</pre>
Produced by Julia Miller, Josephine Paolucci and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
SPEECHES, ADDRESSES,
AND
OCCASIONAL SERMONS,
BY
THEODORE PARKER,
MINISTER OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN BOSTON.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. III.
BOSTON:
HORACE B. FULLER,
(SUCCESSOR TO WALKER, FULLER, AND COMPANY,)
245, WASHINGTON STREET.
1867.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by
THEODORE PARKER,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court
of the District of Massachusetts.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME III.
I.
A SPEECH AT A MEETING OF THE CITIZENS OF BOSTON
IN FANEUIL HALL, MARCH 25, 1850, TO CONSIDER THE
SPEECH OF MR. WEBSTER PAGE 1
II.
A SPEECH AT THE NEW ENGLAND ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION
IN BOSTON, MAY 29, 1850 38
III.
A DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE DEATH OF THE LATE
PRESIDENT TAYLOR.--Preached at the Melodeon, on
Sunday, July 14, 1850 87
IV.
THE FUNCTION AND PLACE OF CONSCIENCE, IN RELATION
TO THE LAWS OF MEN; A SERMON FOR THE
TIMES.--Preached at the Melodeon, on Sunday, September
22, 1850 131
V.
THE STATE OF THE NATION, CONSIDERED IN A SERMON
FOR THANKSGIVING DAY.--Preached at the Melodeon,
November 28, 1850 180
VI.
THE CHIEF SINS OF THE PEOPLE.--A Sermon delivered
at the Melodeon, on Fast Day, April 10, 1851 230
VII.
THE THREE CHIEF SAFEGUARDS OF SOCIETY, CONSIDERED
IN A SERMON AT THE MELODEON, on Sunday,
July 6, 1851 292
VIII.
THE POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR.--An
Address delivered at Waterville, August 8, 1849 346
I.
SPEECH AT A MEETING OF THE CITIZENS OF BOSTON, IN FANEUIL HALL, MARCH
25, 1850, TO CONSIDER THE SPEECH OF MR. WEBSTER.
Mr. President and Fellow Citizens: It is an important occasion which has
brought us together. A great crisis has occurred in the affairs of the
United States. There is a great question now before the people. In any
European country west of Russia and east of Spain, it would produce a
revolution, and be settled with gunpowder. It narrowly concerns the
material welfare of the nation. The decision that is made will help
millions of human beings into life, or will hinder and prevent millions
from being born. It will help or hinder the advance of the nation in
wealth for a long time to come. It is a question which involves the
honor of the people. Your honor and my honor are concerned in this
matter, which is presently to be passed upon by the people of the
United States. More than all this, it concerns the morality of the
people. We are presently to do a right deed, or to inflict a great wrong
on others and on ourselves, and thereby entail an evil upon this
continent which will blight and curse it for many an age.
It is a great question, comprising many smaller ones:--Shall we extend
and foster Slavery, or shall we extend and foster Freedom? Slavery, with
its consequences, material, political, intellectual, moral; or Freedom,
with the consequences thereof?
A question so important seldom comes to be decided before any generation
of men. This age is full of great questions, but this of Freedom is the
chief. It is the same question which in other forms comes up in Europe.
This is presently to be decided here in the United States by the
servants of the people, I mean, by the Congress of the nation; in the
name of the people; for the people, if justly decided; against them, if
unjustly. If it were to be left to-morrow to the naked votes of the
majority, I should have no fear. But the public servants of the people
may decide otherwise. The political parties, as such, are not to pass
judgment. It is not a question between whigs and democrats; old party
distinctions, once so sacred and rigidly observed, here vanish out of
sight. The party of Slavery or the party of Freedom is to swallow up all
the other parties. Questions about tariffs and banks can hardly get a
hearing. On the approach of a battle, men do not talk of the weather.
Four great men in the Senate of the United States have given us their
decision; the four most eminent in the party politics of the nation--two
great whigs, two great democrats. The Shibboleth of their party is
forgotten by each; there is a strange unanimity in their decision. The
Herod of free trade and the Pilate of protection are "made friends,"
when freedom is to be crucified. All four decide adverse to freedom; in
favor of slavery; against the people. Their decisions are such as you
might look for in the politicians of Austria and Russia. Many smaller
ones have spoken on this side or on that. Last of all, but greatest, the
most illustrious of the four, so far as great gifts of the understanding
are concerned, a son of New England, long known, and often and
deservedly honored, has given his decision. We waited long for his
words; we held our peace in his silence; we listened for his counsel.
Here it is; adverse to freedom beyond the fears of his friends, and the
hopes even of his foes. He has done wrong things before, cowardly things
more than once; but this, the wrongest and most cowardly of them all: we
did not look for it. No great man in America has had his faults or his
failings so leniently dealt with; private scandal we will not credit,
public shame we have tried to excuse, or, if inexcusable, to forget. We
have all of us been proud to go forward and honor his noble deeds, his
noble efforts, even his noble words. I wish we could take a mantle big
and black enough, and go backward and cover up the shame of the great
man who has fallen in the midst of us, and hide him till his honor and
his conscience shall return. But no, it cannot be; his deed is done in
the face of the world, and nothing can hide it.
