men who defend slavery out of the Bible. If the Bible defends slavery,
it is not so much the better for slavery, but so much the worse for the
Bible. If Mr. Stuart and Mr. Webster do not see that, there are plenty
of obscurer men that do. Of all the attacks ever made on the Bible, by
"deists" and "infidels," none would do so much to bring it into
disrepute, as to show that it sanctioned American slavery.
It is rather a remarkable fact, that an orthodox minister should be on
Mr. Webster's paper, endorsing for the Christianity of slavery.
Let me say a word respecting the position of the Representative from
Boston. I speak only of his position, not of his personal character. Let
him, and all men, have the benefit of the distinction between their
personal character, and official conduct. Mr. Winthrop is a consistent
whig; a representative of the idea of the whig party North, Protection
and Slavery. When he first went into Congress, it was distinctly
understood that he was not going to meddle with the matter of slavery;
the tariff was the thing. All this was consistent. It is to be supposed
that a Northern whig will put the mills of the North before the black
men of the South: and "Property before persons," might safely be writ on
the banner of the whig party, North or South.
Mr. Winthrop seems a little uneasy in his position. Some time ago he
complained of a "Nest of vipers" in Boston, who had broken their own
teeth in gnawing a file; meaning the "vipers" in the free soil party, I
suppose, whose teeth, however, have a little edge still left on them. He
finds it necessary to define his position, and show that he has kept up
his communication with the base-line of operations from which he
started. This circumstance is a little suspicious.
Unlike Mr. Webster, Mr. Winthrop seems to think religion is a good thing
in politics, for in his speech of May 7th, he says--"I acknowledge my
allegiance to the whole Constitution of the United States.... And
whenever I perceive a plain conflict of jurisdiction and authority
between the Constitution of my country and the laws of my God, my course
is clear. I shall resign my office, whatever it may be, and renounce all
connection with public service of any sort." That is fair and manly. He
will not hold a position under the Constitution of the United States
which is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Universe. But he
says--"There are provisions in the Constitution [of the United States,
he means, not of the universe], which involve us in painful obligations,
and from which some of us would rejoice to be relieved; and this [the
restoration of fugitive slaves], is one of them. But there is none,
none, in my judgment, which involves any conscientious or religious
difficulty." So he has no "conscientious or religious" objection to
return a fugitive slave. He thinks the Constitution of the United States
"avoids the idea that there can be property in man," but recognizes
"that there may be property in the service or labor of man." But when it
is property in the service of man without value received by the servant,
and a claim which continues to attach to a man and his children forever,
it looks very like the idea of property in man. At any rate, there is
only a distinction in the words, no difference in the things. To claim
the sum of the accidents, all and several of a thing, is practically to
claim the thing.
Mr. Winthrop once voted for the Wilmot Proviso, in its application to
the Oregon Territory. Some persons have honored him for it, and even
contended that he also was a free soiler. He wipes off that calumny by
declaring, that he attached that proviso to the Oregon bill for the
purpose of defeating the bill itself. "This proviso was one of the means
upon which I mainly relied for the purpose." "There can be little
doubt," he says, "that this clause had its influence in arresting the
bill in the other end of the capitol," where it was "finally lost." That
is his apology for appearing to desire to prevent the extension of
slavery. It is worth while to remember this.
Unlike Mr. Webster, he thinks slavery may go into New Mexico. "We may
hesitate to admit that nature has everywhere [in the new territory]
settled the question against slavery." Still he would not now pass the
proviso to exclude slavery. It "would ... unite the South as one man,
and if it did not actually rend the Union asunder, would create an
alienation and irritation in that quarter of the country, which would
render the Union hardly worth preserving." "Is there not ample reason
for an abatement of the northern tone, for a forbearance of northern
urgency upon this subject, without the imputation of tergiversation and
treachery?"
Here I am reminded of a remarkable sentence in Mr. Webster's speech at
Marshfield, in relation to the northern men who helped to annex Texas.
