THE INCENDIARY DOCTRINES OF ABOLITIONISM.
_Facit per alium, facit per se._ The accessory to a crime is by law,
and in justice, made responsible with the principal. No man can deny,
that the effect of the Abolition doctrines and measures on the
slave-holding States, if they were not resisted, would speedily lead
to insurrection and massacre; that scenes of this horrible kind would
be constantly occurring, till the whole South would become a field of
desolation. It is true, the Abolitionists say, it would not be so, if
the slave-holders would give up. This, however is a justification,
which, we suppose, is not likely to be admitted. Everybody knows, that
the slave-holders will not give up, and that they are more remote
from it now than when this agitation commenced. The Abolitionists are
responsible for having, by their imprudence and rashness, rivetted the
chains of slavery, and put far off the day of Emancipation, unless
they shall succeed in breaking up society, by forcing abolition--the
responsibility of which, we apprehend, would be immeasureably greater
than that which now rests upon them. The right or wrong of slavery
cannot now be discussed with any effect, because another great
question has forced that aside. It is the question, whether the
political fabric of the country, in relation to this subject, shall
give way to violence? The claim of the slave to his freedom, we think,
will never be listened to, till that is settled. We must take things
as they are, and man as he is.
“No,” says the Abolitionist, “God forbid. We stick to _principle_; and
our principle is, that the slave has a right to his freedom--a right
paramount to any artificial and accidental state of society that
exists, standing in the way of it; and the consequences of opposing
this claim, _be_ on those who take this stand.” Is this a fair
statement? We are inclined to think it is, as to those Abolitionists
who lead and govern the cause. Certainly, we should be willing to
state it in any other form, if we could do it more fairly. We only
wish to know on what ground they stand, that we may know how to take
them. From all we have been able to learn of their principles, we
believe that the above statement does them no injustice.
Let us, then, observe the following facts: The slave-holders are
resolved they will not give up; the Abolitionists are resolved they
shall. The more the latter do, in the way they are now engaged, to
accomplish their end, so much the more determined are the former to
maintain what they claim to be their rights. The former point, first,
to the Federal Constitution, as their security; next, to their own
swords. Such, undoubtedly, is the true state of the case. The right of
the slave to his freedom, as claimed by the Abolitionists in his
behalf, is out of the question, till this political warfare is ended;
and every step makes the case worse and worse. Such is the present
position of the cause of Abolition in this country: the Abolitionists
stick to their principle, that “the duty, safety, and best interests
of all concerned, require the _immediate abandonment_” of slavery.
Such is the language of their Constitution, italicised as above; and
they are accustomed to press that principle by all the means in their
power, _without regard to consequences_; and we think it may be fairly
added, as a general fact, _without respect to the supreme law of the
land_, which happens to be against them. They view the right claimed
for the slave _paramount to all law that stands opposed_. We believe
we do not mistake in this. Every one may see what such principles,
carried out and enforced, lead to; and when we consider the certainty
of their being opposed, and opposed to the last, we think it not
unjust to pronounce them _incendiary_ in their character.
We will illustrate this state of things by a case of fact. We happened
to be acquainted with a very estimable and exemplary clergyman, some
ten years ago, or more, mild and benevolent in his disposition, bland
in his manners, of unquestionable piety, and in all respects
agreeable; but we observed, with some concern, that he appeared to be
tending strongly to the way of violent reforms. In the spring of 1838
we were glad to meet him again, as an old friend; but found him
thoroughly in for Abolition, according to the modern type. In the
course of conversation, it was suggested, that Abolition, hardly
pushed, would chance to make some bad work. “No matter,” said the
gentleman, “the principle is sacred.” “And must be maintained at all
events?” “Certainly.” “But it may occasion the effusion of blood.” “We
can’t help it.” “There will be insurrections and massacres.” “That is
the fault of those who committed the first sin; and they must take the
consequences.” It will be seen, that they who committed the first sin,
were out of the way many generations ago, and were never citizens of
this country. “But, do you mean to advocate the _instant_ manumission
of all slaves, without regard to consequences?” “Certainly. Slavery is
sin; and all sin ought to be left off instantly.” “But do you not see,
that slavery is interwoven with a complicated state of society,
political and domestic; and that it is impossible to do it away
_immediately_?” “No matter; it is wrong, and ought not to continue a
moment.” “But your doctrine will produce anarchy.” “No--God will take
care of that. God never required any thing, that will produce a bad
result. Obedience to his will is always safe; and disobedience unsafe.
