NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.
"We will extend to the slaveholder all the courtesy he will allow.
If he is hungry, we will feed him; if he is in want, both hands
shall be stretched out for his aid. We will give him full credit for
all the good that he does, and our deep sympathy in all the
temptations under whose strength he falls. But to help him in his
sin, to remain partners with him in the slave-trade, is more than he
has a right to ask."--_Wendell Phillips._
No wrong action can be rightfully done. No wrong can be rightfully
supported. We can neither rightfully hold slaves nor support others in
slaveholding, because, as we have seen, slaveholding is under all
circumstances wrong. Some of the provisions of the Constitution, as we
have seen, were expressly designed for the purpose of supporting
slavery, and for over half a century have very materially supported it.
Consequently, these provisions cannot be rightfully obeyed or supported.
It is wrong to offer a bounty on slaveholding,--to give the oppressor
power and influence, in proportion as he tramples on the rights of his
fellow-man; it is wrong to return, or aid in returning, a fugitive
slave; it is wrong to aid in keeping the slave in his fetters. These
things are wrong, and not all the Constitutions and laws of the universe
can make them right. We cannot, therefore, rightfully obey the
pro-slavery clauses of the Constitution.
If we cannot rightfully obey them ourselves, we cannot rightfully,
voluntarily support others in obeying them. If it is wrong for me to
return a fugitive slave, it is wrong for me voluntarily to aid or
support another man in doing the act. If it is wrong for me to commit
murder, it is no less wrong for me to hand the pistol to the assassin.
Whatever it is wrong for us to do ourselves, it is wrong for us
voluntarily to aid or support others in doing. Consequently, it is wrong
for us voluntarily to aid or support others in obeying the pro-slavery
requirements of the Constitution.
If we cannot rightfully obey them, it is wrong for us to promise such
obedience. If it is wrong for us voluntarily to support others in their
obedience, it is wrong for us to promise any such support. If it is
wrong for us to return a fugitive slave, it is wrong for us to promise
to return one. If it is wrong for us voluntarily to aid the
slave-hunter, it is wrong for us to promise such aid. Whatever it is
wrong for us to do or aid others in doing, it is wrong for us to promise
to do or aid others in doing. Consequently, it is wrong for us to
promise to support these constitutional provisions. We cannot,
therefore, accept any office, either state or national, which renders it
necessary for us to support these clauses, or to promise to support
them. We cannot, therefore, rightfully hold any executive or judicial
office, either state or national, or become a member of any State
legislature or of Congress; for all these officers are obliged solemnly
to swear or affirm that they will "support the Constitution;" and to
support the Constitution is to support all of its clauses, as well those
which favor slavery as those which do not. If we take this oath, meaning
to keep it, we do wrong. If we take it, meaning not to keep it, we add
to our wrong, perjury; for we mentally break our oath at the very
instant it passes our lips.
Some good men seek to avoid the difficulty by saying, "When I swear to
support the Constitution, I mean I will support the good clauses in it,
and disobey the bad, and submit to the penalty for such disobedience."
But such a course is not a compliance with the terms of the oath. You
have sworn "to support the Constitution;" that is, the whole
Constitution,--all its clauses,--the bad as sacredly as the good. Your
oath is not in the alternative, "I will support the clause requiring the
return of fugitive slaves, or pay five hundred dollars for every slave I
aid in escaping;" but simply, without any qualification, "I will
support the side of the oppressor." If you aid the fugitive slave to
escape from his master, you do not support the latter in retaking his
property, merely by paying the legal penalty for not giving such
support. You would not support a bad law, and yet you say your oath to
support it is not broken, because you submit to the penalty for not
supporting it. The thief does not support the law of private property,
merely by submitting to the legal punishment of his crime. To support is
to be active: to submit is to be passive. You swear to be active, and
you do not comply with your oath by being merely passive. You have sworn
actively to support the recapture of slaves. You break your oath, if you
refuse to do this, or do any thing less or different from this.
Others think to find a good excuse for taking the oath, by adopting
another alternative, equally unauthorized. "We will support the
Constitution," say they, "until we are called on to act under any of its
bad clauses; and then we will resign our office, and refuse obedience."
Doubtless, honor requires you to resign, if you cannot comply with the
terms of your oath; but what right have you to adopt or imagine an
alternative in your oath where the law has made none,--where the officer
administering it will admit of none? Who does not see the wide
difference between an honest oath to support the return of fugitive
slaves, and an oath to support such return, but with a firm resolve on
your part to refuse such support when called on for it, and to resign?