We have come together to-night in Faneuil Hall, to talk the matter over,
in our New England way; to look each other in the face; to say a few
words of warning, a few of counsel, perhaps something which may serve
for guidance. We are not met here to-night to "calculate the value of
the Union," but to calculate the worth of freedom and the rights of man;
to calculate the value of the Wilmot Proviso. Let us be cool and
careful, not violent, not rash; true and firm, not hasty or timid.
Important matters have brought our fathers here many times before now.
Before the Revolution, they came here to talk about the Molasses Act, or
the Sugar Act, or the Stamp Act, the Boston Port Bill, and the long list
of grievances which stirred up their manly stomachs to the Revolution;
afterwards, they met to consult about the Embargo, and the seizure of
the Chesapeake, and many other matters. Not long ago, only five years
since, we came here to protest against the annexation of Texas. But
before the Revolution or after it, meetings have seldom been called in
Faneuil Hall on such solemn occasions as this. Not only is there a great
public wrong contemplated, as in the annexation of Texas, but the
character and conduct of a great public servant of the people come up to
be looked after. This present conduct of Mr. Webster is a thing to be
solemnly considered. A similar thing once happened before. In 1807, a
senator from Massachusetts was disposed to accept a measure the
President had advised, because he had "recommended" it "on his high
responsibility." "I would _not consider_," said the senator, "I would
_not deliberate_, I would _act_."[1] He did so; and with little
deliberation, with small counsel, as men thought at the time, he voted
for the Embargo, and the Embargo came. This was a measure which doomed
eight hundred thousand tons of shipping to rot at the wharf. It touched
the pockets of New England and all the North. It affected the daily
meals of millions of men. There was indignation, deep and loud
indignation; but it was political in its nature and personal in its
form; the obnoxious measure was purely political, not obviously immoral
and unjust. But, long as John Quincy Adams lived, much as he did in his
latter years for mankind, he never wholly wiped off the stain which his
conduct then brought upon him. Yet it may be that he was honest in his
vote; it may have been an error of judgment, and nothing more; nay,
there are men who think it was no error at all, but a piece of political
wisdom.
A senator of Massachusetts has now committed a fault far greater than
was ever charged upon Mr. Adams by his most inveterate political foes.
It does not directly affect the shipping of New England and the North: I
wish it did. It does not immediately concern our daily bread; if it were
so, the contemplated wrong would receive a speedy adjustment. But it
concerns the liberty of millions of men yet unborn.
Let us look at the matter carefully.
Here is a profile of our national action on the subject now before the
people.
In 1774, we agreed to import no more slaves after that year, and never
finally repealed this act of agreement.
In 1776, we declared that all men are created equal, and endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In 1778, we formed the Confederacy, with no provision for the surrender
of fugitive slaves.
In 1787, we shut out slavery from the Northwest Territory for ever, by
the celebrated proviso of Mr. Jefferson.
In 1788, the Constitution was formed, with its compromises and
guarantees.
In 1808, the importation of slaves was forbidden. But,
In 1803, we annexed Louisiana, and slavery along with it.
In 1819, we annexed Florida, with more slavery.
In 1820, we legally established slavery in the territory west of the
Mississippi, south of 36 deg. 30 min.
In 1845, we annexed Texas, with three hundred and twenty-five thousand
five hundred and twenty square miles, as a slave State.
In 1848, we acquired, by conquest and by treaty, the vast territory of
California and New Mexico, containing five hundred and twenty-six
thousand and seventy-eight square miles. Of this, two hundred and four
thousand three hundred and eighty-three square miles are south of the
slave line--south of 36 deg. 30 min. Here is territory enough to make
more than thirty slave States of the size of Massachusetts.
At the present day, it is proposed to have some further action on the
matter of slavery. Connected with this subject, four great questions
come up to be decided:--
1. Shall four new slave States at any time be made out of Texas? This is
not a question which is to be decided at present, yet it is one of great
present importance, and furnishes an excellent test of the moral
character and political conduct of politicians at this moment. The
other questions are of immediate and pressing concern. Here they are:--
2. Shall Slavery be prohibited in California?
3. Shall Slavery be prohibited in New Mexico?
4. What laws shall be passed relative to fugitive slaves?
Mr. Webster, in this speech, defines his position in regard to each of
these four questions.
1. In regard to the new States to be made hereafter out of Texas, he
gives us his opinion, in language well studied, and even with an excess
of caution. Let us look at it, and the resolution which annexed Texas.
That declares that "new States ... not exceeding four in number, in
addition to said State of Texas ... may hereafter, by the consent of
said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be
entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
And such States ... shall be admitted with or without slavery, as the
people of each State asking admission may desire."
