CHAPTER VII.
THE ANARCHICAL PRINCIPLES OF ABOLITIONISM.

Nous verrons—Onward! seems to be alike the maxim and tendency of all violent reforms. It may be said, that Abolitionism has at last come to a fair and palpable denoument, in the formation of the New England Non-resistence Society, which was organized at Boston, in September, 1838, with William Lloyd Garrison, and such others, men and women, leaders. The fundamental principle of this new association is identical with that of the Abolition movement. Both hinge upon the same pivot. Indeed, it will be found, that all the violent reforms of our country are based upon this. It is stated in the Constitution of the Non-resistence Society in the following terms: “It appears to us a self-evident truth, that whatever the Gospel is designed to destroy at any period of the world, being contrary to it, ought now to be abandoned.” The mischievous element of this proposition, as reduced to practice by the violent reformers, is occult, and would appear in its naked form by substituting for the last word “abandoned,” that of destroyed—“ought now to be destroyed;” for these reformers do not admit, that those customs and laws, judged by their interpretation of the Gospel unlawful, may be retained till persuasion shall produce reform, and simply preach, that they “ought to be abandoned.” But they clearly show their meaning is, that they “ought to be destroyed” and that it is not only lawful, but praiseworthy and a duty, to destroy them. Destruction is the ruling power of the code; and society, the world, is to take its chances for the setting up of a better state of things.

Now, we maintain, that this is a fair statement of the principles of Abolitionism, and of all other of the violent movements. Their doctrine of immediatism—if we may invent a new term—is always one and the same, and always has been. Wherever they find an evil, or wrong—Down with it—is the rule. Fiat Justitia, ruat calum—a sound principle, certainly; and a good maxim, in prudent hands; but a terrible one, in rash hands.

It is a good thing, and a very instructive result, that the principles of these Destructives have at last come out, and been openly published to the world, in the Constitution and “Bill of sentiments,” adopted by the New England Non-resistance Society. There is now no longer a disguise. They openly renounce allegiance to all government: “We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government!” Here, then, it is, fairly ushered into the light of day—a condition of universal anarchy, the proclaimed Jubilee of these reformers. We have only to say, that this new Society has come honestly and openly to the end, to which all the Immediatists of whatever name, are rapidly advancing. The maxim—Down with it—which governs them all, and which is the soul, body, and foundation of their enterprise—cannot stop short of anarchy. There is nothing of importance in the avowed principles of this new Society, revolting and shocking as they are, which is not a legitimate consequence of Abolitionism; or, by the remotest degree of relationship, cousin-german to it. In the first place, they renounce allegiance to human government; the Abolitionists, to be consistent, ought to do the same; for they have made open war against it. They have announced the doctrine of Immediatism[1] as their fundamental principle; that also is the fundamental principle of the Abolitionists. They have levelled all distinctions in society, of rank, color, caste, and sex; and the doctrines of Abolitionism, carried out, have legitimately led them to this. They have proclaimed the Agrarian principle, in all forms of application, and denied the right of defending property, or any civil inheritance, by human authority, or force of arms; and Abolitionism requires the sanction of this principle to affect its designs. They recognise but one ruler—the King of heaven; it is equally necessary for the Abolitionists to set aside the authorities of earth. They have no country but the world, and no countrymen but mankind; the Abolitionists seem to be equally devoid of patriotism. They avow that neither nations, nor individuals, have a right to defend themselves against aggression; this will be convenient, and even necessary, to Abolitionists, in the execution of their plans. They pronounce the doctrine, that “the powers that be are ordained of God,” “an absurd and impious dogma;” this, too, will be convenient to the Abolitionists, and it might be supposed, they had adopted it. They declare against all military preparations; we presume the Abolitionists are equally unfriendly to them, as they might prove uncomfortable opponents in their career. “As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its laws enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet,” they “repudiate all human politics” and legislation; the Abolitionists are equally averse to the “politics” and legislation of the slave-holding States, and of course to the political fabric of the Union. They deny the right of prosecution and indemnification for felony, which of course would be impossible, where there is no law; the Abolitionists deny the right of indemnification for the deprivation of property in slaves. They deny the right of all punishment for crimes; this would be extremely convenient for Abolitionists. They deny that their “doctrines are Jacobinical;” and why set up this defence before they are accused, except from the consciousness, that all the world will pronounce them so? The Abolitionists, too, as we think, are somewhat involved in this predicament. The members of this new Society are advocates of Non-resistance, on one side; and so are the Abolitionists: both are averse to being opposed, except so far as it may afford them the opportunity and title to plead the rights of the honest Connecticut negro’s conscience, who, being asked by his master, what it said, replied, “Why, Massa, it says, I won’t.” But the members of this Society are to be great fighters, after all, and that, too, in the way of aggression, as they claim the right and declare the purpose of making war “boldly, by the application of their principles, upon all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions;” that is, as one, remarking well on their scheme, hath it, “to take the greatest possible pains to get mobbed, persecuted, imprisoned, hung, and murdered.” And little pity would they get. They, of course, are the framers of their own conscience, and its interpreters; and that is the empire, the rights of which they claim, under their professions of Non-resistance. Allow any man that, and what, repudiating the restraints of law, could he ask more?