What right have you to take an oath which you have previously resolved
not to keep, when called on to comply with? You admit that a bad clause
cannot be rightfully supported, else why do you not support it? You
admit that the oath obliges you to support the bad clauses of the
Constitution as well as the good; else why do you resign, if refusal to
support the bad clauses is consistent with your oath? You openly avow,
therefore, that, at the very moment you swear to support a clause, you
determine never to support it. You swear, and determine not to keep your
oath! Such a course seems to us inconsistent with the plainest rules of
honesty. We have no right to promise to do wrong, even though we have
resolved to do right when the time for action shall arrive.
Others say, "We swear to support the Constitution as we understand it,
and we consider it an anti-slavery instrument." In other words, you
swear to support an interpretation which is contrary to the plain,
obvious, and common meaning of the instrument; contrary to the
interpretation put upon it by its framers; contrary to that followed by
all the executive and legislative departments of the government, from
its first establishment until now; and contrary to that which has been
adjudged to be its true interpretation by the final arbiter of its
meaning. Of course, you intend to support the true meaning of the
Constitution. Do you really believe that the people of the United States
did not mean by their words what those words then commonly meant? Do you
really doubt the historical fact of the humiliating compromise between
the delegates from the Southern and Eastern States in the Philadelphia
Convention, by which the latter undertook to barter the moral sense of
their constituents for what was supposed to be their interest? Do you
really believe that the people have suffered their servants to go on in
ignorance of the true meaning for sixty years? In fact, do you venture
to affirm, or do you in perfect sincerity and truthfulness believe, that
your interpretation has ever at any time been considered right by the
people of the United States, or by any considerable number of them? You
deceive yourself with words! What is the Constitution? Not the meaning
which you or I, or any third person, may please to put upon it; but that
meaning, and that meaning only, which consists with its being, what it
declares itself to be, the supreme law of the land. Until, therefore,
you can show that the Constitution may properly receive as many
different interpretations as there are oaths to support it, and still be
in fact the supreme law, the one, single, definite rule for all, States
as well as people, you have no right to say, "I will support the
pro-slavery clauses as I understand them." To support them in any other
sense than that which is affixed to them, as the supreme law of the
land, is merely to evade the true meaning of your oath.
Others say, "We took the oath before we had any of our present scruples.
We would not take the oath now; but, nevertheless, we shall continue in
office, and disregard our oath." This excuse seems to us very
objectionable. How can you reap the honorary or pecuniary advantages of
your office, and honestly refuse compliance with your part of the
bargain? When you took office, you were really told, that, if you would
swear to support the return of fugitive slaves, &c. you should enjoy
these honors and these profits. The conscientious man, who, in striving
to better himself, not his condition, discovers afterwards that he
cannot rightfully aid, or promise to aid, the slaveholder in retaking
his slaves, will not think of claiming the reward which was offered to
him solely because he swore to give such aid. He will make haste to
resign honors and rewards which he feels can be retained only at the
price of his own degradation.
If we cannot rightfully hold any office, state or national, which
requires of us a promise to support the Constitution, it is wrong to
place, or voluntarily aid in placing, any other person in such office;
for, by so doing, we ask him to do wrong. If we vote for Horace Mann, by
this act alone we say to him, as distinctly as if the words passed our
lips,--"We wish to elect you as representative to Congress. If chosen,
we expect and ask you to qualify yourself to act as representative, by
swearing to give slavery all constitutional support." Merely by voting
for him, we ask him to do wrong, hoping that good may come, almost
knowing that good will come! So little faith have we in the final
triumph of right and justice, by pursuing only right and just ways! Of
so little consequence do we consider it, that the earnest advocate of
freedom should commence his holy work by promising very materially to
strengthen slavery! But a short time has elapsed since we read one of
his most eloquent rebukes of slavery. Our heart beat quickly as we read
his earnest words. But if, in the midst of his address, some slaveholder
had turned and asked him, "How happens it, sir, that you, who are so
very earnest and disinterested in behalf of the rights of the slave,
have been willing to swear to support this terrible wrong, to any extent
or for any time?" And what answer could be returned? The eloquent tongue
would be palsied! Surely that man who has solemnly called God to witness
that he will support the oppressor, cannot fail, at some time or
another, to feel himself to be unworthy to plead the cause of freedom.