I will not stop to consider the constitutionality of the joint
resolution which annexed Texas. Mr. Webster's opinion on that subject is
well known. But the resolution does two things: 1. It confers a power,
the power to make four new States on certain conditions; a qualified
power, restricted by the terms of the act. 2d. It imposes an
obligation, namely, the obligation to leave it to the people of the new
State to keep slaves or not, when the State is admitted. The words _may
be_, etc., indicate the conferring of a power: the words _shall be_,
etc., the imposing of an obligation. But as the power is a qualified
power, so is the obligation a qualified obligation; the _shall be_ is
dependent on the _may be_, as much as the _may be_ on the _shall_.
Admitting in argument what Mr. Webster has denied, that Congress had the
constitutional right to annex Texas by joint resolution, and also that
the resolution of one Congress binds the future Congress, it is plain
Congress may admit new States from Texas, on those conditions, or refuse
to admit them. This is plain, by any fair construction of the language.
The resolution does not say, they _shall_ be formed, only "_may_ be
formed," and "shall be entitled to admission, under the provisions of
the Federal Constitution"--not in spite of those provisions. The
provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the formation and
admission of new States, are well known, and sufficiently clear.
Congress is no more bound to admit a new slave State formed out of
Texas, than out of Kentucky. But Mr. Webster seems to say that Congress
is bound to make four new States out of Texas, when there is sufficient
population to warrant the measure, and a desire for it in the States
themselves, and to admit them with a Constitution allowing slavery. He
says, "Its guaranty is, that new States shall be made out of it,... and
that such States ... may come in as slave States," etc. Quite the
contrary. It is only said they "_may be_ formed," and admitted "under
the provisions of the Constitution." The _shall be_ does not relate to
the fact of admission.
Then he says, there is "a solemn pledge," "that if she shall be divided
into States, those States may come in as slave States." But there is no
"solemn pledge" that they _shall come_ in at all. I make a "solemn
pledge" to John Doe, that if ever I give him any land, it shall be a
thousand acres in the meadows on Connecticut River; but it does not
follow from this that I am bound to give John Doe any land at all. This
solemn pledge is worth nothing, if Congress says to new States, You
shall not come in with your slave Constitution. To make this
"stipulation with Texas" binding, it ought to have provided that "new
States ... shall be formed out of the territory thereof ... such States
shall be entitled to admission, in spite of the provisions of the
Constitution." Even then it would be of no value; for as there can be no
moral obligation to do an immoral deed, so there can be no
constitutional obligation to do an unconstitutional deed. So much for
the first question. You see that Mr. Webster proposes to do what we
never stipulated to do, what is not "so nominated in the bond." He
wrests the resolution against freedom, and for the furtherance of the
slave power!
2 and 3. Mr. Webster has given his answer to the second and third
questions, which may be considered as a single question, Shall slavery
be legally forbidden by Congress in California and New Mexico? Mr.
Webster is opposed to the prohibition by Congress. Here are his words:
"Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded
from those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and
sanctions it in Texas. I mean the law of nature, of physical geography,
the law of the formation of the earth."... "I will say further, that if
a resolution or a law were now before us to provide a territorial
government for New Mexico, I would not vote to put any prohibition into
it whatever. The use of such a prohibition would be idle, as it respects
any effect it would have upon the territory: and I would not take pains
to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor to reenact the will of God."
"The gentlemen who belong to the Southern States would think it a taunt,
an indignity; they would think it an act taking away from them what they
regard as a proper equality of privilege" ... "a plain theoretic wrong,"
"more or less derogatory to their character and their rights."
"African slavery," he tells us, "cannot exist there." It could once
exist in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Very little of this territory
lies north of Mason and Dixon's line, the northern limit of Maryland;
none above the parallel of forty-two degrees; none of it extends fifty
miles above the northern limit of Virginia; two hundred and four
thousand three hundred and fifty-three square miles of it lie south of
the line of the Missouri Compromise, south of 36 deg. 30'. Almost all of it
is in the latitude of Virginia and the Carolinas. If slavery can exist
on the west coast of the Atlantic, I see not why it cannot on the east
of the Pacific, and all the way between. There is no reason why it
cannot. It will, unless we forbid it by positive laws, laws which no man
can misunderstand. Why, in 1787, it was thought necessary to forbid
slavery in the Northwest Territory, which extends from the Ohio River to
the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude.
Not exclude slavery from California and New Mexico, because it can never
exist there! Why, it was there once, and Mexico abolished it by positive
law. Abolished, did I say! We are not so sure of that; I mean, not sure
that the Senate of the United States is sure of it. Not a month before
Mr. Webster made this very speech, on the 13th and 14th of last
February, Mr. Davis, the Senator from Mississippi, maintained that
slavery is not abolished in California and New Mexico. He denies that
the acts abolishing slavery in Mexico were made by competent powers;
denies that they have the force of law. But even if they have, he tells
us, "Suppose it be conceded that by law it was abolished--could that law
be perpetual? Could it extend to the territory after it became the
property of the United States? Did we admit territory from Mexico,
subject to the Constitution and laws of Mexico? Did we pay fifteen
million dollars for jurisdiction over California and New Mexico, that it
might be held subordinate to the laws of Mexico?" The Commissioners of
Mexico, he tells us, did not think that "we were to be bound by the
edicts and statutes of Mexico." They pressed this point in the
negotiation, "the continuation of their law for the exclusion of
slavery;" and Mr. Trist told them he could not make a treaty on that
condition; if they would "offer him the land covered a foot thick with
pure gold, upon the single condition that slavery should be excluded
therefrom, I could not entertain the offer for a moment." Does not Mr.