But, notwithstanding the magisterial offices of society, they say, “We believe that the penal code of the old Covenant, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ has been abrogated by Jesus Christ,” &c. In other words, we suppose, they mean to set aside the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures; of course, the Decalogue: and in course, proceeding onward, the whole Bible. In this way, the Abolitionists would gain an important point, and procure the right of making a Bible to suit themselves. Thus endeth the career of violent reform—in universal anarchy. The New England Non-resistance Society is the climax; and it is remarkable, that there is scarcely a principle involved in the public declaration of their Creed, which, in some form of application, does not exactly suit the case and cause of the Abolitionists.—None, we apprehend, which does not very naturally and legitimately flow from it. They were Abolitionists in the previous stage of their career, and one of them was the founder of Abolitionism.[2] It only happens, that he still keeps the lead; and he and his present associates are only more consistent and more honest, in having opened the entire budget to the public gaze. There are, indeed, some few outré peculiarities of this new Association, ingeniously appended and incorporated, just enough to attract attention, and make it interesting as a curiosity. But there is nothing surprising in it, when we inquire into the causes which have generated the extravagant opinions, and set on foot the violent reforms, of our country. They may all be traced backward, through all their stages, and in all their connexions, under the broad and clear sun light of philosophical research.

It is proper to remark, that, in the comprehensive picture given in this chapter, of the principles of the New England Non-resistance Society, we have taken the liberty to lay aside the garb in which they have presented them, except here and there a literal quotation, not only for brevity’s sake, but to show them in their naked form. We think, however, that we have not misrepresented; and even if we have done so, in any slight shades, the moiety of this delicious morceau, is enough to show the taste of those who have swallowed it, and how the physic is likely to operate. As to the feature of non-resistance, it is what is vulgarly called a “fudge,” they having reserved to themselves the privilege of conscience, according to their own interpretation of its prerogatives, and moreover declared their resolute and unflinching purpose to “assail all existing institutions.” Besides, this pretension, to adopt their own language, is “a measure of sound policy;” for they could not otherwise be tolerated for a moment; and they hope to gain sympathy by appearing not to resist, while they themselves are engaged in open war on every thing that is valuable and dear to society. To show the connexion between this and things that had gone before, it is only necessary to quote one sentence from their own hand: “The triumphant progress of the cause of Temperance and Abolition in our land ... encourages us to combine our own means and efforts for the promotion of a still greater cause.” Far be it from us, however, by this allusion, to disparage the Temperance reformation, any farther than the violent and overstrained part of it is concerned. And this qualification, we trust, will be satisfactory to all, whose good opinion we have any hope of enjoying.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE INCENDIARY DOCTRINES OF ABOLITIONISM.

Facit per alium, facit per se. The accessory to a crime is by law, and in justice, made responsible with the principal. No man can deny, that the effect of the Abolition doctrines and measures on the slave-holding States, if they were not resisted, would speedily lead to insurrection and massacre; that scenes of this horrible kind would be constantly occurring, till the whole South would become a field of desolation. It is true, the Abolitionists say, it would not be so, if the slave-holders would give up. This, however is a justification, which, we suppose, is not likely to be admitted. Everybody knows, that the slave-holders will not give up, and that they are more remote from it now than when this agitation commenced. The Abolitionists are responsible for having, by their imprudence and rashness, rivetted the chains of slavery, and put far off the day of Emancipation, unless they shall succeed in breaking up society, by forcing abolition—the responsibility of which, we apprehend, would be immeasureably greater than that which now rests upon them. The right or wrong of slavery cannot now be discussed with any effect, because another great question has forced that aside. It is the question, whether the political fabric of the country, in relation to this subject, shall give way to violence? The claim of the slave to his freedom, we think, will never be listened to, till that is settled. We must take things as they are, and man as he is.

“No,” says the Abolitionist, “God forbid. We stick to principle; and our principle is, that the slave has a right to his freedom—a right paramount to any artificial and accidental state of society that exists, standing in the way of it; and the consequences of opposing this claim, be on those who take this stand.” Is this a fair statement? We are inclined to think it is, as to those Abolitionists who lead and govern the cause. Certainly, we should be willing to state it in any other form, if we could do it more fairly. We only wish to know on what ground they stand, that we may know how to take them. From all we have been able to learn of their principles, we believe that the above statement does them no injustice.

Let us, then, observe the following facts: The slave-holders are resolved they will not give up; the Abolitionists are resolved they shall. The more the latter do, in the way they are now engaged, to accomplish their end, so much the more determined are the former to maintain what they claim to be their rights. The former point, first, to the Federal Constitution, as their security; next, to their own swords. Such, undoubtedly, is the true state of the case. The right of the slave to his freedom, as claimed by the Abolitionists in his behalf, is out of the question, till this political warfare is ended; and every step makes the case worse and worse. Such is the present position of the cause of Abolition in this country: the Abolitionists stick to their principle, that “the duty, safety, and best interests of all concerned, require the immediate abandonment” of slavery. Such is the language of their Constitution, italicised as above; and they are accustomed to press that principle by all the means in their power, without regard to consequences; and we think it may be fairly added, as a general fact, without respect to the supreme law of the land, which happens to be against them. They view the right claimed for the slave paramount to all law that stands opposed. We believe we do not mistake in this. Every one may see what such principles, carried out and enforced, lead to; and when we consider the certainty of their being opposed, and opposed to the last, we think it not unjust to pronounce them incendiary in their character.