Finally, some say, "This reasoning leads to non-resistance. You
disregard the fact that all human governments must contain a greater or
less amount of evil; and consequently, if you are ever to support any
government in all its requirements, you must support evil." Very true is
it that human governments and laws fall short of our relative standard
of right, and always of absolute right. What is our duty? Clearly, as
moral beings, to support the right, and refuse to support the wrong; as
peaceful citizens, to support the right, and submit to the penalty of
disobeying the wrong. Nothing more than this is required of us. Nothing
less than this is our duty. We are not put into the world, blindly to
support all existing governmental wrongs, until they can be
constitutionally abolished. We are to be true to ourselves as moral
beings. If we can be true to our own souls and support the government,
we may give such support,--not otherwise! Right and wrong are not
creatures of agreement and law. Neither the Philadelphia Convention that
framed the Constitution, nor the State Conventions that adopted it, had
power to make wrong in the slightest degree right, or alter at all the
moral character of slaveholding. Right is right, the Revised Statutes to
the contrary notwithstanding. Wrong is wrong, the Constitution to the
contrary notwithstanding. We say, therefore, we will obey the good
requirements of the Constitution, and peacefully submit to the penalty
of disobeying the bad. This is all that government has a right to ask of
us. Institutions were made for man, not man for them. Constitutions are
the work of man, and man is to be reverenced before his works. We see no
inconsistency or impropriety in supporting the system of free-trade
between the States, and refusing to support the domestic slave-trade; in
supporting the patent laws, and refusing to aid in returning a runaway
slave. We are good-government men, not no-government men. All
governments are partly good. All we are willing to support in part: we
will actively support the Constitution and laws, so far as conscience
permits; we will peacefully submit to legal exaction for disobeying the
rest.
Our purpose is accomplished. We have shown that we are politically
united with the South in the support of slavery. We have shown that we
should constantly bear upon our lips, and in our lives, the motto, "_No
union with slaveholders, whereby we are obliged to countenance or
support slavery_." We desire to see a union among the States, but not a
slaveholding union! A union of freemen, and Free States for the sake of
freedom, no one would more readily support than we. But a union like
ours, of freemen and slaveholders, of Free States and Slave States, for
the sake in part of securing property in slaves, is demoralizing (how
demoralizing has it been!) to both parties, and should receive, as it
doubtless at no distant day will receive, the condemnation of the wise
and good. In the meantime, it ought not, and it will not, receive either
our respect or our voluntary support.
FOOTNOTES:
[A] Mr. Clapp is said to have changed his opinions since 1838. We hope
he has. But he has not favored the world with any statement of what his
change consists in. The statement which recently appeared in the
"Picayune," even if reliable, shows that Mr. Clapp had changed his
opinion somewhat, but not essentially, as it seems to us.
[B] We quote from Mr. Jones's work just referred to. His work contains a
summary of all that has been done for the religious instruction of the
negroes from their first introduction here; an account of their actual
moral condition, and what he thinks should be done for their elevation.
His testimony is unimpeachable, and is of the very highest authority.
Our faith in his sincerity is sometimes tried, when we read language
like this applied to the adult slave, p. 117: "He marries and _settles
in life_; his children grow up around him, and tread in his footsteps,
as he did in the footsteps of his father before him."
For a loan of this book we are indebted to the kindness of our friend,
William Lloyd Garrison.
[C] Sandy Jenkins tried to impress Douglass with the belief, that if he
would always carry a root which he gave him, _on his right side_, it
would render it impossible for any white man to whip him ("Narrative,"
p. 70). And before Wm. W. Brown made his last successful effort to
escape, he paid the old slave fortune-teller, Frank, twenty-five cents
for his advice.
[D] "If they make you partakers of their temporal things (of their
strength and spirits, and even of their offspring), you ought to make
them partakers of your spiritual things."--_Bishop of London in 1727_
(_Jones_, p. 20).
[E] How carefully does Mr. Jones teach the slaves "to search the
Scriptures"! ("Catechism," p. 103.)
"Q. Is not our duty, on the sabbath, to go to the house of God, to the
meeting for prayer, to the sabbath-school, and wherever we may worship
God and learn his will?--A. Yes.
"Q. What was done with the man that gathered sticks on the sabbath-day,
not caring for God's commandment?--A. He was stoned.
"Q. Is sabbath-breaking a great sin in the sight of God?--A. Yes. (Ib.
p. 104) He who breaks the sabbath robs God of his own; for the day is
the Lord's."