Webster know this? He knows it too well.
But Mr. Davis goes further. He does not think slavery is excluded by
legislation stronger than a joint resolution. This is his language: "I
believe it is essential, on account of the climate, productions, soil,
and the peculiar character of cultivation, that we shall, during its
first settlement, have that slavery [African slavery] in a part, at
least, of California and New Mexico." Now on questions of "A law of
nature and physical geography," the Senator from Mississippi is as good
authority as the Senator from Massachusetts, and a good deal nearer to
the facts of the case.
In the House of Representatives, Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina,
amongst others, wants New Mexico for slave soil. Pass the Wilmot Proviso
over this territory, and the question is settled, disposed of for ever.
Omit to pass it, and slavery will go there, and you may get it out if
you can. Once there, it will be said that the "Compromises of the
Constitution" are on its side, and we have no jurisdiction over the
slavery which we have established there.
Hear what Mr. Foote said of a similar matter on the 26th of June, 1848,
in his place in the Senate: "Gentlemen have said this is not a practical
question, that slaves will never be taken to Oregon. With all deference
to their opinion, I differ with them totally. I believe, if permitted,
slaves would be carried there, and that slavery would continue, at
least, as long as in Maryland or Virginia. ['The whole of Oregon' is
north of forty-two degrees.] The Pacific coast is totally different in
temperature from the Atlantic. It is far milder.... Green peas are eaten
in the Oregon city at Christmas. Where is the corresponding climate to
be found on this side the continent? Where we sit--near the
thirty-ninth? No, sir; but to the south of us." "The latitude of Georgia
gives, on the Pacific, a tropical climate." "The prohibition of slavery
in the laws of Oregon was adopted for the express purpose of excluding
slaves." "A few had been brought in; further importations were expected;
and it was with a view to put a stop to them, that the prohibitory act
was passed."
Now, Mr. Foote of Mississippi--"Hangman Foote," as he has been
called--understands the laws of the formation of the earth as well as
the distinguished senator from Massachusetts. Why, the inhabitants of
that part of the Northwest Territory, which now forms the States of
Indiana and Illinois, repeatedly asked Congress to allow them to
introduce slaves north of the Ohio; and but for the ordinance of '87,
that territory would now be covered with the mildew of slavery!
But I have not yet adduced all the testimony of Mr. Foote. Last year, on
the 23d of February, 1849, he declared: "No one acquainted with the vast
mineral resources of California and New Mexico, and who is aware of the
peculiar adaptedness of slave labor to the development of mineral
treasures, can doubt for a moment, that were slaves introduced into
California and New Mexico, being employed in the mining operations there
in progress, their labor would result in the acquisition of pecuniary
profits not heretofore realized by the most successful cotton or sugar
planter of this country?" Does not Mr. Webster know this? Perhaps he did
not hear Mr. Foote's speech last year; perhaps he has a short memory,
and has forgotten it. Then let us remind the nation of what its Senator
forgets. Not know this--forget it? Who will credit such a statement? Mr.
Webster is not an obscure clergyman, busy with far different things, but
the foremost politician of the United States.
But why do I mention the speeches of Mr. Foote, a year ago? Here is
something hardly dry from the printing-press. Here is an advertisement
from the "Mississippian" of March 7th, 1850, the very day of that
speech. The "Mississippian" is published at the city of Jackson, in
Mississippi.
"CALIFORNIA,
"THE SOUTHERN SLAVE COLONY.
"Citizens of the slave States, desirous of emigrating to
California with their slave property, are requested to send
their names, number of slaves, and period of contemplated
departure, to the address of 'SOUTHERN SLAVE COLONY,'
Jackson, Miss....
"It is the desire of the friends of this enterprise to
settle in the richest mining and agricultural portions of
California, and to have the uninterrupted enjoyment of slave
property. It is estimated that, by the first of May next,
the members of this Slave Colony will amount to about five
thousand, and the slaves to about ten thousand. The mode of
effecting organization, &c., will be privately transmitted
to actual members.
"Jackson (Miss.), Feb. 24, 1850. "dtf.
What does Mr. Webster say in view of all this? "If a proposition were
now here for a government for New Mexico, and it was moved to insert a
provision for the prohibition of slavery, I would not vote for it." Why
not vote for it? There is a specious pretence, which is publicly
proclaimed, but there is a real reason for it which is not mentioned!
In the face of all these facts, Mr. Webster says that these men would
wish "to protect the everlasting snows of Canada from the pest of
slavery by the same overspreading wing of an act of Congress." Exactly
so. If we ever annex Labrador--if we "re-annex" Greenland, and
Kamskatka, I would extend the Wilmot Proviso there, and exclude slavery
forever and forever.
