Mr. President,
— If we look hastily at the present aspect of American affairs, there is much
to discourage a man who believes in the progress of his race. In this republic,
with the
Declaration
of Independence for its political creed, neither of the great political
parties is hostile to the existence of slavery. That institution has the
continual support of both the Whig and Democratic parties. There are now four
eminent men in the Senate of the United States, all of them friends of slavery.
Two of these are from the North, both natives of New England; but they surpass
their Southern rivals in the zeal with which they defend that institution, and
in the concessions which they demand of the friends of justice at the North.
These four men are all competitors for the Presidency. Not one of them is the
friend of freedom; he that is apparently least its foe, is Mr Benton, the
senator from Missouri. Mr Clay, of Kentucky, is less effectually the advocate
of slavery than Mr Webster, of Massachusetts. Mr Webster himself has said, “There
is no North,” and, to prove it experimentally, stands there as one mighty
instance of his own rule.
In the Senate of the United States, only Seward and Chase
and Hale can be relied on as hostile to slavery. In the House, there are Root
and Giddings, and Wilmot and Mann, and a few others. “But what are these among
so many?”
See “how it strikes a stranger.” Here is an extract from the
letter of a distinguished and learned man,1 sent out here by the
king of Sweden to examine our public schools: “I have just returned from
Washington, where I have been witnessing the singular spectacle of this free
and enlightened nation being buried in sorrow, on account of the death of that
great advocate of slavery, Mr Calhoun. Mr Webster's speech seems to have made a
very strong impression upon the people of the South, as I have heard it
repeated almost as a lesson of the catechism by every person I have met within
the slave territory. It seems now to be an established belief, that slavery is
not a malum necessarium, still less an evil difficult to get rid of, but
desirable soon to get rid of. No, far from that; it seems to be considered as
quite a natural, most happy, and essentially Christian institution!”
Not satisfied with keeping an institution which the more
Christian religion of the Mohammedan Bey of Tunis has rejected as a “sin
against God,” we seek to extend it, to perpetuate it, even on soil which the
half-civilized Mexicans made clear from its pollutions. The great organs of the
party politics of the land are in favour of the extension; the great
political men of the land seek to extend it; the leading men in the
large mercantile towns of the North — in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia—are
also in favour of extending slavery. All this is plain.
But, sir, as I come up here to this Convention year after
year, I find some signs of encouragement. Even in the present state of things,
the star of hope appears, and we may safely and reasonably say, “Now is our
salvation nearer than when we first believed” in anti-slavery. Let us look a
little at the condition of America at this moment, to see what there is to help
or what to hinder us. First, I will speak of the present crisis in our affairs;
then of the political parties amongst us; then of the manner in which this
crisis is met; next of the foes of freedom; and last, of its friends. I will
speak with all coolness, and try to speak short. By the middle of the
anniversary week, men get a little heated; I am sure I shall be cool, and I
think I may also be dull.
There must be unity of action in a nation, as well as in a man,
or there cannot be harmony and welfare. As a man “cannot serve two masters”
antagonistic and diametrically opposed to one another, as God and Mammon, no
more can a nation serve two opposite principles at the same time.
Now, there are two opposite and conflicting principles
recognized in the political action of America: at this moment, they contend for
the mastery, each striving to destroy the other.
There is what I call the American idea. I so name it,
because it seems to me to lie at the basis of all our truly original,
distinctive, and American institutions. It is itself a complex idea, composed
of three subordinate and more simple ideas, namely: The idea that all men have
unalienable rights; that in respect thereof, all men are created equal; and that
government is to be established and sustained for the purpose of giving every
man an opportunity for the enjoyment and development of all these unalienable
rights. This idea demands, as the' proximate organization thereof, a democracy,
that is, a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people;
of course, a government after the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging
law of God; for shortness’ sake, I will call it the idea of freedom.
That is one idea; and the other is, that one man has a right
to hold another man in thraldom, not for the slave's good, but for the master's
convenience; not on account of any wrong the slave has done or intended, but
solely for the benefit of the master. This idea is not peculiarly American. For
shortness' sake, I will call this the idea of slavery. It demands for its
proximate organization, an aristocracy, that is, a government of all the people
by a part of the people — the masters; for a part of the people — the masters;
against a part of the people — the slaves; a government contrary to the
principles of eternal justice, contrary to the unchanging law of God. These two
ideas are hostile, irreconcilably hostile, and can no more be compromised and
made to coalesce in the life of this nation, than the worship of the real God
and the worship of the imaginary devil can be combined and made to coalesce in
the life of a single man. An attempt has been made to reconcile and unite the
two. The slavery clauses of the
Constitution
of the United States is one monument of this attempt; the results of this
attempt — you see what they are, not order, but confusion.
We cannot have any settled and lasting harmony until one or
the other of these ideas is cast out of the councils of the nation: so there
must be war between them before there can be peace. Hitherto, the nation has
not been clearly aware of the existence of these two adverse principles; or,
if aware of their existence, has thought little of their irreconcilable
diversity. At the present time, this fact is brought home to our consciousness
with great clearness. On the one hand, the friends of freedom set forth the
idea of freedom, clearly and distinctly, demanding liberty for each man. This
has been done as never before. Even in the Senate of the United States it has
been done, and repeatedly during the present session of Congress. On the other
hand, the enemies of freedom set forth the idea of slavery as this has not been
done in other countries for a long time. Slavery has not been so lauded in any
legislative body for many a year, as in the American Senate in 1850. Some of
the discussions remind one of the spirit which prevailed in the Roman Senate,
A. D. 62, when about four hundred slaves were crucified, because their master,
Pedanius Secundus, a man of consular dignity, was found murdered in his bed. I
mean to say, the same disregard of the welfare of the slaves, the same
willingness to sacrifice them — if not their lives, which are not now at peril,
at least their welfare, to the convenience of their masters. Anybody can read
the story in Tacitus,2 and it is worth reading, and instructive,
too, at these times.
Here are some of the statements relative to slavery made in
the thirty-first Congress of the United States. Hearken to the testimony of the
Hon. Mr Badger, of North Carolina:
“It is clear that this institution
[slavery] not only was not disapproved of, but was expressly recognized,
approved, and its continuance sanctioned by the divine lawgiver of the Jews.”
“Whether an evil or not, it is not a
sin; it is not a violation of the divine law.
“What treatment did it receive from
the founder of the gospel dispensation? It was approved, first negatively, because,
in the whole New Testament, there is not to be found one single word, either
spoken by the Saviour, or by any of the evangelists or apostles, in which that
institution is either directly or indirectly condemned; and also
affirmatively.” This he endeavours to show, by quoting the passages from St
Paul, usually quoted for that purpose. “Nothing would be easier than for St
Paul to have said — ‘Slaves, be obedient to your heathen masters; but I say to
you, feeling masters, emancipate your slaves; the law of Christ is against that
relation, and you are bound, therefore, to set them at liberty.’ No such word
is spoken.”
Thus far goes the Hon. Senator Badger, of North Carolina.
