such an one, so honored, and so able, with the respect I feel for
superior powers. I would often question my sense of justice, before I
dared to pronounce an adverse conclusion. But the Wrong is palpable, the
Injustice is open as the day. I must remember, here are twenty millions,
whose material welfare his counsel defeats; whose honor his counsel
stains; whose political, intellectual, moral growth he is using all his
mighty powers to hinder and keep back. "_Vera pro gratis. Necessitas
cogit. Vellem, equidem, vobis placere, sed multo malo vos salvos esse,
qualicunque erga me animo futuri estis._"
Let me take a word of warning and of counsel from the same author; yes,
from the same imaginary speech of Quintus Capitolinis, whence Mr.
Webster has drawn his motto:--_Ante portas est bellum: si inde non
pellitur, jam intra maenia erit, et arcem et Capitolium scandet, et in
domos vestras vos persequetur._ The war [against the extension of
Slavery, not against the Volscians, in this case] is before your very
doors: if not driven thence, it will be within your walls [namely, it
will be in California and New Mexico]; it will ascend the citadel and
the capitol [to wit, it will be in the House of Representatives and the
Senate]; and it will follow you into your very homes [that is, the curse
of Slavery will corrupt the morals of the nation].
_Sedemus desides domi, mulierum ritu inter nos altercantes; praesenti
pace laeti, nec cernentes_ EX OTIO ILLO BREVI MULTIPLEX BELLUM REDITURUM.
We [the famous Senators of the United States] sit idle at home,
wrangling amongst ourselves like women [to see who shall get the lease
of the Presidency], glad of the present truce [meaning that which is
brought about by a compromise], not perceiving that for this brief
cessation of trouble, a manifold war will follow [that is, the "horrid
internecine war" which will come here, as it has been elsewhere, if
justice be too long delayed]!
It is a great question before us, concerning the existence of millions
of men. To many men in politics, it is merely a question of party
rivalry; a question of in and out, and nothing more. To many men in
cities, it is a question of commerce, like the establishment of a bank,
or the building of one railroad more or less. But to serious men, who
love man and love their God, this is a question of morals, a question of
religion, to be settled with no regard to party rivalry, none to
fleeting interests of to-day, but to be settled under the awful eye of
conscience, and by the just law of God.
Shall we shut up slavery or extend it? It is for us to answer. Will you
deal with the question now, or leave it to your children, when the evil
is ten times greater? In 1749, there was not a slave in Georgia; now,
two hundred and eighty thousand. In 1750, in all the United States, but
two hundred thousand; now, three millions. In 1950, let Mr. Webster's
counsels be followed, there will be thirty millions. Thirty millions!
Will it then be easier for your children to set limits to this crime
against human nature, than now for you? Our fathers made a political,
and a commercial, and a moral error--shall we repeat it? They did a
wrong; shall we extend and multiply the wrong? Was it an error in our
fathers; not barely a wrong--was it a sin? No, not in them; they knew it
not. But what in them to establish was only an error, in us to extend or
to foster is a sin!
Perpetuate Slavery, we cannot do it. Nothing will save it. It is girt
about by a ring of fire which daily grows narrower, and sends terrible
sparkles into the very centre of the shameful thing. "Joint
resolutions" cannot save it; annexations cannot save it--not if we
re-annex all the West Indies; delinquent representatives cannot save it;
uninstructed senators, refusing instructions, cannot save it, no, not
with all their logic, all their eloquence, which smites as an earthquake
smites the sea. No, slavery cannot be saved; by no compromise, no
non-intervention, no Mason's Bill in the Senate. It cannot be saved in
this age of the world until you nullify every ordinance of nature, until
you repeal the will of God, and dissolve the union He has made between
righteousness and the welfare of a people. Then, when you displace God
from the throne of the world, and instead of his eternal justice,
reenact the will of the Devil, then you may keep Slavery; keep it
forever, keep it in peace. Not till then.