But Mr. Webster would not "reaffirm an ordinance of nature," nor
"reenact the will of God." I would. I would reaffirm nothing else, enact
nothing else. What is justice but the "ordinance of nature?" What is
right but "the will of God?" When you make a law, "Thou shalt not kill,"
what do you but "reenact the will of God?" When you make laws for the
security of the "unalienable rights" of man, and protect for every man
the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are you not
re-affirming an ordinance of nature? Not reenact the will of God? Why, I
would enact nothing else. The will of God is a theological term; it
means truth and justice, in common speech. What is the theological
opposite to "The will of God?" It is "The will of the devil." One of the
two you must enact--either the will of God, or of the devil. The two
are the only theological categories for such matters. _Aut Deus aut
Diabolus._ There is no other alternative, "Choose you which you will
serve."
So much for the second and third questions. Let us now come to the last
thing to be considered. What laws shall be enacted relative to fugitive
slaves? Let us look at Mr. Webster's opinion on this point.
The Constitution provides--you all know that too well--that every person
"held to service or labor in one State,... escaping into another, shall
be delivered up." By whom shall he be delivered up? There are only three
parties to whom this phrase can possibly apply. They are,
1. Individual men and women; or,
2. The local authorities of the States concerned; or,
3. The Federal Government itself.
It has sometimes been contended that the Constitution imposes an
obligation on you, and me, and every other man, to deliver up fugitive
slaves. But there are no laws or decisions that favor that construction.
Mr. Webster takes the next scheme, and says, "I always thought that the
Constitution addressed itself to the Legislatures of the States, or to
the States themselves." "It seems to me that the import of the passage
is, that the State itself ... shall cause him [the fugitive] to be
delivered up. That is my judgment." But the Supreme Court, some years
ago, decided otherwise, that "The business of seeing that these
fugitives are delivered up resides in the power of congress and the
national judicature." So the matter stands now. But it is proposed to
make more stringent laws relative to the return of fugitive slaves. So
continues Mr. Webster--"My friend at the head of the judiciary committee
has a bill 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."
Everybody knows the act of Congress of 1793, relative to the surrender
of fugitive slaves, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the "Prigg
case," 1842. But everybody does not know the bill of Mr. Webster's
"friend at the head of the judiciary committee." There is a bill
providing "for the more effectual execution of the third clause of the
second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United
States." It is as follows:--
_"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America, in Congress assembled_,
That when a person held to service or labor, in any State or
Territory of the United States, under the laws of such State
or territory, shall escape into any other of the said States
or territories, the person to whom such service or labor may
be due, his or her agent, or attorney, is hereby empowered
to seize or arrest such fugitive from service or labor, and
to take him or her before any Judge of the Circuit or
District Courts of the United States, or before any
commissioner or clerk of such courts, or marshal thereof, or
before any postmaster of the United States, or collector of
the customs of the United States, residing or being within
such State wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made;
and, upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge,
commissioner, clerk, postmaster, or collector, as the case
may be, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before
and certified by any person authorized to administer an oath
under the laws of the United States, or of any State, that
the person so seized or arrested, under the laws of the
State or territory, from which he or she fled, owes service
or labor to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the
duty of such judge, commissioner, clerk, marshal,
postmaster, or collector, to give a certificate thereof to
such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, which
certificate shall be a sufficient warrant for taking and
removing such fugitive from service or labor to the State or
territory from which he or she fled.
"Sec. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That when a person
held to service or labor, as mentioned in the first section
of this act, shall escape from such service or labor,
therein mentioned, the person to whom such service or labor
may be due, his or her agent or attorney, may apply to any
one of the officers of the United States named in said
section, other than a marshal of the United States, for a
warrant to seize and arrest such fugitive; and upon
affidavit being made before such officer (each of whom, for
the purposes of this act, is hereby authorized to administer
an oath or affirmation), by such claimant, his or her agent,
that such person does, under the laws of the State or
territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labor to
such claimant, it shall be and is hereby made the duty of
such officer, to and before whom such application and
affidavits are made to issue his warrant to any marshal of
any of the courts of the United States, to seize and arrest
such alleged fugitive, and to bring him or her forthwith, or
on a day to be named in such warrant, before the officer
issuing such warrant, or either of the other officers
mentioned in said first section, except the marshal to whom
the said warrant is directed, which said warrant or
authority, the said marshal is hereby authorized and
directed in all things to obey.