Mr Brown, of Mississippi, goes further yet. He knows what
some men think of slavery, and tells them, “Very well, think so; but keep your
thoughts to yourselves.” He is not content with bidding the “freest and most enlightened
nation in the world,” be silent on this matter: he is not content, with Mr
Badger, to declare that if an evil, it is not a sin, and to find it upheld in
the Old Testament, and allowed in the New Testament; he tells us that he “regards
slavery as a great moral, social, political, and religious blessing — a
blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master.”
Thus, the issue is fairly made between the two principles.
The contradiction is plain. The battle between the two is open, and in sight of
the world.
But this is not the first time there has been a quarrel
between the idea of slavery and the idea of freedom in America. The quarrel has
lasted, with an occasional truce, for more than sixty years. In six battles,
slavery has been victorious over freedom.
1. In the adoption of the Constitution supporting slavery.
2. In the acquisition of Louisiana as slave territory.
3. In the acquisition of Florida as slave territory.
4. In making the Missouri Compromise.
5. In the annexation of Texas as a slave State.
6. In the Mexican war — a war mean and wicked, even amongst
wars.
Since the Revolution, there have been three instances of
great national importance, in which freedom has overcome slavery; there have
been three victories:
2. In prohibiting the slave-trade in 1808. I mean, in prohibiting
the African slave-trade; the American slave-trade is still carried on in the
capital of the United States.
3. The prohibition of slavery in Oregon may be regarded as a
third victory, though not apparently of so much consequence as the others.
Now comes another battle, and it remains to be decided
whether the idea of slavery or the idea of freedom is to prevail in the
territory we have conquered and stolen from Mexico. The present strife is to
settle that question. Now, as before, it is a battle between freedom and
slavery; one on which the material and spiritual welfare of millions of men
depends; but now the difference between freedom and slavery is more clearly
seen than in 1787; the consequences of each are better understood, and the sin
of slavery is felt and acknowledged by a class of persons who had few
representatives sixty years ago. It is a much greater triumph for slavery to
prevail now, and carry its institutions into New Mexico in 1850, than it was to
pass the pro-slavery provisions of the Constitution in 1787. It will be a
greater sin now to extend slavery, than it was to establish it in 1620, when
slaves were first brought to Virginia.
Ever since the adoption of the Constitution, protected by
that shield, mastering the energies of the nation, and fighting with that
weapon, slavery has been continually aggressive. The slave-driver has coveted
new soil; has claimed it; has had his claim allowed. Louisiana, Florida, Texas,
California, and New Mexico are the results of Southern aggression. Now the
slave-driver reaches out his hand towards Cuba, trying to clutch that emerald
gem set in the tropic sea. How easy it was to surrender to Great Britian
portions of the Oregon Territory in a high Northern latitude! Had it been South
of 36° 30', it would not have been so easy to settle the Oregon question by a
compromise. So when we make a compromise there, “the reciprocity must be all on
one side.”
Let us next look at the position of the political parties
with respect to the present crisis. There are now four political parties in the
land.
1. There is the Government party, represented by the
President, and portions of his Cabinet, if not the whole of it. This party does
not attempt to meet the question which comes up, but to dodge and avoid it.
Shall freedom or slavery prevail in the new territory? is the question. The
Government has no opinion; it will leave the matter to be settled by the people
of the territory. This party wishes California to come into the Union without
slavery, for it is her own desire so to come; and does not wish a territorial
government to be formed by Congress in New Mexico, but to leave the people
there to form a State, excluding or establishing slavery as they see fit. The
motto of this party is inaction, not intervention. King James I. once proposed
a question to the judges of England. They declined to answer it, and the king
said, "If ye give no counsel, then why be ye counsellors?" The people
of the United States might ask the Government, "If ye give us no leading,
then why be ye leaders?” This party is not hostile to slavery; not opposed to
its extension.
2. Then there is the Whig party. This party has one distinctive
idea; the idea of a tariff for protection; whether for the protection of
American labour, or merely American capital, I will not now stop to inquire.
The Whig party is no more opposed to slavery, or its extension, than the
Government party itself.
However, there are two divisions of the Whigs, the Whig
party South, and the Whig party North. The two agree in their ideas of
protection, and their pro-slavery character. But the Whig party South advocates
slavery and protection; the Whig party North, protection and slavery.
In the North there are many Whigs who are opposed to
slavery, especially to the extension of slavery; there are also many other
persons, not of the Whig party, opposed to the extension of slavery; therefore
in the late electioneering campaign, to secure the votes of these persons, it
was necessary for the Whig party North to make profession of anti-slavery. This
was done accordingly, in a general form, and in special an attempt was made to
show that the Whig party was opposed to the extension of slavery.
Hear what Senator Chase says on this point. I read from his
speech in the Senate, on March 26, 1850:—
“On the Whig side it was urged, that
the candidate of the Philadelphia Convention was, if not positively favourable
to the Proviso, at least pledged to leave the matter to Congress free from
executive influence, and ready to prove it when enacted by that body.”
General Cass had written the celebrated “Nicholson Letter,”
in which he declared that Congress had no constitutional power to enact the
Proviso. But so anxious were the Democrats of the North to assume an
anti-slavery aspect, — continues Mr Chase, — that
“Notwithstanding this letter, many of
his friends in the free States persisted in asserting that he would not, if
elected, veto the Proviso; many also insisted that he regarded slavery as
excluded from the territories by the Mexican laws still in force; while others
maintained that he regarded slavery as an institution of positive law, and
Congress as constitutionally incompetent to enact such law, and that therefore
it was impossible for slavery to get into the territories, whether Mexican law
was in force or not.”
This, says Mr Chase, was the Whig argument:—
“Prohibition is essential to the
certain exclusion of slavery from the territories. If the Democratic candidate
shall be elected, prohibition is impossible, for the veto will be used: if the
Whig candidate shall be elected, prohibition is certain, provided you elect a
Congress who will carry out your will. Vote, therefore, for the Whigs.”
Such was the general argument of the Whig party. Let us see
what it was in Massachusetts in special. Here I have documentary evidence. This
is the statement of the Whig Convention at Worcester in 1848, published shortly
before the election;—
“We understand the Whig party to be
committed in favour of the principles contained in the ordinance of 1787, the
prohibition of slavery in territory now free, and of its abolition wherever it
can be constitutionally effected.”
They professed to aim at the same thing which the free soil
party aimed at, only the work must be done by the old Whig organization. Free
soil cloth must be manufactured, but it must be woven in the old Whig mill,
with the old Whig machinery, and by the Whig weavers. See what the Convention
says of the Democratic party:—
“We understand the Democratic party to
be pledged to decline any legislation upon the subject of slavery, with a view
either to its prohibition or restriction in places where it does not exist, or
to its abolition in any of the territories of the United States.”
There is no ambiguity in that language. Men can talk very
plain when they will. Still there were some that doubted; so the great and
famous men of the party came out to convince the doubters that the Whigs were
the men to save the country from the disgrace of slavery.