The question is, not if slavery is to cease, and soon to cease, but
shall it end as it ended in Massachusetts, in New Hampshire, in
Pennsylvania, in New York; or shall it end as in St. Domingo? Follow the
counsel of Mr. Webster--it will end in fire and blood. God forgive us
for our cowardice, if we let it come to this, that three millions or
thirty millions of degraded human beings, degraded by us, must wade
through slaughter to their unalienable rights.
Mr. Webster has spoken noble words--at Plymouth, standing on the
altar-stone of New England; at Bunker Hill, the spot so early reddened
with the blood of our fathers. But at this hour, when we looked for
great counsel, when we forgot the paltry things which he has often done,
and said, "Now he will rouse his noble soul, and be the man his early
speeches once bespoke," who dared to fear that Olympian head would bow
so low, so deeply kiss the ground? Try it morally, try it
intellectually, try it by the statesman's test, world-wide justice; nay,
try it by the politician's basest test, the personal expediency of
to-day--it is a speech "not fit to be made," and when made, not fit to
be confirmed.
"We see dimly in the distance what is small and what is great,
Slow of faith how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate;
But the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din,
List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within--
'They enslave their children's children, who make compromise with sin.'"
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Mr. John Quincy Adams.
[2] Alas, a single year taught me the folly of this confidence in
Boston! See No. VI. of this volume.
[3] Motto of Mr. Webster's speech.
II.
SPEECH AT THE NEW ENGLAND ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION IN BOSTON, MAY 29,
1850.
Mr. President,--If we look hastily at the present aspect of American
affairs, there is much to discourage a man who believes in the progress
of his race. In this republic, with the Declaration of Independence for
its political creed, neither of the great political parties is hostile
to the existence of slavery. That institution has the continual support
of both the whig and democratic parties. There are now four eminent men
in the Senate of the United States, all of them friends of slavery. Two
of these are from the North, both natives of New England; but they
surpass their southern rivals in the zeal with which they defend that
institution, and in the concessions which they demand of the friends of
justice at the North. These four men are all competitors for the
Presidency. Not one of them is the friend of freedom; he that is
apparently least its foe, is Mr. Benton, the Senator from Missouri. Mr.
Clay, of Kentucky, is less effectually the advocate of slavery than Mr.
Webster, of Massachusetts. Mr. Webster himself has said, "There is no
North," and, to prove it experimentally, stands there as one mighty
instance of his own rule.
In the Senate of the United States, only Seward and Chase and Hale can
be relied on as hostile to slavery. In the House, there are Root and
Giddings, and Wilmot and Mann, and a few others. "But what are these
among so many?"
See "how it strikes a stranger." Here is an extract from the letter of a
distinguished and learned man,[4] sent out here by the King of Sweden to
examine our public schools: "I have just returned from Washington, where
I have been witnessing the singular spectacle of this free and
enlightened nation being buried in sorrow, on account of the death of
that great advocate of slavery, Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Webster's speech seems
to have made a very strong impression upon the people of the South, as I
have heard it repeated almost as a lesson of the catechism by every
person I have met within the slave territory. It seems now to be an
established belief, that slavery is not a _malum necessarium_, still
less an evil difficult to get rid of, but desirable soon to get rid of.
No, far from that; it seems to be considered as quite a natural, most
happy, and essentially Christian institution!"
Not satisfied with keeping an institution which the more Christian
religion of the Mohammedan Bey of Tunis has rejected as a "sin against
God," we seek to extend it, to perpetuate it, even on soil which the
half-civilized Mexicans made clear from its pollutions. The great organs
of the party politics of the land are in favor of the extension; the
great political men of the land seek to extend it; the leading men in
the large mercantile towns of the North--in Boston, New York, and
Philadelphia--are also in favor of extending slavery. All this is plain.
But, Sir, as I come up here to this Convention year after year, I find
some signs of encouragement. Even in the present state of things, the
star of hope appears, and we may safely and reasonably say, "Now is our
salvation nearer than when we first believed" in anti-slavery. Let us
look a little at the condition of America at this moment, to see what
there is to help or what to hinder us.