We will illustrate this state of things by a case of fact. We happened to be acquainted with a very estimable and exemplary clergyman, some ten years ago, or more, mild and benevolent in his disposition, bland in his manners, of unquestionable piety, and in all respects agreeable; but we observed, with some concern, that he appeared to be tending strongly to the way of violent reforms. In the spring of 1838 we were glad to meet him again, as an old friend; but found him thoroughly in for Abolition, according to the modern type. In the course of conversation, it was suggested, that Abolition, hardly pushed, would chance to make some bad work. “No matter,” said the gentleman, “the principle is sacred.” “And must be maintained at all events?” “Certainly.” “But it may occasion the effusion of blood.” “We can’t help it.” “There will be insurrections and massacres.” “That is the fault of those who committed the first sin; and they must take the consequences.” It will be seen, that they who committed the first sin, were out of the way many generations ago, and were never citizens of this country. “But, do you mean to advocate the instant manumission of all slaves, without regard to consequences?” “Certainly. Slavery is sin; and all sin ought to be left off instantly.” “But do you not see, that slavery is interwoven with a complicated state of society, political and domestic; and that it is impossible to do it away immediately?” “No matter; it is wrong, and ought not to continue a moment.” “But your doctrine will produce anarchy.” “No—God will take care of that. God never required any thing, that will produce a bad result. Obedience to his will is always safe; and disobedience unsafe. Slavery is sin; and all sin should be repented now, radically and thoroughly, in practice as well as in heart.” “But, there is the law of the land.” “And there is the law of God, and of nature.” “But the law of God says, the powers that be are ordained of God. Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey magistrates.” “That is a general rule, and was never intended to vitiate the authority of conscience. If it is to be construed strictly, and without exception, we had never had the Protestant Reformation, nor American Independence. The indefeasible rights of conscience, and of liberty, in the sense now maintained, may always be asserted, and ought to be.” “But may we go on a crusade, in behalf of others, for these objects?” “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, and shalt not suffer sin upon thy brother.” “Then you are in favor of carrying Abolition forthwith, as best it can be done, in despite of the law of the land, and without regard to consequences?” “Undoubtedly. It is impossible, there should be a higher law, than that asserted in this cause. The law of the land will never be altered, if we let it alone; and the only way to bring it about, is to press matters by agitation. There are always enough on the side of order, and we have no fear of consequences in so good and holy an enterprise,” &c. &c.

We have abridged this dialogue, and profess no more than to give the substance of it. And when we compare it with all we have seen, heard, and read on the side of Abolition, and with the ordinary features of the movement, we see not but it is a fair representation. Any persons, however, are at liberty to qualify it, as they may think it deserves. There are, doubtless, Abolitionists of all shades and degrees; but there is a common ground, on which those who constitute the strength of the movement, meet. We suppose it ought to be allowed, that most of them profess respect for the authority of law on this point, and that they intend nothing but Constitutional modes of reformation. The Constitution of their great Society, proposes “to do all that is lawfully in our power to bring about the extinction of slavery.” But every one construes the law for himself; and generally, that is lawful, which sets up the right of the slave to his freedom, as paramount to the law of the land. That we do no injustice to Abolitionists by these statements, is open to proof, by the high authority of the last Annual Report of their Parent Society, in which, however startling it may seem, they have not only in effect, but in form, set aside the authority of the Federal Constitution, in regard to slavery, by construction! After quoting the well known third clause of the second Section of the Fourth Article, which recognizes the validity of property in slaves, and provides to defend it, having first stated, that, “if strictly construed it could not apply to slaves,” because it does not name them as slaves, the Report goes on to say: “It is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the intentions of the framers—whatever by historical evidence we may ascertain them to have been—cannot bind us to an interpretation of the Constitution which its own language does not render necessary, and which is inconsistent with objects for which it was professedly framed, to wit, ‘to establish justice,’ and ‘to secure the blessings of liberty.’ But we go further: We contend, that when the Constitution was framed, it was the understanding of all parties, that slavery was soon to be abolished by the States, and the clause intended to facilitate the recovery of fugitive slaves was a mere temporary concession, to expire with the unhallowed anomaly which called for it. If such be the case, it need hardly be said, that the slave States, after having violated, on their part, that good faith which was implied in the compact, have no right to urge its fulfilment, beyond the letter, on the other part.” “Beyond the letter.” “The letter” does not happen to name slaves.

Now, if this is not coming out, and by the highest authority, by their own solemn and sanctioned Annual Scripture, declaring null and void the law of the land, and its highest law, in relation to the subject of controversy, it might be difficult to say what would be so. They even set aside the universally established rule of interpretation, confessing to the intention of the law, but denying its authority. Henceforth the public may know what to expect. We think, that, with this document lying before our eyes, it is no libel to say, the Abolitionists do not respect the law; and that they have made up their minds, to trample it under foot. Their measures, and their language, would certainly imply it. They seem to be so far carried away by their sympathy for the slaves, that the hazard of causing to flow in rivers the best blood of the land, by a civil war, seems hardly sufficient to effect an abatement of their zeal; and if the slave-holders and their families, should be butchered in the strife of Abolition, “that is the fault of those who committed the first sin, and they must take the consequences.” Immediate, instant emancipation is the word and the principle, whatever comes. There is no law above it—none that must not give way to it. Let the public judge, whether this principle be not incendiary, and sanguinary, in the most revolting aspects. The only barrier, hitherto supposed to stand in its way, the Federal Constitution, is swept away by an authoritative commentary, and the license to go forth to battle, has, by this act, received the sanction of the Supreme Legislative Assembly and high Court of the American Anti-Slavery Society!

We think the time has come, when the public of this country have a right to demand, whether the Abolitionists do indeed intend thus to force the application of their principles, in contempt of law, and at the hazard of all consequences. Let them avow this scheme openly, and it will be enough. The uncharitable imputation of occult criminal designs is unwarrantable. But we submit, whether the passage just quoted from the Annual Report of this Society is not sufficiently open; and whether the habitual developements of the great movement, as made before the public, in so many forms, do not corroborate and confirm the impression which this document is calculated to produce?

CHAPTER IX.
POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY IN REGARD TO SLAVERY.