Here let me introduce the testimony of Mr Choate. This which
follows is from his speech at Salem. He tells us the great work is, “The
passage of a law to-day that California and New Mexico shall remain for ever
free. That is . . . an object of great and transcendent importance: . . . we
should go up to the very limits of the Constitution itself . . . to defeat the
always detested and forever-to-be detested object of the dark ambition of that
candidate of the Baltimore Convention, who has consented to pledge himself in
advance, that he will veto the future law of freedom!” “Is there a Whig upon this floor who
doubts that the strength of the Whig party next March will extend freedom to
California and New Mexico, if by the Constitution they are entitled to freedom
at all? Is there a member of Congress that would not vote for freedom?” [Sancta simplicitas! Ora pro nobis!]
“Is there a single Whig constituency, in any free State in this country, that
would return any man that would not vote for freedom? Do you believe that
Daniel Webster himself could be returned, if there was the least doubt upon
this question?”
That is plain speech. But, to pass from the special to the
particular, hear Mr Webster himself. What follows is from his famous speech at
Marshfield, September, 1848.
“General Cass (he says) will have the
Senate; and with the patronage of the Government, with the interest that he, as
a Northern man, can bring to bear, co-operating with every interest that the
South can bring to bear, we cry safety before we are out of the woods,
if we feel that there is no danger as to these new territories!” “In my
judgment, the interests of the country and the feelings of a vast majority of
the people require that a President of these United States shall be elected,
who will neither use his official influence to promote, nor who feels any
disposition in his heart to promote, the further extension of slavery in this
country, and the further influence of it in the public councils.”
Speaking of the free soil party and the Buffalo platform, he
says — “I hold myself to be as good a free soil man as any of the Buffalo
convention.” Of the platform, he says — “I can stand upon it pretty well.” “I
beg to know who is to inspire into my breast a more resolute and fixed
determination to resist, unyieldingly, the encroachments and advances of the
slave power in this country, than has inspired it, ever since the day that I
first opened my mouth in the councils of the country.”
If such language as this would not “deceive the very elect,”
what was more to the point, it was quite enough to deceive the electors. But
now this language is forgotten; forgotten in general by the Whig party North;
forgotten in special by those who seemed to be the exponents of the Whig
party in Massachusetts; forgotten at any rate by the nine hundred and
eighty-seven men who signed the letter to Mr Webster; and in particular it is
forgotten by Mr Webster himself, who now says that it would disgrace his own
understanding to vote for the extension of the Wilmot Proviso over the new
territory!
There were some men in New England who did not believe the
statements of the Whig party North in 1848, because they knew the men that
uttered the sentiments of the Whig party South. The leaders put their thumbs in
the eyes of the people, and then said, “Do
you see any dough in our faces?” “No!” said the people, “not a
speck.” “Then vote our ticket, and never say we are not hostile to slavery so
long as you live.”
At the South, the Whig party used language somewhat
different. Here is a sample from the New Orleans Bee:—
“General Taylor is from birth,
association, and conviction, identified with the South and her institutions;
being one of the most extensive slave-holders in Louisiana — and supported by
the slave-holding interest, as opposed to the Wilmot Proviso, and in favour of
securing the privilege to the owners of slaves to remove with them to newly
acquired territory.”
3. Then there is the Democratic party. The distinctive idea
of the Democrats is represented by the word anti-protection, or revenue tariff.
This party, as such, is still less opposed to slavery than the Whigs; however,
there are connected with it, at the North, many men who oppose the extension of
slavery. This party is divided into two divisions, the Democratic party South,
and the Democratic party North. They agree in their idea of anti-protection and
slavery, differing only in the emphasis which they give to the two words. The
Democrats of the South say Slavery and anti-protection; the Democrats North,
Anti-protection and slavery. Thus you see, that while there is a specific
difference between Democrats and Whigs, there is also a generic agreement in
the matter of slavery. According to the doctrine of elective affinities, both
drop what they have a feeble affinity for, and hold on with what their stronger
affinity demands. The Whigs and Democrats of the South are united in their
attachment to slavery, not only mechanically, but by a sort of chemical union.
Mr Cass's Nicholson letter is well known. He says, Congress
has no constitutional right to restrict slavery in the territories. Here is the
difference between him and General Taylor. General Taylor does not interfere at
all in the matter. If Congress puts slavery in, he says, Very well! If Congress
puts slavery out, he says the same, Very well! But if Congress puts slavery
out, General Cass would say, No. You shall not put it out. One has the policy
of King Log, the other that of King Serpent. So far as that goes Log is the
better king.
So much for the Democratic party.
4. The free soil party opposes slavery so far as it is
possible to do, and yet comply with the Constitution of the United States. Its
idea is declared by its words, — No more slave territory. It does not profess
to be an antislavery party in general, only an anti-slavery party subject to
the Constitution. In the present crisis in the Congress of the United States,
it seems to me the men who represent this idea, though not always professing
allegiance to the party, have yet done the nation good and substantial service.
I refer more particularly to Messrs Chase, Seward, and Hale in the Senate, to
Messrs Root, Giddings, and Mann in the House. Those gentlemen swear to keep the
Constitution; in what sense and with what limitations
I know not. It is for them to settle that matter with their
own consciences. I do know this, that these men have spoken very noble words
against slavery; heroic words in behalf of freedom. It is not to be supposed
that the free soil party, as such, has attained the same convictions as to the
sin of slavery, which the anti-slavery party has long arrived at. Still they
may be as faithful to their convictions as any of the men about this platform.
If they have less light to walk by, they have less to be accountable for. For
my own part, spite of their short-comings, and of some things which to me seem
wrong in the late elections in New England, I cannot help thinking they have
done good as individuals, and as a party; it seems to me they have done good
both ways. I will honour all manly opposition to slavery, whether it come up to
my mark, or does not come near it. I will ask every man to be true to his
conscience, and his reason, not to mine.
In speaking of the parties, I ought not to omit to say a
word or two respecting some of the most prominent men, and their position in
reference to this slavery question. It is a little curious, that of all the
candidates for the Presidency, Mr Benton, of Missouri, should be the least
inclined to support the pretensions of the slave power. But so it is.
Of Mr Cass, nothing more need be said at present; his
position is defined and well known. But a word must be said of Mr Clay. He comes
forward, as usual, with a “Compromise.” Here it is, in the famous “Omnibus
Bill.” In one point it is not so good as the Government scheme. General Taylor,
as the organ of the party, recommends the admission of California, as an
independent measure. He does not huddle and lump it together with any other
matters; and in this respect, his scheme is more favourable to freedom than the
other; for Mr Clay couples the admission of California with other things. But
in two points Mr Clay's bill has the superiority over the General's scheme.
1. It limits the Western and Northern boundaries of Texas,
and so reduces the territory of that State, where slavery is now established by
law. Yet, as I understand it, he takes off from New Mexico about seventy
thousand square miles, enough to make eight or ten States like Massachusetts,
and delivers it over to Texas to be slave soil; as Mr Webster says, out of the
power of Congress to redeem from that scourge.