Here it is:--
"For my part, I think that Dough-faces is an epithet not
sufficiently reproachful. Now, I think such persons are
dough-faces, dough-heads, and dough-souls, that they are all
dough; that the coarsest potter may mould them at pleasure
to vessels of honor or dishonor, but most readily to vessels
of dishonor."
The Representative from Boston, in the year 1850, has small objection to
the extension of slave soil. Hearken to his words:--
"I can never put the question of extending slave soil on the
same footing with one of directly increasing slavery and
multiplying slaves. If a positive issue could ever again be
made up for our decision, whether human beings, few or many,
of whatever race, complexion or condition, should be freshly
subjected to a system of hereditary bondage, and be changed
from free men into slaves, I can conceive that no bonds of
union, no ties of interest, no cords of sympathy, no
consideration of past glory, present welfare, or future
grandeur, should be suffered to interfere, for an instant,
with our resolute and unceasing resistance to a measure so
iniquitous and abominable. There would be a clear,
unquestionable moral element in such an issue, which would
admit of no compromise, no concession, no forbearance
whatever.... A million of swords would leap from their
scabbards to assert it, and the Union itself would be
shivered like a Prince Rupert's dress in the shock.
"But, Sir, the question whether the institution of slavery,
as it already exists, shall be permitted to extend itself
over a hundred or a hundred thousand more square miles than
it now occupies, is a different question.... It is not, in
my judgment, such an issue that conscientious and religious
men may not be free to acquiesce in whatever decision may be
arrived at by the constituted authorities of the country....
It is not with a view of cooping up slavery ... within
limits too narrow for its natural growth;... it is not for
the purpose of girding it round with lines of fire, till its
sting, like that of the scorpion, shall be turned upon
itself,... that I have ever advocated the principles of the
Ordinance of 1787."
Mr. Mann, I think, is still called a whig, but no member of the free
soil party has more readily or more ably stood up against the extension
of slavery. His noble words stand in marvellous contrast to the
discourse of the representative from Boston. Mr. Mann represents the
country, and not the "metropolis." His speech last February, and his
recent letter to his constituents, are too well known, and too justly
prized, to require any commendation here. But I cannot fail to make a
remark on a passage in the letter. He says, if we allow Mr. Clay's
compromise to be accepted, "Were it not for the horrible consequences
which it would involve, a roar of laughter, like a _feu de joie_, would
run down the course of the ages." He afterwards says--"Should the South
succeed in their present attempt upon the territories, they will
impatiently await the retirement of General Taylor from the executive
chair to add the 'State of Cuba' ... to this noble triumph." One is a
little inclined to start such a laugh himself at the idea of the South
waiting for that event before they undertake that plan!
Mr. Mann says: "If no moral or religious obligation existed against
holding slaves, would not many of those opulent and respectable
gentlemen who signed the letter of thanks to Mr. Webster, and hundreds
of others, indeed, instead of applying to intelligence offices for
domestics, go at once to the auction room, and buy a man or a woman with
as little hesitancy or compunction as they now send to Brighton for
beeves?" This remark has drawn on him some censures not at all merited.
There are men enough in Boston, who have no objection to slavery. I know
such men, who would have been glad if slavery had been continued here.
Are Boston merchants unwilling to take mortgages on plantations and
negroes? Do northern men not acquire negroes by marrying wealthy women
at the South, and keep the negroes as slaves? If the truth could be
known, I think it would appear that Dr. Palfrey had lost more reputation
in Boston than he gained, by emancipating the human beings which fell to
his lot. But here is a story which I take from the Boston Republican. It
is worth preserving as a monument of the morals of Boston in 1850, and
may be worth preserving at the end of the century:--
"A year or two since, a bright-looking mulatto youth, about
twenty years of age, and whose complexion was not much, if
any, darker than that of the great 'Expounder of the
Constitution,' entered the counting-room, on some errand
for his master, a Kentuckian, who was making a visit here. A
merchant on one of our principal wharves, who came in and
spoke to him, remarked to the writer that he once owned this
'boy' and his mother, and sold them for several hundred
dollars. Upon my expressing astonishment to him that he
could thus deal in human flesh, he remarked that 'When you
are among the Romans, you must do as the Romans do.' I know
of others of my northern acquaintances, and good whigs too,
who have owned slaves at the South, and who, if public
opinion warranted it, would be as likely, I presume, to buy
and sell them at the North."