First, I will speak of the present crisis in our affairs; then of the
political parties amongst us; then of the manner in which this crisis is
met; next of the foes of freedom; and last, of its friends. I will speak
with all coolness, and try to speak short. By the middle of anniversary
week, men get a little heated; I am sure I shall be cool, and I think I
may also be dull.
There must be unity of action in a nation, as well as in a man, or there
cannot be harmony and welfare. As a man "cannot serve two masters"
antagonistic and diametrically opposed to one another, as God and
Mammon, no more can a nation serve two opposite principles at the same
time.
Now, there are two opposite and conflicting principles recognized in the
political action of America: at this moment, they contend for the
mastery, each striving to destroy the other.
There is what I call the American idea. I so name it, because it seems
to me to lie at the basis of all our truly original, distinctive and
American institutions. It is itself a complex idea, composed of three
subordinate and more simple ideas, namely: The idea that all men have
unalienable rights; that in respect thereof, all men are created equal;
and that government is to be established and sustained for the purpose
of giving every man an opportunity for the enjoyment and development of
all these unalienable rights. This idea demands, as the proximate
organization thereof, a democracy, that is, a government of all the
people, by all the people, for all the people; of course, a government
after the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging law of God; for
shortness' sake, I will call it the idea of Freedom.
That is one idea; and the other is, that one man has a right to hold
another man in thraldom, not for the slave's good, but for the master's
convenience; not on account of any wrong the slave has done or
intended, but solely for the benefit of the master. This idea is not
peculiarly American. For shortness' sake, I will call this the idea of
Slavery. It demands for its proximate organization, an aristocracy, that
is, a government of all the people by a part of the people--the masters;
for a part of the people--the masters; against a part of the people--the
slaves; a government contrary to the principles of eternal justice,
contrary to the unchanging law of God. These two ideas are hostile,
irreconcilably hostile, and can no more be compromised and made to
coalesce in the life of this nation, than the worship of the real God
and the worship of the imaginary Devil can be combined and made to
coalesce in the life of a single man. An attempt has been made to
reconcile and unite the two. The slavery clauses of the Constitution of
the United States is one monument of this attempt; the results of this
attempt--you see what they are, not order, but confusion.
* * * * *
We cannot have any settled and lasting harmony until one or the other of
these ideas is cast out of the councils of the nation: so there must be
war between them before there can be peace. Hitherto, the nation has not
been clearly aware of the existence of these two adverse principles; or,
if aware of their existence, has thought little of their irreconcilable
diversity. At the present time, this fact is brought home to our
consciousness with great clearness. On the one hand, the friends of
freedom set forth the idea of freedom, clearly and distinctly, demanding
liberty for each man. This has been done as never before. Even in the
Senate of the United States it has been done, and repeatedly during the
present session of Congress. On the other hand, the enemies of freedom
set forth the idea of slavery as this has not been done in other
countries for a long time. Slavery has not been so lauded in any
legislative body for many a year, as in the American Senate in 1850.
Some of the discussions remind one of the spirit which prevailed in the
Roman Senate, A. D. 62, when about four hundred slaves were crucified,
because their master, Pedanius Secundus, a man of consular dignity, was
found murdered in his bed. I mean to say, the same disregard of the
welfare of the slaves, the same willingness to sacrifice them--if not
their lives, which are not now in peril, at least their welfare, to the
convenience of their masters. Anybody can read the story in Tacitus,[5]
and it is worth reading, and instructive, too, at these times.
Here are some of the statements relative to slavery made in the
thirty-first Congress of the United States. Hearken to the testimony of
the Hon. Mr. Badger, of North Carolina:
"It is clear that this institution [slavery] not only was
not disapproved of, but was expressly recognized, approved,
and its continuance sanctioned by the divine lawgiver of the
Jews."
"Whether an evil or not, it is not a sin; it is not a
violation of the divine law.