2. It does not maintain that Congress has no power to
exclude slavery in admitting a new State; whereas, if I understand the
President in his message, he considers such an act “An invasion of their
rights.”3
Let us pass by Mr Clay, and come to the other aspirant for
the Presidency.
At the Philadelphia Convention, Mr Webster, at the most,
could only get one-half the votes of New England; several of these not given in
earnest, but only as a compliment to the great man from the North. Now, finding
his presidential wares not likely to be bought by New England, he takes them to
a wider market; with what success we shall one day see.
Something has already been said in the newspapers and
elsewhere, about Mr Webster's speech. No speech ever delivered in America has
excited such deep and righteous indignation. I know there are influential men
in Boston, and in all large towns, who must always have somebody to sustain and
applaud. They some time since applauded Mr Webster, for reasons very well
known, and now continue their applause of him. His late speech pleases them;
its worst parts please them most. All that is as was to be expected; men like
what they must like. But, in the country, among the sober men of Massachusetts
and New England, who prize right above the political expediency of to-day, I
think Mr Webster's speech is read with indignation. I believe no one political
act in America, since the treachery of Benedict Arnold, has excited so much
moral indignation, as the conduct of Daniel Webster.
But I pass by his speech, to speak of other things connected
with that famous man. One of the most influential pro-slavery newspapers of
Boston, calls the gentlemen who signed the letter to him, the “Retainers” of Mr
Webster. The word is well chosen and quite descriptive. This word is used in a
common, a feudal, and a legal sense. In the common sense, it means one who has complete
possession of the thing retained; in the feudal sense, it means a dependent or
vassal, who is bound to support his liege lord; in the legal sense, it
means the person who hires an attorney to do his business; and the sum given to
secure his services, or prevent him from acting for the opposite party, is
called a retaining fee. I take it the word “Retainers” is used in the legal
sense; certainly it is not in the feudal sense, for these gentlemen do not owe
allegiance to Mr Webster. Nor is it in its common sense, for events have shown
that they have not a “complete possession” of Mr Webster.
Now a word about this letter to him. Mr Webster's retainers —
nine hundred and eighty-seven in number — tell him, “You have pointed out to a
whole people the path of duty, have convinced the understanding, and touched
the conscience of a nation.” “We desire, therefore, to express to you our
entire concurrence in the sentiments of your speech, and our heartfelt thanks
for the inestimable aid it has afforded towards the preservation and
perpetuation of the Union.”
They express their entire concurrence in the sentiments of
his speech. In the speech, as published in the edition “revised and corrected
by himself,” Mr Webster declares his intention to support the famous fugitive
slave bill, and the amendments thereto, “with all its provisions, to the
fullest extent.”When the retainers express their “entire concurrence in the
sentiments of the speech,” they express their entire concurrence in that
intention. There is no ambiguity in the language; they make a universal
affirmation — (affirmatio de omni).
Now Mr Webster comes out, by two agents, and recants this declaration. Let me
do him no injustice. He shall be heard by his next friend, who wishes to amend
the record, a correspondent of the Boston Courier, of May 6th:—
“The speech now reads thus:— ‘My
friend at the head of the Judiciary Committee has a hill on the subject, now
before the Senate, with some amendments to it, which I propose to support, with
all its provisions, to the fullest extent.’ Change the position of the word
which, and the sentence would read thus:— ‘My friend at the head of the
Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject, now before the Senate, which,
with some amendments to it, I propose to support, with all its provisions, to
the fullest extent.’”
“Call you that backing your friends?” Really, it is too bad,
after his retainers have expressed their “entire concurrence in the sentiments
of the speech," for him to back out, to deny that he entertained one of
the sentiments already approved of and concurred in! Can it be possible, we
ask, that Mr Webster can resort to this device to defend himself, leaving his
retainers in the lurch? It does not look like him to do such a thing. But the
correspondent of the Courier goes on as follows:—
“We are authorized to state, first — That
Mr Webster did not revise this portion of his speech, with any view to examine
its exact accuracy of phrase; and second — That Mr Webster at the time of the
delivery of the speech, had in his desk three emendatory sections, . . . . and
one of which provides expressly for the right of trial by jury.”
But who is the person “authorized to state” such a thing?
Professor Stuart informs the public that it “comes from the hand of a man who
might claim a near place to Mr Webster, in respect to talent, integrity, and
patriotism.”
Still, this recantation is so unlike Mr Webster, that one
would almost doubt the testimony of so great an unknown as is the writer in the
Courier. But Mr Stuart removes all doubt, and says — “I merely add that Mr
Webster himself has personally assured me that his speech was in accordance
with the correction here made, and that he has now in his desk the amendments
to which the corrector refers.” So the retainers must bear the honour, or the
shame, whichsoever it may be, of volunteering the advocacy of that remarkable
bill.
When Paul was persecuted for righteousness’ sake, how easily
might “the offence of the cross” have been made to cease, by a mere
transposition! Had he pursued that plan, he need not have been let down from
the wall in a basket: he might have had a dinner given him by forty scribes, at
the first hotel in Jerusalem, and a doctor of the law to defend him in a
pamphlet.
But, alas! in Mr Webster's case, admitting the transposition
is real, the transubstantiation is not thereby effected; the transfer of the which
does not alter the character of the sentence to the requisite degree. The
bill, which he volunteers to advocate, contains provisions to this effect:
That the owner of a fugitive slave may seize his fugitive,
and, on the warrant of any “judge, commissioner, clerk, marshal, post-master,
or collector,” “residing or being” within the State where the seizure is made,
the fugitive, without any trial by jury, shall be delivered up to his master,
and carried out of the State. Now, this is the bill which Mr Webster proposes “to
support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.” Let him transfer his which,
it does not transubstantiate his statement so that he can consistently
introduce a section which "provides expressly for the right of trial by
jury." This attempt to evade the plain meaning of a plain statement, is
too small a thing for a great man.
I make no doubt that Mr Webster had in his desk, at the time
alleged, a bill designed to secure the trial by jury to fugitive slaves,
prepared as it is set forth. But how do you think it came there, and for what
purpose? Last February Mr Webster was intending to make a very different
speech; and then, I make no doubt, it was that this bill was prepared, with the
design of introducing it! But I see no reason for supposing, that when he made
his celebrated speech, he intended to introduce it as an amendment to Mr
Mason's or Butler's bill. It is said that he will present it to the Senate. Let
us wait and see.4
But, since the speech at Washington, Mr Webster has said
things at Boston almost as bad. Here they are; extracts from his speech at the
Revere House. I quote from the report in the Daily Advertiser. “Neither you nor
I shall see the legislation of the country proceed in the old harmonious way,
until the discussions in Congress and out of Congress upon the subject, to
which you have alluded [the subject of slavery], shall be, in some way,
suppressed. Take that truth home with you—and take it as truth.” A very pretty
truth that is to take home with us, that “discussion “ must be “suppressed!”