We believe the Abolitionists are accustomed to find one apology for the movement in which they are engaged, in the assumption, that all the Members of the American Union are responsible for the existence of slavery therein, if not equally, yet in part; and being conscientiously opposed to slavery, their conscience obliges them to act in obedience to its dictates. They cannot, therefore, choose to abstain from this enterprise, if they would. We propose here to consider this question, as it cannot be denied, if the assumption be founded in truth and justice, that there is some weight in the statement. It is obviously proper to begin at the beginning, and enquire where the responsibility rests for introducing slavery into this country.

We say, therefore, that it was imposed upon this country against the avowed wishes, and resolute remonstrances of the ancestors of those, who now have charge of the evil that was thus entailed; and that resistance to the imposition came to the brink of a rebellion—nay, was a cause of rebellion.

“So early as 1502, the Spaniards begun to employ a few negroes in the mines of Hispaniola; and in the year 1517, the Emperor, Charles V., granted a patent to certain persons for the exclusive supply of 4000 negroes annually, to the islands of Hispaniola, Jamaica, Cuba, and Puerto Rico.”[3] John Hawkins, an Englishman, received the honors of knighthood, and was made Treasurer of the Navy, by Queen Elizabeth, for his achievements in the slave trade. Elizabeth, James I., Charles I., and II., were all in the habit of chartering companies to carry it on. Charles II., his brother, the Duke of York, noblemen, gentry, and ladies of high rank and quality, were subscribers to these companies; and England, Europe, revolted not at the deed! The public conscience of the world seemed to tolerate it! When the slave trade first commenced, from Great Britain, under Elizabeth, the American Colonies did not exist. The succeeding princes patronized the traffic, and introduced slavery into their American provinces. “In 1760, South Carolina, a British Colony, passed an act to prohibit further importation; but Great Britain rejected this act with indignation, and declared that the slave trade was beneficial and necessary to the mother country. The Governors of the Colonies had positive orders to sanction no law enacted against the slave trade. In Jamaica, in the year 1765, an attempt was made to abolish the trade to that island. The Governor declared, that his instructions would never allow him to sign the Bill. It was tried again in 1774, but Great Britain, by the Earl of Dartmouth, President of the Board, answered: We cannot allow the Colonies to check or discourage, in any degree, a traffic so beneficial to the nations.”[4]

The history of legislation, in the Colony of Virginia, records twenty-three Acts, imposing duties on the importation of slaves, with the avowed design of suppressing the trade. “In 1772, most of the duties, previously imposed, were re-enacted, and the Assembly transmitted, at the same time, a petition to the Throne, of which the following are extracts:—

“‘We are encouraged to look up to the Throne, and implore your Majesty’s paternal assistance, in averting a calamity of a most alarming nature.... The importation of slaves into the Colonies from the coast of Africa, hath long been considered a trade of great inhumanity, and under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear, will endanger the very existence of your Majesty’s American dominions. Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to remove all those restraints on your Majesty’s Governors of this Colony, which prohibit such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce.’

“The first Assembly which met in Virginia, after the adoption of her Constitution, prohibited the traffic; and ‘the inhuman use of the royal prerogative’ against the action of the Colony upon this subject, is enumerated in the first clause of the first Virginia Constitution, as a reason of the separation from the mother country.”[5]

Such was the common feeling of the Southern Colonies, though more decidedly manifested in Virginia. They never invited, they never tempted the slave trade, except by a silent acquiescence for a season, in what was imposed upon them by the cupidity of foreigners, and the mandates of authority, before the public conscience of mankind had begun to remonstrate; and the moment they opened their eyes to its domestic results among themselves, they set their faces, and employed all their lawful powers, against it.

“Federal America interdicted the slave trade from her ports thirteen years before Great Britain; she made it punishable as a crime seven years before, she fixed four years sooner the period of non-importation—which period was earlier than that determined upon by Great Britain for her Colonies.”[6]

For the introduction of Slavery into America, therefore, the Americans themselves are acquit of all political responsibility. All that can be said is, that individuals purchased slaves that were brought and offered, when the public conscience of the world tolerated the traffic; but it was under the authority, and by the imposition, of a parent Government, in another Continent, that slavery was reared into a domestic and political institution, the process all the while having been solemnly protested against by those whose voice had a claim to be heard, and who were most intimately concerned, until it grew into a magnitude and importance, too formidable to be dealt with by a violent hand of excision and extirpation—sufficiently formidable, indeed, to demand the utmost wisdom and prudence of man for its treatment and ultimate disposal.

Thus, having fairly wiped from the American escutcheon the political responsibility of introducing slavery in this Continent, and among ourselves, it remains to be considered, how far the present generation of slaveholding Americans are responsible for this state of things. The sum of the matter lies in one short sentence: They were born into the world the heirs of this condition. In no manner or degree are they responsible for it, any farther than they maintain it, and as they maintain it. We suppose the Abolitionists themselves would not differ widely from us here, except as, peradventure, some of them may take their stand on the theological proposition—“In Adam’s fall we sinned all.” If, however, it may be assumed, that all agree on this point, it is the simple and the great question at issue. The slave States say, that is their business; and the Abolitionists say, it is ours. This is the contest—the question to be tried.