"Sec. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That upon affidavit
made as aforesaid, by the claimant of such fugitive, his
agent or attorney, after such certificate has been issued,
that he has reason to apprehend that such fugitive will be
rescued by force from his or their possession, before he can
be taken beyond the limits of the State in which the arrest
is made, it shall be the duty of the officer making the
arrest, to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to
remove him to the State whence he fled, and there to deliver
him to said claimant, his agent or attorney. And to this
end, the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required
to employ so many persons as he may deem necessary to
overcome such force, and to retain them in his service, so
long as circumstances may require. The said officer and his
assistants, while so employed, to receive the same
compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses as are now
allowed by law, for transportation of criminals, to be
certified by the judge of the district within which the
arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United
States: _Provided_, That before such charges are incurred,
the claimant, his agent, or attorney, shall secure to said
officer payment of the same, and in case no actual force be
opposed, then they shall be paid by such claimant, his agent
or attorney.
"Sec. 4. _And be it further enacted_, When a warrant shall
have been issued by any of the officers under the second
section of this act, and there shall be no marshal or deputy
marshal within ten miles of the place where such warrant is
issued, it shall be the duty of the officer issuing the
same, at the request of the claimant, his agent, or
attorney, to appoint some fit and discreet person, who shall
be willing to act as marshal, for the purpose of executing
said warrant; and such persons so appointed shall, to the
extent of executing such warrant, and detaining and
transporting the fugitive named therein, have all the power
and the authority, and he, with his assistants, entitled to
the same compensation and expenses, provided in this act, in
cases where the services are performed by the marshals of
the courts.
"Sec. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who
shall knowingly and wilfully obstruct or hinder such
claimant, his agent, or attorney, or any person or persons
assisting him, her or them, in so serving or arresting such
fugitive from service or labor, or shall rescue such
fugitive from such claimant, his agent, or attorney, when so
arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given or
declared, or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing
service or labor, to escape from such claimant, his agent,
or attorney, or shall harbor or conceal such person, after
notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor, as
aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit
and pay the sum of one thousand dollars, which penalty may
be recovered by, and for the benefit of, such claimant, by
action of debt in any court proper to try the same, saving,
moreover, to the person claiming such labor or service, his
right of action for, on account of, the said injuries, or
either of them.
"Sec. 6. _And be it further enacted_, That when such person
is seized and arrested, under and by virtue of the said
warrant, by such marshal, and is brought before either of
the officers aforesaid, other than said marshal, it shall be
the duty of such officer to proceed in the case of such
person, in the same way that he is directed and authorized
to do, when such person is seized and arrested by the person
claiming him, or by his or her agent, or attorney, and is
brought before such officer or attorney, under the
provisions of the first section of this act."
This is the bill known as "Mason's Bill," introduced by Mr. Butler of
South Carolina, on the 16th of January last. This is the bill which Mr.
Webster proposes to support, "with all its provisions to the fullest
extent." It is a Bill of abominations, but there are "some amendments
to it," which modify the bill a little. Look at them. Here they are. The
first provides in addition to the fine of one thousand dollars for
aiding and abetting the escape of a fugitive, for harboring and
concealing him, that the offender "shall also be imprisoned twelve
months." The second amendment is as follows--"And in no trial or hearing
under this act shall the testimony of such fugitive be admitted in
evidence."
These are Mr. Mason's amendments, offered on the twenty-third of last
January. This is the bill, "with some amendments," which Mr. Webster
says, "I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest
extent." Mr. Seward's bill was also before the Senate--a bill granting
the fugitive slave a trial by jury in the State where he is found, to
determine whether or not he is a slave. Mr. Webster says not a word
about this bill. He does not propose to support it.
Suppose the bill of Mr. Webster's friend shall pass Congress, what will
the action of it be? A slave-hunter comes here to Boston, he seizes any
dark-looking man that is unknown and friendless, he has him before the
postmaster, the collector of customs, or some clerk or marshal of some
United States court, and makes oath that the dark man is his slave. The
slave-hunter is allowed his oath. The fugitive is not allowed his
testimony. The man born free as you and I, on the false oath of a
slave-hunter, or the purchased affidavit of some one, is surrendered to
a southern State, to bondage life-long and irremediable. Will you say,
the postmaster, the collector, the clerks and marshals in Boston would
not act in such matters? They have no option; it is their official
business to do so. But they would not decide against the unalienable
rights of man--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That may be, or may not be. The slave-hunter may have his "fugitive"
before the collector of Boston, or the postmaster of Truro, if he sees
fit. If they, remembering their Old Testament, refuse to "bewray him
that wandereth," the slave-hunter may bring on his officer with him from
Georgia or Florida; he may bring the custom-house officer from Mobile or
Wilmington, some little petty postmaster from a town you never heard of
in South Carolina or Texas, and have any dark man in Boston up before
that "magistrate," and on his decision have the fugitive carried off to
Louisiana or Arkansas, to bondage for ever. The bill provides that the
trial may be had before any such officer, "residing or being" in the
State where the fugitive is found!
There were three fugitives at my house the other night. Ellen Craft was
one of them. You all know Ellen Craft is a slave; she, with her husband,
fled from Georgia to Philadelphia, and is here before us now. She is not
so dark as Mr. Webster himself, if any of you think freedom is to be
dealt out in proportion to the whiteness of the skin. If Mason's bill
passes, I might have some miserable postmaster from Texas or the
District of Columbia, some purchased agent of Messrs. Bruin & Hill, the
great slave-dealers of the Capitol, have him here in Boston, take Ellen
Craft before the caitiff, and on his decision hurry her off to bondage
as cheerless, as hopeless, and as irremediable as the grave!