"What treatment did it receive from the founder of the
gospel dispensation? It was approved, first negatively,
because, in the whole New Testament, there is not to be
found one single word, either spoken by the Saviour, or by
any of the evangelists or apostles, in which that
institution is either directly or indirectly condemned; and
also affirmatively." This he endeavors to show, by quoting
the passages from St. Paul, usually quoted for that purpose.
Nothing would be easier than for St. Paul to have
said--'Slaves, be obedient to your heathen masters; but I
say to you, feeling masters, emancipate your slaves; the law
of Christ is against that relation, and you are bound,
therefore, to set them at liberty.' No such word is spoken.
Thus far goes the Hon. Senator Badger, of North Carolina.
Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, goes further yet. He knows what some men
think of slavery, and tells them, "Very well, think so; but keep your
thoughts to yourselves." He is not content with bidding the "Freest and
most enlightened nation in the world," be silent on this matter: he is
not content, with Mr. Badger, to declare that if an evil, it is not a
sin, and to find it upheld in the Old Testament, and allowed in the New
Testament; he tells us that he "regards slavery as a great moral,
social, political and religious blessing--a blessing to the slave, and a
blessing to the master."
Thus, the issue is fairly made between the two principles. The
contradiction is plain. The battle between the two is open, and in sight
of the world.
But this is not the first time there has been a quarrel between the idea
of slavery and the idea of freedom in America. The quarrel has lasted,
with an occasional truce, for more than sixty years. In six battles,
slavery has been victorious over freedom.
1. In the adoption of the Constitution supporting slavery.
2. In the acquisition of Louisiana, as slave territory.
3. In the acquisition of Florida as slave territory.
4. In making the Missouri Compromise.
5. In the annexation of Texas as a slave State.
6. In the Mexican war--a war, mean and wicked, even amongst wars.
Since the Revolution, there have been three instances of great national
importance, in which freedom has overcome slavery; there have been three
victories:
1. In prohibiting slavery from the Northwest Territory, before the
adoption of the Constitution.
2. In prohibiting the slave-trade in 1808. I mean, in prohibiting the
African slave-trade; the American slave-trade is still carried on in the
capital of the United States.
3. The prohibition of slavery in Oregon may be regarded as a third
victory, though not apparently of so much consequence as the others.
Now comes another battle, and it remains to be decided whether the idea
of slavery or the idea of freedom is to prevail in the territory we have
conquered and stolen from Mexico. The present strife is to settle that
question. Now, as before, it is a battle between freedom and slavery;
one on which the material and spiritual welfare of millions of men
depends; but now the difference between freedom and slavery is more
clearly seen than in 1787; the consequences of each are better
understood, and the sin of slavery is felt and acknowledged by a class
of persons who had few representatives sixty years ago. It is a much
greater triumph for slavery to prevail now, and carry its institutions
into New Mexico in 1850, than it was to pass the pro-slavery provisions
of the Constitution in 1787. It will be a greater sin now to extend
slavery, than it was to establish it in 1620, when slaves were first
brought to Virginia.
Ever since the adoption of the Constitution, protected by that shield,
mastering the energies of the nation, and fighting with that weapon,
slavery has been continually aggressive. The slave-driver has coveted
new soil; has claimed it; has had his claim allowed. Louisiana, Florida,
Texas, California and New Mexico are the results of Southern aggression.
Now the slave-driver reaches out his hand towards Cuba, trying to clutch
that emerald gem set in the tropic sea. How easy it was to surrender to
Great Britain portions of the Oregon Territory in a high northern
latitude! Had it been south of 36 deg. 30', it would not have been so easy
to settle the Oregon question by a compromise. So when we make a
compromise there, "the reciprocity must be all on one side."
* * * * *
Let us next look at the position of the political parties with respect
to the present crisis. There are now four political parties in the land.
1. There is the Government party, represented by the President, and
portions of his Cabinet, if not the whole of it. This party does not
attempt to meet the question which comes up, but to dodge and avoid it.