And one of the apologies of the Abolitionists, for interference in this concern, is, that the whole nation is involved in the responsibility. Let us see, whether this be true. It must be admitted, that it requires some study to comprehend the nature of our political fabric, as a nation, with the relations of its parts to each other, and to the Unity; but still, like a mathematical problem, though obscure and misty to the intellect, before it is laid down and demonstrated step by step, it is afterwards no less clear and satisfactory. It happens, that this task has already been done in a former chapter, and requires only to be restated here. The great principle, and its whole scope, are laid down before the eye, in the tenth Article of the Federal Constitution.[7] By this rule, the respective States are declared possessed, by original right, of all independent and sovereign powers, not “delegated or prohibited” by the Federal Constitution. In these limited attributes of sovereignty, therefore, they are placed precisely on the footing of all other independent States and Nations; and as the institution of slavery, and all legislation over it, is one of these “reserved” powers, it follows, that all its responsibility devolves on those States, in which it exists, and is maintained. It is impossible it should extend any farther, from the nature of the compact. It is a simple proposition, and may be understood by any body, by a child, that I cannot be responsible for that which the laws of society forbid me to meddle with; and this is precisely the proposition which sets forth and limits the responsibility of slavery in the United States. The Union was formed on these conditions, and in an exigency under which the parties were forced to combine for common good, with mutual concessions thus specified, in the same manner as a society of any individual persons is formed by mutual compact and mutual concession, and the responsibility of every member is limited by the line thus marked out. As he is not permitted to trespass on the rights secured to others, he cannot be held responsible for any thing that would demand such a trespass. If the rights thus secured are invaded, or violated, the administration of justice does not devolve on individual members of the community, or on any combination not provided for by law, but on the constituted and public authorities. Even though there be manifest injustice for which the law does not provide a remedy, or injustice sanctioned by law, the same principle applies, and the evil can be redressed only by a constitutional legislation.

But, it is said, the principle of slavery is incorporated and sanctioned in the Federal Constitution; and we are all at least so far responsible. This, surely, will not be urged by Abolitionists, who have formally and publicly declared, by their own mode of legislation, as shown in the previous chapter, that this principle has ceased to exist, and is no longer binding. But suppose it does exist. It neither declares, nor sanctions, the right of slavery as such: but simply interposes the authority of a principle, which applies equally to all the States, to enable them to maintain and secure their domestic institutions, as established by their sovereign will—a principle, which may accidentally operate more in favour of one State, than of another, but which is equally important to all, and is habitually employed by all. The Government of the United States, therefore, is not responsible in this matter, politically considered; and therefore not responsible at all, as it exists only as a political institution. All these public relations are political, and can involve no other responsibility than that which is prescribed by the laws of the social state, as it exists. The relation of the master to the slave involves a responsibility which applies to private conscience, and the master must answer for it. So also the relation of the master to that political commonwealth which maintains slavery; and he must answer for that, to the extent of his political influence and relations. And so with every member of such a commonwealth; but farther than this, he cannot be held to account. This, we think, is the legitimate domain of conscience, and the limit of responsibility, in regard to this subject.

But, it will yet be said, that the Government of the United States is the public guardian of slavery, by the force and habitual application of the fourth article of the Federal Constitution; and therefore, all the citizens of the Republic are involved in this responsibility, and consequently have a right to concern themselves about it. Notwithstanding, it cannot be denied, that the Federal compact bars this claim; and the Christian’s conscience might find its salvo in the Scripture which saith—“He shall abide in the Tabernacle and holy hill of the Lord, who sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.” In the day of trial, our fathers swore to this compact, and bound their children in the covenant, if we accept the inheritance; if not, then we have no voice in the matter. But, we think, the political pledge of the general Government to maintain the domestic institutions of the several States, in case of need, so far as they do not interfere with the prerogatives “delegated,” or those “prohibited,” does not involve a responsibility for the character of those institutions—not at all.

The Union is admitted to have been indispensible to our National Independence, and the slave States came into it on the condition, that the institution of slavery should not be disturbed, and that it should be maintained in the way the Federal Constitution prescribes. Whether slavery was right or wrong in itself, or how long it should be maintained, were questions never submitted; but were left among the “reserved” rights. The Union never had any responsibility in the existence of slavery; it never assumed any; it has never had any whatever; it has only covenanted to protect the sovereign rights of the slave States, as it has the sovereign rights of all other States, leaving to them the sovereign control over their own domestic institutions, without assuming any one item of responsibility in regard to their character. The principle which forbids the interference of the Union, absolves it from responsibility.

But still the Abolitionist holds his ground, as a religionist, and declares, that he is bound to have a care for all his fellow creatures, and to help them, wherever he sees them laboring under any evils, physical or moral, or any wrongs social or political. So far as his benevolence extends to those who suffer under social and political wrongs, if they happen to be beyond the limits of his own Commonwealth, we can only give him a piece of advice, which he may use or not, at his own discretion, viz. that, till the world gets to be in a more favorable state for the range of his sympathies, as a religionist claiming to carry his religion into politics by force, he had better be content with the wisdom of Moses, who, as it would seem, saw fit, not only to tolerate, but to legalize, slavery—for whatever may be said of different forms, it cannot be denied that the principle was there. Or, with the wisdom of the Apostle Paul, who, instead of interfering with the political fabrics of his time, in regard to this as well as other matters, sent back Onesimus, a runaway slave, thereby recognizing the legal claim of his master, Philemon, with such messages as these: “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that to my account.... Whom I would have retained ... but without thy mind would I do nothing.... Though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, yet for love’s sake I rather beseech thee.” Or, with the wisdom of the Apostle Peter, who said: “Servants, be subject to your Masters with all fear—not only to the good and gentle, but to the froward. And what glory is it, if, when ye shall be buffetted for your faults, ye take it patiently; but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable to God.” It is also written by “such an one as Paul, the aged: Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their own Masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrines be not blasphemed, &c. These things,” saith he to Timothy, “teach and exhort.” For, we think, the Abolitionist would be much better employed in imitating these illustrious examples, than by inculcating sedition, and stirring up insurrection. Or, if this should not suit his taste, then we would advise him by all means, to let the politics of foreign States alone, as it is a delicate and dangerous business, not as yet tolerated by the actual state of society. If he thinks so, he may rely upon it, he has made a mistake.