I have yet to learn that the controlling men of this city have any
considerable aversion to domestic slavery.[8]
Mr. Mann's zeal in behalf of freedom, and against the extension of
slavery, has drawn upon him the indignation of Mr. Webster, who is
grieved to see him so ignorant of American law. But Mr. Mann is able to
do his own fighting.
* * * * *
So much for the political parties and their relation to the matters at
issue at this moment. Still, there is some reason to hope that the
attempt to extend slavery, made in the face of the world, and supported
by such talent, will yet fail; that it will bring only shame on the men
who aim to extend and perpetuate so foul a blight. The fact that Mr.
Webster's retainers must come to the rescue of their attorney; that
himself must write letters to defend himself, and must even obtain the
services of a clergyman to help him--this shows the fear that is felt
from the anti-slavery spirit of the North. Depend upon it, a politician
is pretty far gone when he sends for the minister, and he thinks his
credit failing when he gets a clergyman on his paper to indorse for the
Christian character of American slavery.
Here I ought to speak of the party not politicians, who contend against
slavery not only beyond the limits of the Constitution, but within those
limits; who are opposed not only to the extension, but to the
continuance of slavery; who declare that they will keep no compromises
which conflict with the eternal laws of God,--of the Anti-slavery party.
Mr. President, if I were speaking to whigs, to democrats, or to free
soil men, perhaps I might say what I think of this party, of their
conduct, and their motives; but, Sir, I pass it by, with the single
remark, that I think the future will find this party where they have
always been found. I have before now attempted to point out the faults
of this party, and before these men; that work I will not now attempt a
second time, and this is not the audience before which I choose to chant
its praises.
* * * * *
There are several forces which oppose the anti-slavery movement at this
day. Here are some of the most important.
The Demagogues of the Parties are all or nearly all against it. By
demagogue I mean the man who undertakes to lead the people for his own
advantage, to the harm and loss of the people themselves. All of this
class of men, or most of them, now support slavery--not, as I suppose,
because they have any special friendship for it, but because they think
it will serve their turn. Some noble men in politics are still friends
of the slave.
The Demagogues of the Churches must come next. I am not inclined to
attribute so much original power to the churches as some men do. I look
on them as indications of public opinion, and not sources thereof--not
the wind, but only the vane which shows which way it blows. Once the
clergy were the masters of the people, and the authors of public opinion
to a great degree; now they are chiefly the servants of the people, and
follow public opinion, and but seldom aspire to lead it, except in
matters of their own craft, such as the technicalities of a sect, or the
form of a ritual. They may lead public opinion in regard to the "posture
in prayer," to the "form of baptism," and the like. In important matters
which concern the welfare of the nation, the clergy have none or very
little weight. Still, as representatives of public opinion, we really
find most of the clergy, of all denominations, arrayed against the
cause of Eternal Justice. I pass over this matter briefly, because it is
hardly necessary for me to give any opinion on the subject. But I am
glad to add, that in all denominations here in New England, and perhaps
in all the North, there are noble men, who apply the principles of
justice to this question of the nation, and bear a manly testimony in
the midst of bad examples. Some of the theological newspapers have shown
a hostility to slavery and an attachment to the cause of liberty which
few men expected; which were quite unknown in those quarters before. To
do full justice to men in the sects who speak against this great and
popular sin of the nation, we ought to remember that it is harder for a
minister than for almost any other man to become a reformer. It is very
plain that it is not thought to belong to the calling of a minister,
especially in a large town, to oppose the actual and popular sins of his
time. So when I see a minister yielding to the public opinion which
favors unrighteousness, and passing by, in silence and on the other
side, causes which need and deserve his labors and his prayers, I
remember what he is hired for, and paid for,--to represent the popular
form of religion; if that be idolatry, to represent that. But when I see
a minister oppose a real sin which is popular, I cannot but feel a great
admiration for the man. We have lately seen some examples of this.
