constantly exposed to the same fate! What if some Vezey, or Nat Turner, should be growing up among those apparently quiet spectators? It is in no spirit of taunt or of exultation that I ask this question. I never think of it but with anxiety, sadness, and sympathy. I know that a slaveholding community necessarily lives in the midst of gunpowder; and, in this age, sparks of free thought are flying in every direction. You cannot quench the fires of free thought and human sympathy by any process of cunning or force; but there is a method by which you can effectually wet the gunpowder. England has already tried it, with safety and success. Would that you could be persuaded to set aside the prejudices of education, and candidly examine the actual working of that experiment! Virginia is so richly endowed by nature that Free Institutions alone are wanting to render her the most prosperous and powerful of the States.

In your letter, you suggest that such a scheme as Captain Brown’s is the natural result of the opinions with which I sympathize. Even if I thought this to be a correct statement, though I should deeply regret it, I could not draw the conclusion that humanity ought to be stifled, and truth struck dumb, for fear that long-successful despotism might be endangered by their utterance. But the fact is, you mistake the source of that strange outbreak. No abolition arguments or denunciations, however earnestly, loudly, or harshly proclaimed, would have produced that result. It was the legitimate consequence of the continual and constantly-increasing aggressions of the Slave Power. The Slave States, in their desperate efforts to sustain a bad and dangerous institution, have encroached more and more upon the liberties of the Free States. Our inherent love of law and order, and our superstitious attachment to the Union, you have mistaken for cowardice; and rarely have you let slip any opportunity to add insult to aggression.

The manifested opposition to Slavery began with the lectures and pamphlets of a few disinterested men and women, who based their movements upon purely moral and religious grounds; but their expostulations were met with a storm of rage, with tar and feathers, brickbats, demolished houses, and other applications of Lynch Law. When the dust of the conflict began to subside a little, their numbers were found to be greatly increased by the efforts to exterminate them. They had become an influence in the State too important to be overlooked by shrewd calculators. Political economists began to look at the subject from a lower point of view. They used their abilities to demonstrate that slavery was a wasteful system, and that the Free States were taxed, to an enormous extent, to sustain an institution which, at heart, two-thirds of them abhorred. The forty millions, or more, of dollars, expended in hunting Fugitive Slaves in Florida, under the name of the Seminole War, were adduced, as one item in proof, to which many more were added. At last, politicians were compelled to take some action on the subject. It soon became known to all the people that the Slave States had always managed to hold in their hands the political power of the Union, and that while they constituted only one-third of the white population of these States, they hold more than two-thirds of all the lucrative, and once honorable offices; an indignity to which none but a subjugated people had ever before submitted. The knowledge also became generally diffused, that while the Southern States owned their Democracy at home, and voted for them, they also systematically bribed the nominally Democratic party, at the North, with the offices adroitly kept at their disposal.

Through these, and other instrumentalities, the sentiments of the original Garrisonian Abolitionists became very widely extended, in forms more or less diluted. But by far the most efficient co-laborers we have ever had have been the Slave States themselves. By denying us the sacred Right of Petition, they roused the free spirit of the North, as it never could have been roused by the loud trumpet of Garrison, or the soul-animating bugle of Phillips. They bought the great slave, Daniel, and, according to their established usage, paid him no wages for his labor. By his cooperation, they forced the Fugitive Slave Law upon us, in violation of all our humane instincts and all our principles of justice. And what did they procure for the Abolitionists by that despotic process? A deeper and wider detestation of Slavery throughout the Free States, and the publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, an eloquent outburst of moral indignation, whose echoes wakened the world to look upon their shame.

By fillibustering and fraud, they dismembered Mexico, and having thus obtained the soil of Texas, they tried to introduce it as a Slave State into the Union. Failing to effect their purpose by constitutional means, they accomplished it by a most open and palpable violation of the Constitution, and by obtaining the votes of Senators on false pretences.*

Soon afterward, a Southern Slave Administration ceded to the powerful monarchy of Great Britain several hundred thousands of square miles, that must have been made into Free States, to which that same Administration had declared that the United States had “an unquestionable right;” and then they turned upon the weak Republic of Mexico, and, in order to make more Slave States, .wrested from her twice as many hundred thousands of square miles, to which we had not a shadow of right.

Notwithstanding all these extra efforts, they saw symptoms that the political power so long held with a firm grasp was in danger of slipping from their hands, by reason of the extension of Abolition sentiments, and the greater prosperity of Free States. Emboldened by continual success in aggression, they made use of the pretence of “Squatter Sovereignty” to break the league into which they had formerly cajoled the servile representatives of our blinded people, by which all the territory of the United States south of 36° 30’ was guaranteed to Slavery, and all north of it to Freedom. Thus Kansas became the battle-ground of the antagonistic elements in our Government. Ruflians hired by the Slave Power were sent thither temporarily, to do the voting, and drive from the polls the legal voters, who were often murdered in the process. Names, copied from the directories of cities in other States, were returned by thousands as legal voters in Kansas, in order to establish a Constitution abhorred by the people. This was their exemplification of Squatter Sovereignty. A Massachusetts Senator, distinguished for candor, courtesy, and stainless integrity, was half murdered by slaveholders, merely for having the manliness to state these facts to the assembled Congress of the nation. Peaceful emigrants from the North, who went to Kansas for no other purpose than to till the soil, erect mills, and establish manufactories, schools, and churches, were robbed, outraged, and murdered. For many months, a war more ferocious than the warfare of wild Indians was carried on against a people almost unresisting, because they relied upon the Central Government for aid. And all this while, the power of the United States, wielded by the Slave Oligarchy, was on the side of the aggressors. They literally tied the stones, and let loose the mad dogs. This was the state of things when the hero of Osawatomie and his brave sons went to the rescue. It was he who first turned the tide of Border-Ruffian triumph, by showing them that blows were to be taken as well as given.

You may believe it or not, Gov. Wise, but it is certainly the truth that, because slaveholders so recklessly sowed the wind in Kansas, they reaped a whirlwind at Harper’s Ferry.

The people of the North had a very strong attachment to the Union; but, by your desperate measures, you have weakened it beyond all power of restoration. They are not your enemies, as you suppose, but they cannot consent to be your tools for any ignoble task you may choose to propose. You must not judge of us by the crawling sinuosities of an Everett; or by our magnificent hound, whom you trained to hunt your poor cripples, and then sent him sneaking into a corner to die — not with shame for the base purposes to which his strength had been applied, but with vexation because you withheld from him the promised bone. Not by such as these must you judge the free, enlightened yeomanry of New England. A majority of them would rejoice to have the Slave States fulfil their oft-repeated threat of withdrawal from the Union. It has ceased to be a bugbear, for we begin to despair of being able, by any other process, to give the world the example of a real republic. The moral sense of these States is outraged by being accomplices in sustaining an institution vicious in all its aspects; and it is now generally understood that we purchase our disgrace at great pecuniary expense. If you would only make the offer of a separation in serious earnest, you would hear the hearty response of millions, “Go, gentlemen, and

‘Stand not upon the order of your going,

But go at once!’”

Yours, with all due respect,

L. MARIA CHILD.

_______________

* The following Senators, Mr. Niles, of Connecticut, Mr. Dix, of New York, and Mr. Tappan, of Ohio, published statements that their votes had been obtained by false representations; and they declared that the case was the same with Mr. Heywood, of North Carolina.

SOURCE: The American Anti-Slavery Society, Correspondence between Lydia Maria Child and Gov. Wise and Mrs. Mason, of Virginia, p. 6-12