If, however, he insists on being thus occupied, and since his labors are not well received in the slave holding States of America, and seem likely to do more hurt than good, we would advise him to “shake off the dust off his feet against them,” and turn to another field, and still more remote, as he likes distant objects. If he would do the greatest amount of good, and since he is resolved to have a foreign field, let him try where the evil exists in more aggravated forms. For there is actually less slavery in the United States, in proportion to the population, and the whole of it in a milder form, than in any other part of the world, civilized or uncivilized. For what is the name of a thing, apart from its essential attributes? Slavery, fairly defined, is the unequal and unjust depression of man in relation to his fellow man, as the result of an artificial state of society, which has been erected, and is maintained for the advantage of the few, and to the disadvantage of the many. The degree of depression, and the amount of oppression, are accidental. Both are greater in any other part of the world that can be named, beyond the bounds of the United States, than in the slave States of the South—if, perhaps, we except the North American British Provinces—now being invaded on Abolition principles.

If the Abolitionists are resolved to interfere with the domestic condition of other States for the relief of the oppressed, and cannot otherwise satisfy their consciences, let them go to England, to Ireland, and to the British manufactories. We assure them, they will find work enough there, and enough of slavery too, as that particular form of evil is especially to their taste. Let them go to the Continent of Europe, and they will find enough of it any where in that field—more especially in Italy, in Spain and Portugal, in Hungary, in Poland, and above all, in Russia. Let them go to the tribes and nations that border on the shores of the Mediterranean; let them penetrate into Northern, Southern, and Eastern Asia; it is all a ripe field for their sickle, or if they like it better, for their sword—for it will no doubt soon come to that. Let them go to Africa—which their sympathies would naturally lead them to first—and there, independent of the temptations and effects of the slave traffic, as all travellers inform us, they will find slavery in such amount, and in forms of such horrid and murderous cruelty, as to show the fields of its abode in the Southern States a paradise in comparison. There they will see, that it is better to be a slave in America, than a free man in Africa, without justifying slavery; and that the best conditions of African barbarism could never be envied by the worst of American slavery, if both were equally well known to the parties, having their option between the two. There they might learn, that God, in his high and inscrutable providence, can bring good out of evil, and that, by the lights of American civilization, and the blessings of American Christianity, thrown out upon Africa from these shores, that long suffering, abused, and “pealed” race, may yet hope to receive some indemnification for their bleeding wrongs.

But do the Abolitionists reply, “that if we enter on the fields of Europe, or of any other countries, for political action, by any efficient force, to rescue the oppressed, we shall lose our heads.” That, indeed, may be a wise thought. Or, “if we attempt it by secret operations, and by emissions of the press, clandestinely introduced, we shall embroil our country in a foreign war.” There is little doubt of that. Or, “if we organize a political machinery at home, industriously occupying years of preparation for descent, waiting for an opportunity, and it is known that our force is likely to tell with effect, when the time of aggressive action shall arrive, it will produce the same result, unless our own Government shall interpose, and suppress our movement.” This, too, is doubtless a fair conclusion. But, let it be remembered, that a foreign war is infinitely less to be dreaded, than a domestic and civil one; and that it is no less certain, if the Abolition movement is not suppressed, we must have the last. The cases are parallel: as a foreign Nation could not endure such interference, neither can the slave States of the South. There is as valid and justifiable a right of interference in one case, as in the other, and an equal provocation for resort to arms, if the General Government should not interpose its authority, and arrest the movement.

CHAPTER X.
THE ROMANCE OF ABOLITIONISM.

We live in an age of romantic sympathy and religious sentimentalism. There is a charity that prefers a remote object, to one that is near. A blind beggar, with every appearance of want and wretchedness, sits daily by the way side, to ask alms. Floods of population swim along, and now and then he gets a penny; but no body stops to ask him of his misery, or sympathize with his woes. He is a solitary, uncheered being during the day, in the midst of a busy, moving, and apparently happy world; and as night comes on, he feels his way to his wretched hovel, if he has one, and lies down in rags and filth, to sleep as he can. He may, or may not, have some one to comfort him there; but the world never asks. In every crowded population there are hundreds of poor and wretched beings, whose wants are fruitful of sorrow, and whose pains are without relief. They live in misery, and die without comfort; and that, too, while surrounded with an affluence that knows not how to dissipate its treasures. The sound of the light steps of the happy is heard in the street, but they enter not the uninviting abode to inquire into the wants of its tenants; the carriages of the wealthy roll onward; but the suffering poor, so near at hand, are not remembered. Even if you apply to the public in their behalf, you will chance to receive for answer, “they are worthy of their doom, and are only reaping the wages of their sins. We have known them well, and generally speaking, there is little merit, and a slender reward, in relieving such objects.”

But, form a Society of these very persons, and send out an Agent to the Antipodes to hunt up the misery that may be found there, to report in due form on precisely the same cases of distress, or on such, perhaps, as are not half so worthy of pity, and the tear of sympathy will be seen trickling down the cheek of the sentimentalist, as he reads the printed document in his easy chair, or listens to the fervid eloquence of the platform orator, who feels the same pleasure in telling the story which his hearers do in receiving it. “’Tis distance lends enchantment,” and because these persons can luxuriate in the indulgence of their benevolence in agreeable circumstances, without being compelled to come in actual contact with the squalid and disgusting forms of misery; or like Howard, to sacrifice home and comfort to look it up, and administer consolation at the expense of ease and better society.