Slavery is sin; and all sin should be repented _now_, radically and
thoroughly, in practice as well as in heart.” “But, there is the law
of the land.” “And there is the law of God, and of nature.” “But the
law of God says, _the powers that be are ordained of God. Put them in
mind to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey
magistrates._” “That is a general rule, and was never intended to
vitiate the authority of conscience. If it is to be construed
strictly, and without exception, we had never had the Protestant
Reformation, nor American Independence. The indefeasible rights of
conscience, and of liberty, in the sense now maintained, may always be
asserted, and ought to be.” “But may we go on a crusade, in behalf of
others, for these objects?” “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,
and shalt not suffer sin upon thy brother.” “Then you are in favor of
carrying Abolition _forthwith_, as best it can be done, in despite of
the law of the land, and without regard to consequences?”
“Undoubtedly. It is impossible, there should be a higher law, than
that asserted in this cause. The law of the land will never be
altered, if we let it alone; and the only way to bring it about, is to
press matters by agitation. There are always enough on the side of
order, and we have no fear of consequences in so good and holy an
enterprise,” &c. &c.
We have abridged this dialogue, and profess no more than to give the
substance of it. And when we compare it with all we have seen, heard,
and read on the side of Abolition, and with the ordinary features of
the movement, we see not but it is a fair representation. Any persons,
however, are at liberty to qualify it, as they may think it deserves.
There are, doubtless, Abolitionists of all shades and degrees; but
there is a common ground, on which those who constitute the strength
of the movement, meet. We suppose it ought to be allowed, that most of
them _profess_ respect for the authority of law on this point, and
that they intend nothing but Constitutional modes of reformation. The
Constitution of their great Society, proposes “to do all that is
_lawfully_ in our power to bring about the extinction of slavery.” But
every one construes the law for himself; and generally, that is
lawful, which sets up the right of the slave to his freedom, as
paramount to the law of the land. That we do no injustice to
Abolitionists by these statements, is open to proof, by the high
authority of the last Annual Report of their Parent Society, in which,
however startling it may seem, they have not only in effect, _but in
form_, set aside the authority of the Federal Constitution, in regard
to slavery, by _construction_! After quoting the well known third
clause of the second Section of the Fourth Article, which recognizes
the validity of property in slaves, and provides to defend it, having
first stated, that, “if strictly construed it could not apply to
slaves,” because it does not _name_ them _as slaves_, the Report goes
on to say: “It is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the
_intentions_ of the framers--_whatever by historical evidence we may
ascertain them to have been_--_cannot bind_ us to an interpretation of
the Constitution which its own language does not render necessary, and
which is inconsistent with objects for which it was professedly
framed, to wit, ‘to establish justice,’ and ‘to secure the blessings
of liberty.’ _But we go further_: We contend, that when the
Constitution was framed, it was the understanding of _all parties_,
that slavery was soon to be abolished by the States, and the clause
intended to facilitate the recovery of fugitive slaves was a mere
_temporary_ concession, to _expire_ with the unhallowed anomaly which
called for it. If such be the case, it need hardly be said, that the
slave States, after having _violated_, on their part, that good faith
which was implied in the compact, _have no right_ to urge its
fulfilment, beyond the letter, on the other part.” “Beyond the
letter.” “The _letter_” does not happen to _name_ slaves.
Now, if _this_ is not _coming out_, and by the highest authority, by
their own solemn and sanctioned Annual Scripture, declaring _null_ and
_void_ the law of the land, and its highest law, in relation to the
subject of controversy, it might be difficult to say what would be so.
They even set aside the universally established rule of
interpretation, confessing to the _intention_ of the law, but denying
its authority. Henceforth the public may know what to expect. We
think, that, with this document lying before our eyes, it is no libel
to say, the Abolitionists _do not respect the law_; and that they have
made up their minds, to trample it under foot. Their measures, and
their language, would certainly imply it. They seem to be so far
carried away by their sympathy for the slaves, that the hazard of
causing to flow in rivers the best blood of the land, by a civil war,
seems hardly sufficient to effect an abatement of their zeal; and if
the slave-holders and their families, should be butchered in the
strife of Abolition, “that is the fault of those who committed the
first sin, and they must take the consequences.” _Immediate, instant
emancipation_ is the word and the _principle, whatever comes_. There
is no law above it--none that must not give way to it. Let the public
judge, whether this principle be not incendiary, and sanguinary, in
the most revolting aspects. The only barrier, hitherto supposed to
stand in its way, the Federal Constitution, is swept away by an
authoritative commentary, and the license to go forth to battle, has,
by this act, received the sanction of the Supreme Legislative Assembly
and high Court of the American Anti-Slavery Society!
We think the time has come, when the public of this country have a
right to demand, whether the Abolitionists do indeed intend thus to
_force_ the application of their principles, in contempt of law, and
at the hazard of all consequences. Let them avow this scheme openly,
and it will be enough. The uncharitable imputation of occult criminal
designs is unwarrantable. But we submit, whether the passage just
quoted from the Annual Report of this Society is not sufficiently
open; and whether the habitual developements of the great movement, as
made before the public, in so many forms, do not corroborate and
confirm the impression which this document is calculated to produce?