Let me interest you in a scene which might happen. Suppose a poor
fugitive, wrongfully held as a slave--let it be Ellen Craft--has escaped
from Savannah in some northern ship. No one knows of her presence on
board; she has lain with the cargo in the hold of the vessel. Harder
things have happened. Men have journeyed hundreds of miles bent double
in a box half the size of a coffin, journeying towards freedom. Suppose
the ship comes up to Long Wharf, at the foot of State Street. Bulk is
broken to remove the cargo; the woman escapes, emaciated with hunger,
feeble from long confinement in a ship's hold, sick with the tossing of
the heedless sea, and still further etiolated and blanched with the
mingling emotions of hope and fear. She escapes to land. But her
pursuer, more remorseless than the sea, has been here beforehand; laid
his case before the official he has brought with him, or purchased here,
and claims his slave. She runs for her life, fear adding wings. Imagine
the scene--the flight, the hot pursuit through State Street, Merchants'
Row--your magistrates in hot pursuit. To make the irony of nature still
more complete, let us suppose this shall take place on some of the
memorable days in the history of America--on the 19th of April, when our
fathers first laid down their lives "in the sacred cause of God and
their country;" on the 17th of June, the 22d of December, or on any of
the sacramental days in the long sad history of our struggle for our own
freedom! Suppose the weary fugitive takes refuge in Faneuil Hall, and
here, in the old Cradle of Liberty, in the midst of its associations,
under that eye of Samuel Adams, the bloodhounds seize their prey!
Imagine Mr. Webster and Mr. Winthrop looking on, cheering the
slave-hunter, intercepting the fugitive fleeing for her life. Would not
that be a pretty spectacle?
Propose to support that bill to the fullest extent, with all its
provisions! Ridiculous talk! Does Mr. Webster suppose that such a law
could be executed in Boston? that the people of Massachusetts will ever
return a single fugitive slave, under such an act as that? Then he knows
his constituents very little, and proves that he needs "Instruction."[2]
"Slavery is a moral and religious blessing," says somebody in the
present Congress. But it seems some thirty thousand slaves have been
blind to the benefits--moral and religious benefits--which it confers,
and have fled to the free States. Mr. Clingman estimates the value of
all the fugitive slaves in the North at $15,000,000. Delaware loses
$100,000 in a year in this way; her riches taking to themselves not
wings, but legs. Maryland lost $100,000 in six months. I fear Mr.
Mason's bill and Mr. Webster's speech will not do much to protect that
sort of "property" from this kind of loss. Such action is prevented "by
a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas."
Such are Mr. Webster's opinions on these four great questions. Now,
there are two ways of accounting for this speech, or, at least, two ways
of looking at it. One is, to regard it as the work of a statesman
seeking to avert some great evil from the whole nation. This is the way
Mr. Webster would have us look at it, I suppose. His friends tell us it
is a statesmanlike speech--very statesmanlike. He himself says _Vera pro
gratis_[3]--true words in preference to words merely pleasing. _Etsi
meum ingenium non moneret necessitas cogit_--Albeit my own humor should
not prompt the counsel, necessity compels it. The necessity so cogent is
the attempt to dissolve the Union, in case the Wilmot Proviso should be
extended over the new territory. Does any man seriously believe that
Mr. Webster really fears a dissolution of this Union undertaken and
accomplished on this plea, and by the Southern States? I will not insult
the foremost understanding of this continent by supposing he deems it
possible. No, we cannot take this view of his conduct.
The other way is to regard it as the work of a politician, seeking
something beside the permanent good of a great nation. The lease of the
Presidency is to be disposed of for the next four years by a sort of
auction. It is in the hands of certain political brokers, who "operate"
in presidential and other political stock. The majority of those brokers
are slaveholders or pro-slavery men; they must be conciliated, or they
will "not understand the nod" of the candidate--I mean of the man who
bids for the lease. All the illustrious men in the national politics
have an eye on the transaction, but sometimes the bid has been taken for
persons whose chance at the sale seemed very poor. General Cass made his
bid some time ago. I think his offer is recorded in the famous
"Nicholson Letter." He was a Northern man, and bid Non-intervention--The
unconstitutionality of any intervention with slavery in the new
territory. Mr. Clay made his bid, for old Kentucky "never tires," the
same old bid that he has often made--a Compromise. Mr. Calhoun did as he
has always done. I will not say he made any bid at all; he was too sick
for that, too sick for any thought of the Presidency. Perhaps at this
moment the angel of death is dealing with that famed and remarkable man.
Nay, he may already have gone where "The servant is free from his
master, and the weary are at rest;" have gone home to his God, who is
the Father of the great politician and the feeblest-minded slave. If it
be so, let us follow him only with pity for his errors, and the prayer
that his soul may be at rest. He has fought manfully in an unmanly
cause. He seemed sincerely in the wrong, and spite of the badness of the
cause to which he devoted his best energies, you cannot but respect the
man.