To all this we have no objection. Even if the statements are exaggerated, and the pictures highly colored; though the Agents engaged in this work know well, that their support depends on the interest they create; though there is not half the good accomplished that was dreamt of, or is supposed; nay, though all the fruits of this sympathy were expended on the way to its objects, and in sustaining this machinery, still the world is made better, and the compensation is abundant, though nothing else be gained, but the good and kind feeling it has kindled up at home. It is even better, that they who will not relieve the miserable objects that lie at their doors, or perish in the streets, or starve in the comfortless abodes of their own city or town, should have some small pittances of their abundance drawn out by the workings of a romantic sympathy for the remotest objects, than that they should do nothing at all. If they feel not for the wretched before their eyes, it is yet good that they can be made to feel for those who are far off.

The Christian missions of the age, and all purely benevolent enterprises, which meddle not with the political structures of society, are most worthy of patronage and support, under a suitable organization. However they may, in some degree, fall under these strictures, our remarks are only an echo of practical and faithful missionaries, who have themselves written largely on the romance of Missions, and laboured to chasten the views and expectations of contributors to the cause, and to establish the work on the basis of sound Christian principle. As we have before intimated, the Abolition movement is a wandering star, an eccentric and fiery orb, that has broken loose from the Religious and Benevolent Society system, with all its armor on, and betrayed and violated the principles of that system, by plunging into the battle field of political strife, and running riot in a wild and mad encounter with the political interests of mankind. It is a comet out of place, thrown off from its own sphere by the violence of its centrifugal action, and comes dashing on its way into a family of planetary worlds, whose orderly course around a common centre it threatens to throw into confusion, and is likely to plunge full sweep on that great central orb which gives us light and heat, and which, we hope and pray, will be able to sustain the shock without injury.

The romance of Abolitionism is well illustrated in the history of that crusade which roused all Europe, and led forth its armies upon the plains of Western Asia against the infidels, to rescue “the Holy City” from “the abomination of desolation;” and we will venture to say, that the great majority of Abolitionists are equally and no more wise, in the expedition to which they are lending their aid. They know just as much of the real state of things in the slave-holding States, and seem to be equally blind to the romantic character of the enterprise.

Let it be always understood, that we make no controversy with the Abolitionists, as to the right or wrong of slavery, in this country or any other, or in any case whatever. For in all cases, we presume, that we are as much opposed to slavery as they are. We consider, that this question is entirely forced aside by the position assumed by the Abolitionists, and by principles they have avowed before the public, which must necessarily supercede this question, till those principles are practically settled. Abolitionists claim the right to a political interference, which is denied to them alike by the Constitutional law of the land, by the expressed opinions of our national authorities, by the parties most intimately concerned, and by the general voice of public opinion. And this is the ground upon which we meet them, and only upon this ground. We have no objection to their opinion concerning the inexpediency and sin of slavery, or to any proper modes of expressing that opinion. This has long been known to be the common opinion of the North, without disturbing society in the South; and the action of that opinion, in a proper way, was likely to make advances, and ultimately to gain its object, if it had not been checked by this inauspicious interference with existing political society and political claims. Abolition, in the peculiar circumstances and relations of American political society, can never, as we think, be enforced by political action from abroad; it can only be gained through the moral sense of those who have the charge of slavery, in connexion with their interests. While, therefore, we declare the general ignorance of Abolitionists of the real state of slavery, as a reason why they should not meddle with it in the way they propose, we protest against being represented as the apologist of slavery.

Since, therefore, the people of the North cannot interfere politically with the slavery of the South—for we deem ourselves entitled to assume this ground, in view of the reasons already presented—and since a wide spread and powerful political combination is in the field, mustering additional forces, and stirring up their ranks to an onward course, by exaggerated and unfair representations, we think it important, by all suitable means, to endeavour to break that spell of romance, which, we conceive, has no small share in this undertaking. We say, then, that the great body of Abolitionists have not the means of knowing, and consequently do not know, the real condition of slavery in the States where it exists, either as to what it is in itself, or as to what it is in comparison of other states of society in this and other countries. Instructed and excited by the documents and various literary emissions of the Society—all of which appear to be greatly exaggerated in their representation of facts, inflammatory in their character, and some of the most influential of them purely fictitious—they have obtained views of slavery at the South which cannot be sustained by the truth of the case, and have been stirred up to a sympathy which is for the most part romantic. All their views of the practicability of that form of action they have assumed, being itself an unlawful organisation, as we have shown, and at war with the political structure of our society, are, as we think, purely romantic. They are generally, therefore, involved in an atmosphere of romance on this subject.

As to the practicability of immediate emancipation—which is the avowed doctrine and aim of the Abolitionists—either for the good of the slaves, or the safety of society, it receives the unqualified negative of all Northern men and foreigners, who have visited the slave-holding States, without having been previously committed to the principles of Abolitionism; and that, too, against all the reports that have been brought from the British West Indies, down to this time, by the Agents of the American Anti-Slavery Society, or through other more circuitous or direct channels. Every practical man may see, that the experiment of emancipation in the West Indies is not yet fairly tested. We have read Thome’s & Kimball’s “Six Months’ Tour” and Professor Hovey’s “Letters,” and compared them with other evidence and the unalterable principles of human nature; and after making those abatements which experience teaches are always due to ex parte statements, we honestly conceive, that the argument is neutralised, and the whole subject is necessarily left in suspense as to the legitimate influence of such testimony.