Shall Freedom or Slavery prevail in the new territory? is the question.
The government has no opinion; it will leave the matter to be settled by
the people of the territory. This party wishes California to come into
the Union without slavery, for it is her own desire so to come; and does
not wish a territorial government to be formed by Congress in New
Mexico, but to leave the people there to form a State, excluding or
establishing slavery as they see fit. The motto of this party is
inaction, not intervention. King James I. once proposed a question to
the Judges of England. They declined to answer it, and the King said,
"If ye give no counsel, then why be ye counsellors?" The people of the
United States might ask the government, "If ye give us no leading, then
why be ye leaders?" This party is not hostile to slavery; not opposed to
its extension.
* * * * *
2. Then there is the Whig Party. This party has one distinctive idea;
the idea of a Tariff for Protection; whether for the protection of
American labor, or merely American capital, I will not now stop to
inquire. The Whig Party is no more opposed to slavery, or its extension,
than the Government party itself.
However there are two divisions of the whigs, the Whig Party South, and
the Whig Party North. The two agree in their ideas of protection, and
their pro-slavery character. But the Whig Party South advocates Slavery
and Protection; the Whig Party North, Protection and Slavery.
In the North there are many whigs who are opposed to slavery, especially
to the extension of slavery; there are also many other persons, not of
the whig party, opposed to the extension of slavery; therefore in the
late electioneering campaign, to secure the votes of these persons, it
was necessary for the whig party North to make profession of
anti-slavery. This was done accordingly, in a general form, and in
special an attempt was made to show that the whig party was opposed to
the extension of slavery.
Hear what Senator Chase says on this point. I read from his speech in
the Senate, on March 26, 1850:--
"On the whig side it was urged, that the candidate of the
Philadelphia Convention was, if not positively favorable to
the Proviso, at least pledged to leave the matter to
Congress free from Executive influence, and ready to approve
it when enacted by that body."
General Cass had written the celebrated "Nicholson Letter," in which he
declared that Congress had no constitutional power to enact the Proviso.
But so anxious were the Democrats of the North to assume an anti-slavery
aspect,--continues Mr. Chase,--that
"Notwithstanding this letter, many of his friends in the
free States persisted in asserting that he would not, if
elected, veto the Proviso; many also insisted that he
regarded slavery as excluded from the territories by the
Mexican laws still in force; while others maintained that he
regarded slavery as an institution of positive law, and
Congress as constitutionally incompetent to enact such law,
and that therefore it was impossible for slavery to get into
the territories, whether Mexican law was in force or not."
This, says Mr. Chase, was the whig argument:--
"Prohibition is essential to the certain exclusion of
slavery from the territories. If the democratic candidate
shall be elected, prohibition is impossible, for the veto
will be used: if the whig candidate shall be elected,
prohibition is certain, provided you elect a Congress who
will carry out your will. Vote, therefore, for the whigs."
Such was the general argument of the whig party. Let us see what it was
in Massachusetts in special. Here I have documentary evidence. This is
the statement of the Whig Convention at Worcester in 1848, published
shortly before the election:--
"We understand the whig party to be committed in favor of
the principles contained in the ordinance of 1787, the
prohibition of slavery in territory now free, and of its
abolition wherever it can be constitutionally effected."
They professed to aim at the same thing which the free soil party aimed
at, only the work must be done by the old whig organization. Free soil
cloth must be manufactured, but it must be woven in the old whig mill,
with the old whig machinery, and by the old whig weavers. See what the
Convention says of the democratic party:--
"We understand the democratic party to be pledged to decline
any legislation upon the subject of slavery, with a view
either to its prohibition or restriction in places where it
does not exist, or to its abolition in any of the
territories of the United States."
There is no ambiguity in that language. Men can talk very plain when
they will. Still there were some that doubted; so the great and famous
men of the party came out to convince the doubters that the whigs were
the men to save the country from the disgrace of slavery.