Last of all, Mr. Webster makes his bid for the lease of "that bad
eminence," the Presidency. He bids higher than the others, of course, as
coming later; bids Non-intervention, Four new slave States in Texas,
Mason's Bill for Capturing Fugitive slaves, and Denunciation of all the
Anti-slavery movements of the North, public and private. That is what he
bids, looking to the southern side of the board of political brokers.
Then he nods northward, and says, The Wilmot Proviso is my "thunder;"
then timidly glances to the South and adds, But I will never use it.
I think this is the only reasonable way in which we can estimate this
speech--as a bid for the Presidency. I will not insult that mighty
intellect by supposing that he, in his private heart, regards it in any
other light. Mr. Calhoun might well be content with that, and say
"Organize the territories on the principle of that gentleman, and give
us a free scope and sufficient time to get in--we ask nothing but that,
and we never will ask it."
Such are the four great questions before us; such Mr. Webster's answers
thereunto; such the two ways of looking at his speech. He decides in
advance against freedom in Texas, against freedom in California, against
freedom in New Mexico, against freedom in the United States, by his
gratuitous offer of support to Mr. Mason's bill. His great eloquence,
his great understanding, his great name, give weight to all his words.
Pains are industriously taken to make it appear that his opinions are
the opinions of Boston. Is it so? [Cries of No, No.] That was rather a
feeble cry. Perhaps it is the opinion of the prevailing party in Boston.
[No, No.] But I put it to you, Is it the opinion of Massachusetts? [Loud
cries of No, No, No.] Well, so I say, No; it is not the opinion of
Massachusetts.
* * * * *
Before now, servants of the people and leaders of the people have proved
false to their employers, and betrayed their trust. Amongst all
political men who have been weighed in the balance, and found wanting,
with whom shall I compare him? Not with John Quincy Adams, who, in 1807,
voted for the embargo. It may have been the mistake of an honest
intention, though I confess I cannot think so yet. At any rate, laying
an embargo, which he probably thought would last but a few months, was a
small thing compared with the refusal to restrict slavery, willingness
to enact laws to the disadvantage of mankind, and the voluntary support
of Mason's iniquitous bill. Besides, Mr. Adams lived a long life; if he
erred, or if he sinned in this matter, he afterwards fought most
valiantly for the rights of man.
Shall I compare Mr. Webster with Thomas Wentworth, the great Earl of
Strafford, a man "whose doubtful character and memorable end have made
him the most conspicuous character of a reign so fertile in
recollections?" He, like Webster, was a man of large powers, and once
devoted them to noble uses. Did Wentworth defend the "Petition of
Right?" So did Webster many times defend the great cause of liberty. But
it was written of Strafford, that "in his self-interested and ambitious
mind," patriotism "was the seed sown among thorns!" "If we reflect upon
this man's cold-blooded apostasy on the first lure to his ambition, and
on his splendid abilities, which enhanced the guilt of that desertion,
we must feel some indignation at those who have palliated all his
iniquities, and embalmed his memory with the attributes of patriot
heroism. Great he surely was, since that epithet can never be denied
without paradox to so much comprehension of mind, such ardor and
energy, such courage and eloquence, those commanding qualities of soul,
which, impressed upon his dark and stern countenance, struck his
contemporaries with mingled awe and hate ... But it may be reckoned a
sufficient ground for distrusting any one's attachment to the English
Constitution, that he reveres the name of Strafford." His measures for
stifling liberty in England, which he and his contemporaries
significantly called "Thorough" in the reign of Charles I., were not
more atrocious, than the measures which Daniel Webster proposes himself,
or proposes to support "to the fullest extent." But Strafford paid the
forfeit--tasting the sharp and bitter edge of the remorseless axe. Let
his awful shade pass by. I mourn at the parallel between him and the
mighty son of our own New England. Would God it were not thus!
For a sadder parallel, I shall turn off from the sour features of that
great British politician, and find another man in our own fair land.
This name carries us back to "the times that tried men's souls," when
also there were souls that could not stand the rack. It calls me back to
"The famous year of '80;" to the little American army in the highlands
of New York; to the time when the torch of American liberty which now
sends its blaze far up to heaven, at the same time lighting the northern
lakes and the Mexique Bay, tinging with welcome radiance the eastern and
the western sea, was a feeble flame flickering about a thin and hungry
wick, and one hand was raised to quench in darkness, and put out
forever, that feeble and uncertain flame. Gentlemen, I hate to speak
thus. I honor the majestic talents of this great man. I hate to couple
his name with that other, which few Americans care to pronounce. But I
know no deed in American history, done by a son of New England, to which
I can compare this, but the act of Benedict Arnold!
Shame that I should say this of any man; but his own motto shall be
mine--VERA PRO GRATIS--and I am not responsible for what he has made the
TRUTH; certainly, _meum ingenium non moneret, necessitas cogit_!