We say, then, without fear of contradiction, that every disinterested man’s report from the South, whether American or foreigner, on the question of immediate abolition, declares decidedly and solemnly to the Abolitionists, “Gentlemen, you are wrong. It is impossible.”

But the doctrine of immediate abolition, dictated to the slave-holding States, and imposed upon them, even though it were safely practicable, assumes the right of interference, and therefore cannot be expected to be conceded by those concerned, and who claim the right of originating and deciding this question for themselves. The same right has been claimed by the Northern States, where slavery formerly existed, and in no case have they seen fit to attempt immediate emancipation. To enforce it upon the South by foreign dictation would be despotic, nay, an invasion, and, as we think, “contrary to the principles of our republican form of Government.” We declare, in the first place, that foreign, that is, Northern Abolitionists are, from the necessities of their position, incompetent judges of this question; and next, that they are unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful judges. Certainly, we do not mean by this to debar the right of opinion, or any constitutional modes of expressing it; but only, that they have no right to sit in judgment on this question for the purposes of dictation and legislation, or for that which is tantamount to legislation, to enforce this principle.

Moreover, some of the most influential literary emissions of the American Anti-Slavery Society are purely fictitious, and generally so exaggerated and highly coloured, or so unfaithful in not giving the whole truth, as to misrepresent the truth. “The narrative of James Williams,” which has probably had more influence, and excited more feeling, than any other single document, and which was thought of sufficient importance to be made conspicuous in the last Annual Report of the Society, by devoting one third of a page to attest its veracity, notwithstanding the Abolitionists had been sufficiently advised, that it was false. They have at last been forced to make public confession, that it is a fiction! It is impossible to say, what proportion of the issues of this Society are of this character, because the proof of a negative, especially in such matters, is always slow and difficult; but the exceeding avidity of the Abolitionists to take up and accredit such stories as “the Narrative of James Williams,” directly in the face of rebutting and conclusive evidence, and the strong temptations in such circumstances to fiction, may fairly establish the presumption, that many of their issues are purely fictitious.

But exaggeration of statement, over-coloring of facts, and keeping back parts of truth which are essential to a correct judgment, are precisely of the nature of fiction. Such is the concurrent testimony from all quarters, and such the evidence of probability in the very nature of things, that this part of the budget must be immense. Every body, who has visited the slave States, knows, that slavery there is not what it is represented to be in the publications of the American Anti-slavery Society, in general, or in particular. Certain specific evils, necessarily resulting from a system of slavery, no fair man can deny; that some of these are of a revolting character, candor requires to be confessed; that there are cruel and inhuman masters, is no less true. So also are there cruel and inhuman parents, husbands, masters of indented apprentices, and various other superiors in the relations of life, out of the slave States. We will venture to say, from authoritative evidence submitted to the British Parliament, amounting to many volumes, that there is more maiming of the human body, and more crushing of the human mind, from infancy to the grave, in the manufactories of Great Britain, by the cruelties inflicted on that perpetual bondage which in fact endures from generation to generation, than the whole amount of the same class of evils inflicted on all the slaves in the United States, notwithstanding the immense difference between the number of persons in one case and the other; and that this result may be established by the best certified evidence. If it should be said, that the bondage of the British manufactories is voluntary, we reply, it is not, and that the law of necessity which imprisons its victims there, while they can work, on a bare subsistence, without enough to get away, and dismisses them when they can work no longer, without providing for their support, is far more cruel than American bondage, where the law that makes it hereditary, provides for the sick and superannuated. We are quite aware, that one of these cases does not justify, though it relieves, the other, by the light of comparison. There is no state of society in the world, not even in the free States of North America, where these cruelties and inhumanities cannot be found in great abundance. And why do not the Abolitionists begin at home, and tear down society in their respective Commonwealths, because these enormities are to be found, notwithstanding the law and public opinion are against them, in the same manner as law and opinion are against them in the slaveholding States? Or, since they have a propensity to these foreign missions, why do they not go to the nations of Europe, where bondage is more cruel, and where they might, in that proportion, be more useful, if, peradventure, they are likely to be useful at all? In all these cases, and in all parts of the world, these cruelties are exceptions to the general state of society, not the rule.

The decrease of the slave population of the West Indies, and the better economy—barbarous indeed—of keeping it up by importation, was adduced in evidence of the inhumanities of the system. And we think very fairly so. By the same rule, the rapid increase of the slave population in the Southern States, over the whites in the same States—it being in the proportion of 80 to 100 of the whites, and of 112 to 100 of the slaves, in the term of 40 years—proves, that slavery in the United States is comparatively mild. It is commonly reported and believed, by disinterested visitants to the slave States of the Union, that, from all appearances, the slaves, as a body, are the happiest people in the world. And although we are far from advocating the doctrine, in application to involuntary and hereditary bondage, as an element of society, that, “where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise;” yet the real condition of American slavery, when fairly ascertained, may go to show, that the pains taken by Abolitionists, in the use of false testimony, to awaken a romantic sympathy in the North, and to muster and urge on a violent crusade upon the South, in violation of the laws of the land, and of the obvious proprieties of man’s social condition, thereby disturbing the public peace, and threatening to bring about a civil war, involves a very grave responsibility. It is undoubtedly true, that the Abolitionists of the North know very little about Southern slavery; and that they know far less about it now, than they did before the Abolition press, under the American Anti-Slavery Society, began to instruct them. Nearly all their sympathy is romantic, resting on “the baseless fabric of a vision;” and they may rely upon it, that their crusade upon the South has as little hope of good result, as may now be read in the history of the crusade of the Christian nations of Europe upon “the Holy land.”