Again, he says:—
"Sir, the question is, whether
Massachusetts will stand to the truth against temptation [that is the
question]! whether she will be just against temptation! whether she will defend
herself against her own prejudices! She has conquered everything else in her
time; she has conquered this ocean which washes her shore; she has conquered
her own sterile soil; she has conquered her stern and inflexible climate; she
has fought her way to the universal respect of the world; she has conquered
every one's prejudices but her own. The question is, whether she will conquer
her own prejudices!"
The trumpet gives no uncertain sound; but before we prepare
ourselves for battle, let us see who is the foe. What are the
"prejudices" Massachusetts is to conquer? The prejudice in favour of
the American idea; the prejudice in favour of what our fathers called self-evident
truths; that all men “are endowed with certain unalienable rights;” that “all
men are created equal,” and that “to secure these rights, governments are
instituted amongst men.” These are the prejudices Massachusetts is called on to
conquer. There are some men who will do this “with alacrity;” but will
Massachusetts conquer her prejudices in favour of the “unalienable rights of
man”? I think, Mr President, she will first have to forget two hundred years of
history. She must efface Lexington and Bunker Hill from her memory, and tear
the old rock of Plymouth out from her bosom. These are prejudices which
Massachusetts will not conquer till the ocean ceases to wash her shore, and
granite to harden her hills. Massachusetts has conquered a good many things, as
Mr Webster tells us. I think there are several other things we shall try our
hand upon, before we conquer our prejudice in favour of the unalienable rights
of man.
There is one pleasant thing about this position of Mr
Webster. He is alarmed at the fire which has been kindled in his rear. He finds
“considerable differences of opinion prevail . . . . on the subject of that
speech,” and is “grateful to receive . . . . opinions so decidedly concurring
with” his own, — so he tells the citizens of Newburyport. He feels obliged to
do something to escape the obloquy which naturally comes upon him. So he
revises his speech; now supplying an omission, now altering a little;
authorizes another great man to transpose his relative pronoun, and anchor it
fast to another antecedent; appeals to amendments in the senatorial desk,
designed to secure a jury trial for fugitive slaves; derides his opponents, and
compares them with the patriots of ancient times. Here is his letter to the
citizens of Newburyport — a very remarkable document. It contains some
surprising legal doctrines, which I leave others to pass upon. But in it he
explains the fugitive slave law of 1793, which does not “provide for the trial
of any question whatever by jury, in the State in which the arrest is made.”
“At that time,” nobody regarded any of the provisions of that bill as “repugnant
to religion, liberty, the constitution, or humanity;” and he has “no more
objections to the provisions of this law, than was seen to them” by the framers
of the law itself. If he sees therein nothing "”repugnant to religion,
liberty, the constitution, or humanity,” then why transpose that relative
pronoun, and have an amendment “which provides expressly for the right of trial
by jury?”
“In order to allay excitement,” he answers, “and remove
objections.” “There are many difficulties, however, attending any such
provision [of a jury trial]; and a main one, and perhaps the only insuperable
one, has been created by the States themselves, by making it a penal offence in
their own officers, to render any aid in apprehending or securing such
fugitives, and absolutely refusing the use of their jails for keeping them in
custody, till a jury could be impanelled, witnesses summoned, and a regular
trial be had.”
Think of that! It is Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and
New York, which prohibit the fugitive from getting a trial for his freedom,
before a jury of twelve good men and true! But Mr Webster goes on: “It is not
too much to say, that to these State laws is to be attributed the actual and
practical denial of trial by jury in these cases.” Generally, the cause is
thought to precede the effect, but here is a case in which, according to Mr
Webster, the effect has got the start of the cause, by more than fifty years.
The fugitive slave law of Congress, which allowed the master to capture the
runaway, was passed in 1793; but the State laws he refers to, to which "is
to be attributed the actual and practical denial of trial by jury in these
cases,” were not passed till after 1840. “To what base uses may we come at
last!” Mr Webster would never have made such a defence of his pro-slavery
conduct, had he not been afraid of the fire in his rear, and thought his
retainers not able to put it out. He seems to think this fire is set in the name
of religion: so, to help us “conquer our prejudices,” he cautions us against
the use of religion, and quotes from the private letter of “one of the most
distinguished men in England,” dated as late as the 29th of January — “Religion
is an excellent thing in every matter except in politics: there it seems to
make men mad.” In this respect, it seems religion is inferior to money, for the
Proverbs tell us that money “answereth all things;” religion, it seems, “answereth
all things,” except politics. Poor Mr Webster! If religion is not good in
politics, I suppose irreligion is good there; and, really, it is often enough
introduced there. So, if religion “seems to make men mad” in politics, I
suppose irreligion makes them sober in politics. But Mr Webster, fresh from his
transposition of his own relative, explains this: His friend ascribes the evils
not to “true and genuine religion,” but to “that fantastic notion of religion.”
So, making the transposition, it would read thus: “That fantastical notion of religion,”
“is an excellent thing in any matter except politics.” Alas! Mr Webster does
not expound his friend's letter, nor his own language, so well as he used to
expound the Constitution. But he says, “The religion of the New Testament is as
sure a guide to duty in politics, as in any other concern of life.” So, in the
name of “conscience and the Constitution,” Professor Stuart comes forward to
defend Mr Webster, “by the religion of the New Testament; that religion which is founded on the teachings of Jesus and
his apostles.” How are the mighty fallen!
Mr Webster makes a “great speech,” lending his mighty
influence to the support and extension of slavery, with all its attendant
consequences, which paralyze the hand of industry, enfeeble the thinking mind,
and brutify the conscience which should discern between right and wrong; nine
hundred and eighty-seven of his retainers in Boston thank him for reminding
them of their duty. But still the fire in his rear is so hot, that he must come
on to Boston, talk about having discussion suppressed, and ask Massachusetts to
conquer her prejudices. That is not enough. He must go up to Andover, and get a
minister to defend him, in the name of “conscience and the Constitution,”
supporting slavery out of the Old Testament and New Testament. “To what mean
uses may we not descend!”
There is a “short and easy method” with Professor Stuart,
and all other men who defend slavery out of the Bible. If the Bible defends
slavery, it is not so much the better for slavery, but so much the worse for
the Bible. If Mr Stuart and Mr Webster do not see that, there are plenty of
obscurer men that do. Of all the attacks ever made on the Bible, by “deists”
and “infidels,” none would do so much to bring it into disrepute, as to show
that it sanctioned American slavery.
It is rather a remarkable fact, that an orthodox minister
should be on Mr Webster's paper, endorsing for the Christianity of slavery.
Let me say a word respecting the position of the Representative
from Boston. I speak only of his position, not of his personal character. Let
him, and all men, have the benefit of the distinction between their personal
character and official conduct. Mr Winthrop is a consistent Whig; a
representative of the idea of the Whig party North, protection and slavery.
When he first went into Congress, it was distinctly understood that he was not
going to meddle with the matter of slavery; the tariff was the thing. All this
was consistent. It is to be supposed that a Northern Whig will put the mills of
the North before the black men of the South: and “Property before persons,”
might safely be writ on the banner of the Whig party, North or South.