Yet, on the other side, there are some very sad examples of the
opposite. Here comes forward a man of high standing in the New England
churches, a man who has done real service in promoting a liberal study
of matters connected with religion, and defends slavery out of what he
deems the "Infallible word of God,"--the Old Testament and New
Testament. Well, if Christianity supports American slavery, so much the
worse for Christianity, that is all. Perhaps I ought not to say, _if_
Christianity supports slavery. We all know it does not, never did, and
never can. But if Paul was an apologist for slavery, so much the worse
for Paul. If Calvinism or Catholicism supports slavery, so much the
worse for them, not so much the better for Slavery! I can easily
understand the conduct of the leaders of the New York mob: considering
the character of the men, their ignorance and general position, I can
easily suppose they may have thought they were doing right in disturbing
the meetings there. Considering the apathy of the public authorities,
and the attempt, openly made by some men,--unluckily of influence in
that city,--to excite others to violence, I have a good deal of charity
for Rynders and his gang. But it is not so easy to excuse the
conspicuous ecclesiastical defenders of slavery. They cannot plead their
ignorance. Let them alone, to make the best defence they can.
The Toryism of America is also against us. I call that man a Tory, who
prefers the accidents of man to the substance of manhood. I mean one
who prefers the possessions and property of mankind to man himself, to
reason and to justice. Of this Toryism we have much in America, much in
New England, much in Boston. In this town, I cannot but think the
prevailing influence is still a Tory influence. It is this which is the
support of the demagogues of the State and the Church.
Toryism exists in all lands. In some, there is a good deal of excuse to
be made for it. I can understand the Toryism of the Duke of Medina
Sidonia, and of such men. If a man has been born to great wealth and
power, derived from ancestors for many centuries held in admiration and
in awe; if he has been bred to account himself a superior being, and to
be treated accordingly, I can easily understand the Toryism of such a
man, and find some excuse for it. I can understand the Tory literature
of other nations. The Toryism of the "London Quarterly," of "Blackwood,"
is easily accounted for, and forgiven. It is, besides, sometimes adorned
with wit, and often set off by much learning. It is respectable Toryism.
But the Toryism of men who only know they had a grandfather by
inference, not by positive testimony; who inherited nothing but their
bare limbs; who began their career as tradesmen or mechanics,--mechanics
in divinity or law as well as in trade,--and get their bread by any of
the useful and honorable callings of life--that such men, getting rich,
or lifting their heads out of the obscurity they were once in, should
become Tories, in a land, too, where institutions are founded on the
idea of freedom and equity and natural justice--that is another thing.
The Toryism of American journals, with little scholarship, with no wit,
and wisdom in homoeopathic doses; the Toryism of a man who started
from nothing, the architect of his own fortune; the Toryism of a
Republican, of a Yankee, the Toryism of a Snob,--it is Toryism reduced
to its lowest denomination, made vulgar and contemptible; it is the
little end of the tail of Toryism. Let us loathe the unclean thing in
the depth of our soul, but let us pity the poor Tory; for he, also, in
common with the negro slave, is "A man and a brother."
Then the Spirit of Trade is often against us. Mr. Mann, in his letter,
speaks of the opposition made to Wilberforce by the "Guinea merchants"
of Liverpool, in his attempts to put an end to the slave-trade. The
Corporation of Liverpool spent over ten thousand pounds in defence of a
traffic, "the worst the sun ever shone upon." This would seem to be a
reflection upon some of the merchants of Boston. It seems, from a
statement in the Atlas, that Mr. Mann did not intend his remarks to
apply to Boston, but to New York and Philadelphia, where mass meetings
of merchants had been held, to sustain Mr. Clay's compromise
resolutions. Although Mr. Mann did not apply his remarks to Boston, I
fear they will apply here as well as to our sister cities. I have yet to
learn that the letter of Mr. Webster's retainers was any less well
adapted to continue and extend slavery, than the resolutions passed at
New York and Philadelphia. I wish the insinuations of Mr. Mann did not
apply here.
