[From _A Letter on the Political Obligations of Abolitionists_
(Boston, 1839)]
Within the last twelve or eighteen months, it is believed--after
efforts, some successful, some not, had been begun to affect the
elections--and whilst the most indefatigable exertions were being made
by many of our influential, intelligent and liberal friends to
convince the great body of the abolitionists of the necessity--the
indispensable necessity--of breaking away from their old "_parties_,"
and uniting together in the use of the elective franchise for the
advancement of the cause of human freedom in which we were
engaged;--at this very time, and mainly, too, in that part of the
country where _political action_ had been most successful, and whence,
from its promise of soon being wholly triumphant, great encouragement
was derived by abolitionists everywhere, a sect has arisen in our
midst, whose members regard it as of religious obligation, in no case,
_to exercise the elective franchise_. This persuasion is part and
parcel of the tenet which it is believed they have embraced--that as
Christians have the precepts of the Gospel to direct, and the Spirit
of God to guide them, all human governments, as necessarily including
the idea of _force to secure obedience_, are not only superfluous, but
unlawful encroachments on the Divine government, as ascertained from
the sources above mentioned. Therefore, they refuse to do anything
voluntarily, by which they would be considered as acknowledging the
lawful existence of human governments. Denying to civil governments
the right to use force, they easily deduce that family governments
have no such right. Thus they would withhold from parents any power of
personal chastisement or restraint for the correction of their
children. They carry out to the full extent the "non-resistance"
theory. To the first ruffian who would demand our purse, or oust us
from our houses, they are to be unconditionally surrendered, unless
_moral suasion_ be found sufficient to induce him to decline from his
purpose. Our wives, our daughters, our sisters--our mothers we are to
see set upon by the most brutal, without any effort on our part,
except argument, to defend them--and even they themselves are
forbidden to use in defense of their purity such powers as God has
endowed them with for its protection, if resistance should be attended
with any injury or destruction to the assailant. In short, the
"No-Government" doctrines, as they are believed now to be embraced,
seem to strike at the root of the social structure; and tend--so far
as I am able to judge of their tendency--to throw society into entire
confusion, and to renew, under the sanction of religion, scenes of
anarchy and license that have generally heretofore been the offspring
of the rankest infidelity and irreligion.
It is but justice to say--judging from the moral deportment of the
adherents of the "No-Government" scheme--that so far from admitting,
what I have supposed to be, its legitimate consequences, they would
wholly deny and repudiate them.
These Sectaries have not as yet separated themselves from the American
[Anti-Slavery] society. Far from it. They insist that their views are
altogether harmonious with what is required for membership by the
constitution.... But is this really so? Is the difference between
those who seek to abolish any and every government of human
institution, and those who prefer _any_ government to a state of
things in which every one may do what seemeth good in his own eyes--is
the difference between them, I say, so small that they can act
harmoniously under the same organization? When, in obedience to the
principles of the society, I go to the polls and there call on my
neighbors to unite with me in electing to Congress men who are in
favor of Human Rights, I am met by a No-Government abolitionist
inculcating on them the doctrine that Congress has _no rightful
authority_ to act at all in the premises--how can we proceed together?
When I am animating my fellow-citizens to aid men in infusing into the
government salutary influences which shall put an end to all
oppression--my No-Government brother cries out at the top of his
lungs, _all_ governments are of the Devil(!) where is our harmony!
Our efficiency? We are in the condition of the two physicians called
in to the same patient--one of whom should be intent on applying the
proper remedies for expelling the disease from the body and thus
restoring and purifying its functions; the other equally intent on
utterly destroying body, members, functions and all. Could they be
agreed, and could they walk together? It seems to me not. And simply
because their aim, their objects are radically and essentially
different. So with the No-Government and the Pro-Government
abolitionists. One party is for sustaining and purifying governments,
and bringing them to a perfect conformity with the principles of the
Divine government--the other for destroying _all_ government.