Mr Winthrop seems a little uneasy in his position. Some time
ago he complained of a “nest of vipers” in Boston, who had broken their own
teeth in gnawing a file; meaning the “vipers” in the free soil party, I
suppose, whose teeth, however, have a little edge still left on them. He finds
it necessary to define his position, and show that he has kept up his communication
with the base line of operations from which he started. This circumstance is a
little suspicious.
Unlike Mr Webster, Mr Winthrop seems to think religion is a
good thing in politics, for in his speech of May 7th, he says — “I acknowledge my allegiance to the
whole Constitution of the United States. . . between the Constitution of my
country and the laws of my God, my course is clear. I shall resign my office,
whatever it may be, and renounce all connection with public service of any
sort.” That is fair and manly. He will not hold a position under the
Constitution of the United States which is inconsistent with the Constitution
of the Universe. But he says — “There are provisions in the Constitution [of
the United States, he means, not of the universe], which involve us in painful
obligations, and from which some of us would rejoice to be relieved; and this
[the restoration of fugitive slaves] is one of them. But there is none, none,
in my judgment, which involves any conscientious or religious difficulty.” So
he has no “conscientious or religious” objection to return a fugitive slave. He
thinks the Constitution of the United States “avoids the idea that there can be
property in man,” but recognizes “that there may be property in the service or
labour of man.” But when it is property in the service of man without value
received by the servant, and a claim which continues to attach to a man and his
children for ever, it looks very like the idea of property in man. At any rate,
there is only a distinction in the words, no difference in the things. To claim
the sum of the accidents, all and several of a thing, is practically to claim
the thing.
Mr Winthrop once voted for the Wilmot Proviso, in its
application to the Oregon Territory. Some persons have honoured him for it, and
even contended that he also was a free soiler. He wipes off that calumny by
declaring, that he attached that proviso to the Oregon bill for the purpose of
defeating the bill itself. “This proviso was one of the means upon which I
mainly relied for the purpose.” “There can be little doubt,” he says, “that
this clause had its influence in arresting the bill in the other end of the
capitol,” where it was “finally lost.” That is his apology for appearing to
desire to prevent the extension of slavery. It is worth while to remember this.
Unlike Mr Webster, he thinks slavery may go into New Mexico.
“We may hesitate to admit that nature has everywhere [in the new territory] settled
the question against slavery.” Still he would not now pass the proviso to
exclude slavery. It “would . . . unite the South as one man, and if it did not
actually rend the Union asunder, would create an alienation and irritation in
that quarter of the country, which would render the Union hardly worth
preserving.” “Is there not ample reason for an abatement of the Northern tone,
for a forbearance of Northern urgency upon this subject, without the imputation
of tergiversation and treachery?”
Here I am reminded of a remarkable sentence in Mr Webster's
speech at Marshfield, in relation to the Northern men who helped to annex
Texas. Here it is:—
“For my part, I think that Dough-faces
is an epithet not sufficiently reproachful. Now, I think such persons are
dough-faces, dough-heads, and dough-souls, that they are all dough; that the
coarsest potter may mould them at pleasure to vessels of honour or dishonour,
but most readily to vessels of dishonour.”
The Representative from Boston, in the year 1850, has small
objection to the extension of slave soil. Hearken to his words:—
“I can never put the question of
extending slave soil on the same footing with one of directly increasing
slavery and multiplying slaves. If a positive issue could ever again be made up
for our decision, whether human beings, few or many, of whatever race,
complexion, or condition, should be freshly subjected to a system of hereditary
bondage, and be changed from freemen into slaves, I can conceive that no bonds
of union, no ties of interest, no cords of sympathy, no consideration of past
glory, present welfare, or future grandeur, should be suffered to interfere,
for an instant, with our resolute and unceasing resistance to a measure so
iniquitous and abominable. There would be a clear, unquestionable moral element
in such an issue, which would admit of no compromise, no concession, no
forbearance whatever. . . . A million of swords would leap from their scabbards
to assert it, and the Union itself would be shivered like a Prince Rupert's
dress in the shock.
“But, Sir, the question whether the
institution of slavery, as it already exists, shall be permitted to extend
itself over a hundred or a hundred thousand more square miles than it now
occupies, is a different question. . . It is not, in my judgment, such an issue
that conscientious and religious men may not be free to acquiesce in whatever
decision may be arrived at by the constituted authorities of the country. . . .
It is not with a view of cooping up slavery . . . within limits too narrow for
its natural growth; . . . it is not for the purpose of girding it round with
lines of fire, till its sting, like that of the scorpion, shall be turned upon
itself, . . . that I have ever advocated the principles of the Ordinance of
1787.”
Mr Mann, I think, is still called a Whig, but no member of
the free soil party has more readily or more ably stood up against the
extension of slavery. His noble words stand in marvellous contrast to the
discourse of the Representative from Boston. Mr Mann represents the country,
and not the “metropolis.” His speech last February, and his recent letter to
his constituents, are too well known, and too justly prized, to require any
commendation here. But I cannot fail to make a remark on a passage in the
letter. He says, if we allow Mr Clay's compromise to be accepted, “Were it not
for the horrible consequences which it would involve, a roar of laughter, like
a feu de joie, would run down the course of the ages.” He afterwards
says — “Should the South succeed in their present attempt upon the territories,
they will impatiently await the retirement of General Taylor from the executive
chair to add the ‘State of Cuba’ . . . to this noble triumph.” One is a little
inclined to start such a laugh himself at the idea of the South waiting for
that event before they undertake that plan!
Mr Mann says: “If no moral or religious obligation existed
against holding slaves, would not many of those opulent and respectable
gentlemen who signed the letter of thanks to Mr Webster, and hundreds of
others, indeed, instead of applying to intelligence offices for domestics, go
at once to the auction room, and buy a man or a woman with as little hesitancy
or compunction as they now send to Brighton for beeves?” This remark has drawn
on him some censures not at all merited. There are men enough in Boston, who
have no objection to slavery. I know such men, who would have been glad if
slavery had been continued here. Are Boston merchants unwilling to take
mortgages on plantations and negroes? Do Northern men not acquire negroes by
marrying wealthy women at the South, and keep the negroes as slaves? If the
truth could be known, I think it would appear that Dr Palfrey had lost more
reputation in Boston than he gained, by emancipating the human beings which
fell to his lot. But here is a story which I take from the Boston Republican.
It is worth preserving as a monument of the morals of Boston in 1850, and may
be worth preserving at the end of the century:—
“A year or two since, a bright-looking
mulatto youth, about twenty years of age, and whose complexion was not much, if
any, darker than that of the great ‘Expounder of the Constitution,’ entered the
counting-room, on some errand for his master, a Kentuckian, who was making a
visit here. A merchant on one of our principal wharves, who came in and spoke
to him, remarked to the writer that he once owned this “boy” and his mother,
and sold them for several hundred dollars. Upon my expressing astonishment to
him that he could thus deal in human flesh, he remarked that ‘When you are
among the Romans, you must do as the Romans do.’ I know of others of my
Northern acquaintances, and good Whigs too, who have owned slaves at the South,
and who, if public opinion warranted it, would be as likely, I presume, to buy
and sell them at the North.”