One of the signers of the letter to Mr. Webster incautiously betrayed, I
think, the open secret of the retainers when he said--"I don't care a
damn how many slave States they annex!" This is a secret, because not
avowed; open, because generally known, or at least believed, to be the
sentiment of a strong party in Massachusetts. I am glad to have it also
expressed; now the issue is joined, and we do not fight in the dark.
It has long been suspected that some inhabitants of Boston were engaged
in the slave-trade. Not long since, the brig "Lucy Anne," of Boston, was
captured on the coast of Africa, with five hundred and forty-seven
slaves on board. This vessel was built at Thomaston in 1839; repaired at
Boston in 1848, and now hails from this port. She was commanded by one
"Captain Otis," and is owned by one "Salem Charles." This, I suppose, is
a fictitious name, for certainly it would not be respectable in Boston
to extend slavery in this way. Even Mr. Winthrop is opposed to that, and
thinks "a million swords would leap from their scabbards to oppose it."
But it may be that there are men in Boston who do not think it any worse
to steal men who were born free, and have grown up free in Africa, and
make slaves of them, than to steal such as are born free in America,
before they are grown up. If we have the Old Testament decidedly
sustaining slavery, and the New Testament never forbidding it; if, as we
are often told, neither Jesus nor his early followers ever said a word
against slavery; if scarcely a Christian minister in Boston ever
preaches against this national sin; if the Representative from Boston
has no religious scruples against returning a fugitive slave, or
extending slavery over a "hundred or a hundred thousand square miles" of
new territory; if the great Senator from Massachusetts refuses to vote
for the Wilmot Proviso, or reaffirm an ordinance of nature, and reenact
the will of God; if he calls on us to return fugitive slaves "with
alacrity," and demands of Massachusetts that she shall conquer her
prejudices; if nine hundred and eighty-seven men in this vicinity, of
lawful age,[9] are thankful to him for enlightening them as to their
duty, and a professor of theology comes forward to sanction American
slavery in the name of religion--why, I think Mr. "Salem Charles," with
his "Captain Otis," may not be the worst man in the world, after all!
Let us pity him also, as "A man and a brother."
* * * * *
Such is the crisis in our affairs; such the special issue in the general
question between freedom and slavery; such the position of parties and
of great men in relation to this question; such the foes to freedom in
America.
On our side, there are great and powerful allies. The American idea is
with us; the spirit of the majority of men in the North, when they are
not blindfolded and muzzled by the demagogues of State and Church. The
religion of the land, also, is on our side; the irreligion, the
idolatry, the infidelity thereof, all of that is opposed to us. Religion
is love of God and love of man: surely, all of that, under any form,
Catholic or Quaker, is in favor of the unalienable rights of man. We
know that we are right; we are sure to prevail. But in times present and
future, as in times past, we need heroism, self-denial, a continual
watchfulness, and an industry which never tires.
Let us not be deceived about the real question at issue. It is not
merely whether we shall return fugitive slaves without trial by jury. We
will not return them with trial by jury! neither "with alacrity," nor
"with the solemnity of judicial proceedings!" It is not merely whether
slavery shall be extended or not. By and by there will be a political
party with a wider basis than the free soil party, who will declare
that the nation itself must put an end to slavery in the nation; and if
the Constitution of the United States will not allow it, there is
another Constitution that will. Then the title, Defender and expounder
of the Constitution of the United States, will give way to
this,--"Defender and expounder of the Constitution of the Universe," and
we shall reaffirm the ordinance of nature, and reenact the will of God.
You may not live to see it, Mr. President, nor I live to see it; but it
is written on the iron leaf that it must come; come, too, before long.
Then the speech of Mr. Webster, and the defence thereof by Mr. Stuart,
the letter of the retainers and the letters of the retained, will be a
curiosity; the conduct of the whigs and democrats an amazement, and the
peculiar institution a proverb amongst all the nations of the earth. In
the turmoil of party politics, and of personal controversy, let us not
forget continually to move the previous question, whether Freedom or
Slavery is to prevail in America. There is no attribute of God which is
not on our side; because, in this matter, we are on the side of God.