I have yet to learn that the controlling men of this city
have any considerable aversion to domestic slavery.5
Mr Mann's zeal in behalf of freedom, and against the
extension of slavery, has drawn upon him the indignation of Mr Webster, who is
grieved to see him so ignorant of American law. But Mr Mann is able to do his
own fighting.
So much for the political parties and their relation to the
matters at issue at this moment. Still, there is some reason to hope that the
attempt to extend slavery, made in the face of the world, and supported by such
talent, will yet fail; that it will bring only shame on the men who aim to
extend and perpetuate so foul a blight. The fact that Mr Webster's retainers
must come to the rescue of their attorney; that himself must write letters to
defend himself, and must even obtain the services of a clergyman to help him — this
shows the fear that is felt from the antislavery spirit of the North. Depend
upon it, a politician is pretty far gone when he sends for the minister, and he
thinks his credit failing when he gets a clergyman on his paper to indorse for
the Christian character of American slavery.
Here I ought to speak of the party not politicians, who
contend against slavery not only beyond the limits of the Constitution, but
within those limits; who are opposed not only to the extension, but to the
continuance of slavery; who declare that they will keep no compromises which
conflict with the eternal laws of God,—of the anti-slavery party. Mr President,
if I were speaking to Whigs, to Democrats, or to free soil men, perhaps I might
say what I think of this party, of their conduct, and their motives; but, Sir,
I pass it by, with the single remark, that I think the future will find this
party where they have always been found. I have before now attempted to point
out the faults of this party, and before these men; that work I will not now
attempt a second time, and this is not the audience before which I choose to
chant its praises.
There are several forces which oppose the anti-slavery
movement at this day. Here are some of the most important.
The demagogues of the parties are all, or nearly all,
against it. By demagogue I mean the man who undertakes to lead the people for
his own advantage, to the harm and loss of the people themselves. All of this
class of men, or most of them, now support slavery—not, as I suppose, because
they have any special friendship for it, but because they think it will serve
their turn. Some noble men in politics are still friends of the slave.
The demagogues of the churches must come next. I am not
inclined to attribute so much original power to the churches as some men do. I
look on them as indications of public opinion, and not sources thereof — not
the wind, but only the vane which shows which way it blows. Once the clergy
were the masters of the people, and the authors of public opinion to a great
degree; now they are chiefly the servants of the people, and follow
public opinion, and but seldom aspire to lead it, except in matters of their
own craft, such as the technicalities of a sect, or the form of a ritual. They
may lead public opinion in regard to the “posture in prayer,” to the “form of
baptism,” and the like. In important matters which concern the welfare of the
nation, the clergy have none or very little weight. Still, as representatives
of public opinion, we really find most of the clergy of all denominations,
arrayed against the cause of eternal justice. I pass over this matter briefly,
because it is hardly necessary for me to give any opinion on the subject. But I
am glad to add, that in all denominations here in New England, and perhaps in
all the North, there are noble men, who apply the principles of justice to this
question of the nation, and bear a manly testimony in the midst of bad
examples. Some of the theological newspapers have shown a hostility to slavery
and an attachment to the cause of liberty which few men expected; which were
quite unknown in those quarters before. To do full justice to men in the sects
who speak against this great and popular sin of the nation, we ought to
remember that it is harder for a minister than for almost any other man to
become a reformer. It is very plain that it is not thought to belong to the
calling of a minister, especially in a large town, to oppose the actual and
popular sins of his time. So when I see a minister yielding to the public
opinion which favours unrighteousness, and passing by, in silence and on the
other side, causes which need and deserve his labours and his prayers, I
remember what he is hired for, and paid for, — to represent the popular form of
religion; if that be idolatry, to represent that. But when I see a minister
oppose a real sin which is popular, I cannot but feel a great admiration for
the man. We have lately seen some examples of this.
Yet, on the other side, there are some very sad examples of
the opposite. Here comes forward a man of high standing in the New England
churches, a man who has done real service in promoting a liberal study of
matters connected with religion, and defends slavery out of what he deems the “Infallible
word of God,”—the Old Testament and the New Testament. Well, if Christianity
supports American slavery, so much the worse for Christianity, that is all.
Perhaps I ought not to say, if Christianity supports slavery. We all
know it does not, never did, and never can. But if Paul was an apologist for
slavery, so much the worse for Paul. If Calvinism or Catholicism supports
slavery, so much the worse for them, not so much the better for slavery! I can
easily understand the conduct of the leaders of the New York mob: considering
the character of the men, their ignorance and general position, I can easily
suppose they may have thought they were doing right in disturbing the meetings
there. Considering the apathy of the public authorities, and the attempt,
openly made by some men, — unluckily of influence in that city,— to excite
others to violence, I have a good deal of charity for Rynders and his gang. But
it is not so easy to excuse the conspicuous ecclesiastical defenders of
slavery. They cannot plead their ignorance. Let them alone, to make the best
defence they can.
The Toryism of America is also against us. I call that man a
Tory, who prefers the accidents of man to the substance of manhood. I mean one
who prefers the possessions and property of mankind to man himself, to reason
and to justice. Of this Toryism we have much in America, much in New England,
much in Boston. In this town, I cannot but think the prevailing influence is
still a Tory influence. It is this which is the support of the demagogues of
the State and the Church.
Toryism exists in all lands. In some, there is a good deal
of excuse to be made for it. I can understand the Toryism of the Duke of Medina
Sidonia, and of such men. If a man has been born to great wealth and power,
derived from ancestors for many centuries held in admiration and in awe; if he
has been bred to account himself a superior being, and to be treated
accordingly, I can easily understand the Toryism of such a man, and find some
excuse for it. I can understand the Tory literature of other nations. The
Toryism of the “London
Quarterly,” of “Blackwood,” is
easily accounted for, and forgiven. It is, besides, sometimes adorned with wit,
and often set off by much learning. It is respectable Toryism. But the Toryism
of men who only know they had a grandfather by inference, not by positive
testimony; who inherited nothing but their bare limbs; who began their career
as tradesmen or mechanics, — mechanics in divinity or law as well as in
trade,—and get their bread by any of the useful and honourable callings of life
— that such men, getting rich, or lifting their heads out of the obscurity they
were once in, should become Tories, in a land, too, where institutions are
founded on the idea of freedom and equity and natural justice — that is another
thing. The Toryism of American journals, with little scholarship, with no wit,
and wisdom in homoeopathic doses; the Toryism of a man who started from nothing,
the architect of his own fortune; the Toryism of a republican, of a Yankee, the
Toryism of a snob, — it is Toryism reduced to its lowest denomination, made
vulgar and contemptible; it is the little end of the tail of Toryism. Let us
loathe the unclean thing in the depth of our soul, but let us pity the poor
Tory; for he, also, in common with the negro slave, is “A man and a brother.”
Then the spirit of trade is often against us. Mr Mann, in
his letter, speaks of the opposition made to Wilberforce by the “Guinea
merchants” of Liverpool, in his attempts to put an end to the slave-trade. The
Corporation of Liverpool spent over ten thousand pounds in defence of a
traffic, “the worst the sun ever shone upon.” This would seem to be a
reflection upon some of the merchants of Boston. It seems, from a statement in
the Atlas, that Mr Mann did not intend his remarks to apply to Boston, but to
New York and Philadelphia, where mass meetings of merchants had been held, to
sustain Mr Clay's compromise resolutions. Although Mr Mann did not apply his
remarks to Boston, I fear they will apply here as well as to our sister cities.
I have yet to learn that the letter of Mr Webster's retainers was any less well
adapted to continue and extend slavery, than the resolutions passed at New York
and Philadelphia. I wish the insinuations of Mr Mann did not apply here.
One of the signers of the letter to Mr Webster incautiously
betrayed, I think, the open secret of the retainers when he said — “I don't
care a damn how many slave States they annex!” This is a secret, because not
avowed; open, because
generally known, or at least believed, to be the sentiment of a strong party in
Massachusetts. I am glad to have it also expressed; now the issue is joined,
and we do not fight in the dark.
It has long been suspected that some inhabitants of Boston
were engaged in the slave-trade. Not long since, the brig “Lucy Anne,” of
Boston, was captured on the coast of Africa, with five hundred and forty-seven
slaves on board. This vessel was built at Thomaston in 1839; repaired at Boston
in 1848, and now hails from this port. She was commanded by one “Captain Otis,”
and is owned by one "Salem Charles." This, I suppose, is a fictitious
name, for certainly it would not be respectable in Boston to extend slavery in
this way. Even Mr Winthrop is opposed to that, and thinks “a million swords
would leap from their scabbards to oppose it.” But it may be that there are men
in Boston who do not think it any worse to steal men who were born free, and
have grown up free in Africa, and make slaves of them, than to steal such as
are born free in America, before they are grown up. If we have the Old
Testament decidedly sustaining slavery, and the New Testament never forbidding
it; if, as we are often told, neither Jesus nor his early followers ever said a
word against slavery; if scarcely a Christian minister in Boston ever preaches
against this national sin; if the Representative from Boston has no religious
scruples against returning a fugitive slave, or extending slavery over a “hundred
or a hundred thousand square miles” of new territory; if the great senator from
Massachusetts refuses to vote for the Wilmot Proviso, or re-affirm an ordinance
of nature, and re-enact the will of God; if he calls on us to return fugitive
slaves “with alacrity,” and demands of Massachusetts that she shall conquer her
prejudices; if nine hundred and eighty-seven men in this vicinity, of
lawful age,6 are thankful to him for enlightening them as to their
duty, and a professor of theology comes forward to sanction American slavery in
the name of religion—why, I think Mr “Salem Charles,” with his “Captain Otis,” may not be the worst
man in the world, after all! Let us pity him also, as “A man and a brother.”
Such is the crisis in our affairs; such the special issue in
the general question between freedom and slavery; such the position of parties
and of great men in relation to this question; such the foes to freedom in
America.
On our side, there are great and powerful allies. The
American idea is with us; the spirit of the majority of men in the North, when
they are not blindfolded and muzzled by the demagogues of State and Church. The
religion of the land, also, is on our side; the irreligion, the idolatry, the
infidelity thereof, all of that is opposed to us. Religion is love of God and
love of man: surely, all of that, under any form, Catholic or Quaker, is in
favour of the unalienable rights of man. We know that we are right; we are sure
to prevail. But in times present and future, as in times past, we need heroism,
self-denial, a continual watchfulness, and an industry which never tires.
Let us not be deceived about the real question at issue. It
is not merely whether we shall return fugitive slaves without trial by jury. We
will not return them with trial by jury! neither “with alacrity,” nor “with the solemnity of judicial
proceedings!” It is not merely whether slavery shall be extended or not. By and
by there will be a political party with a wider basis than the free soil party,
who will declare that the nation itself must put an end to slavery in the
nation; and if the Constitution of the United States will not allow it, there
is another Constitution that will. Then the title, Defender and expounder of
the Constitution of the United States, will give way to this, — “Defender and
expounder of the Constitution of the Universe,” and we shall re-affirm the
ordinance of nature, and re-enact the will of God. You may not live to see it,
Mr President, nor I live to see it; but it is written on the iron leaf that it
must come; come, too, before long. Then the speech of Mr Webster, and the
defence thereof by Mr Stuart, the letter of the retainers and the letters of
the retained, will be a curiosity; the conduct of the Whigs and Democrats an
amazement, and the peculiar institution a proverb amongst all the nations of
the earth. In the turmoil of party politics, and of personal controversy, let
us not forget continually to move the previous question, whether freedom or
slavery is to prevail in America. There is no attribute of God which is not on
our side; because, in this matter, we are on the side of God.
Mr President: I began by congratulating you on the
favourable signs of the times. One of the most favourable is the determination
of the South to use the powers of Government to extend slavery. At this day, we
exhibit a fact worse than Christendom has elsewhere to disclose; the
fact that one-sixth part of our population are mere property; not men, but
things. England has a proletary population, the lowest in Europe; we have three
million of proletaries lower than the “pauper labourers” of England, which the
Whig protectionists hold up to us in terror. The South wishes to increase the
number of slaves, to spread this blot, this blight and baneful scourge of
civilization, over new territory. Hot-headed men of the South declare that,
unless it is done, they will divide the Union; famous men of the North “cave
in,” and verify their own statements about “dough-faces” and “dough-souls.”
All this is preaching anti-slavery to the thinking men of the North; to
the sober men of all parties, who prefer conscience to cotton. The present
session of Congress has done much to overturn slavery. “Whom the gods destroy
they first make mad.”
_______________
1 Mr Silgestrom.
2 Annal. Lib. XIV. cap. 42, et seq.
3 Executive Documents: House of Representatives,
No. 17, p. 3.
4 Since the delivery of the above, Mr Webster has
introduced his bill, providing a trial by jury for fugitive slaves. If I
understand it, Mr Webster does not offer it as a substitute for the Judiciary
Bill on the subject, does not introduce it as an amendment to that or to
anything else. Nay, he does not formally introduce it—only lays it before the
Senate, with the desire that it may be printed! The effect it is designed to
produce, it is very easy to see. The retainers can now say—See! Mr Webster
himself wishes to provide a trial by jury for fugitives! Some of the provisions
of the bill are remarkable, but they need not be dwelt on here.
5 While this is passing through the press, I
learn that several worthy citizens of Boston are at this moment owners of
several hundreds of slaves. I think they would lose reputation among their
fellows if they should set them free.
6 It has since appeared that several of those
persons were at the time, and still are, holders of slaves. Their conduct need
excite no surprise.
SOURCE: Frances Power Cobbe, The Collected Works of Theodore Parker, Volume 5, p. 103-133