[F] "Were it now revealed to us," says Mr. Jones (ib. p. 180), "that the
most extensive system of instruction which we could devise, requiring a
vast amount of labor, and protracted through ages, would result in the
tender mercy of our God in the salvation of the soul of _one poor
African_, we should feel warranted in cheerfully entering upon our work,
with all its costs and sacrifices; for our reward would exceed all our
toil and care above the computation of any finite mind." Badly educated,
misguided, we believe Mr. Jones to be; but these are the words of
honest, sincere conviction.
[G] For a loan of this book we are indebted to our friend Parker
Pillsbury.
[H] "A Catechism of Scripture Doctrine and Practice for Families and
Sabbath Schools, designed also for the Oral Instruction of Colored
Persons, by Charles C. Jones," 6th edit.; Charleston, 1845. In his
preface, Mr. Jones says, "The Catechism has been prepared _expressly_
for the religious instruction of the negroes; and it has been
extensively tried and approved by those engaged in that good work." It
is unquestionably much more used than any other. It has already passed
through six editions. It really merits this position.--For a perusal of
this book we are indebted to the kindness of our friend Samuel Brooke,
of Ohio.
[I] "Let us ever remember the name that Hagar gave to God, 'Thou God
seest me,' and act as in his presence. Let us be afraid to steal or lie
or curse, or break the Sabbath, or do any wicked thing. _God will see
and know._"--Jones's "Catechism," p. 28.
"Ought not you to try and keep the fear of God always before your eyes?
Do not be tempted to say, as too many wicked people do, 'Oh! nobody will
know it; nobody will see it.' Remember that God is always looking at
you. He sees all that you do: he hears every word that you say: he knows
all that you think about: and he can in a moment strike you dead: he is
able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Knowing these things, fear
him, so as not willingly to offend him."--_Rev. Alexander Glennie's
Sermons_, p. 32. See also to the same point, Bishop Ives's "Catechism,"
p. 13, 14, 42.
[J] What a beautiful commentary on this teaching is afforded us by
Douglass! ("Narrative," p. 47.) Speaking of his grandmother, he
says,--"She had served my old master faithfully from youth to old age.
She had been the source of all his wealth; she had peopled his
plantation with slaves; she had become a great-grandmother in his
service. She had rocked him in infancy, attended him in childhood,
served him through life, and at his death wiped from his icy brow the
cold death-sweat, and closed his eyes for ever. She was, nevertheless,
left a slave,--a slave for life,--a slave in the hands of strangers. And
in their hands she saw her children, her grandchildren, and her
great-grandchildren, divided, like so many sheep, without being
gratified with the small privilege of a single word as to their or her
own destiny. And, to cap the climax of their base ingratitude and
fiendish barbarity, my grandmother, who was now very old, having
outlived my old master and all his children, having seen the beginning
and end of all of them, and her present owners finding she was of but
little value, her frame already racked with the pains of old age, and
complete helplessness fast stealing over her once-active limbs, they
took her to the woods, built her a little hut, put up a little mud
chimney, and then made her welcome to the privilege of supporting
herself there in perfect loneliness; thus virtually turning her out to
die"! Who that has read Douglass's account of his grandmother, of which
this is a small extract, has not been moved both to pity for the slave,
and loathing for slavery? Who has not asked with him, "Will not a
righteous God visit for these things"?
[K] A slave may die in consequence of "_moderate correction_," as that
term is understood in some of the Slave States.
The Constitution of Georgia, Art. 4, sec. 12, reads thus (Hotchkiss's
"Codification," p. 71, 1845):--"Any person who shall maliciously
dismember or deprive a slave of life shall suffer such punishment as
would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed on a free
white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of
such slave, and unless such death should happen by accident in giving
such slave moderate correction."
[L] Our friend Francis Jackson procured us this book.
[M] Mr. Jones thinks ("Rel. Inst." p. 135), that "the crime of
infanticide" among the slaves is "restrained in good measure ... by the
moral degradation of the people, that takes away the disgrace of
bastardy." We remember hearing from Prof. Greenleaf the account of a
successful defence, on this ground, of a female slave in this State, who
was tried for committing this offence. A female slave, it was argued,
_could_ not feel shame at the birth of an illegitimate child, and
therefore her affection as a mother would prevent her from committing
the crime. But experience has demonstrated, that a slave-mother may be
led to take her child's life from very love itself.
[N] "The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church recently expelled a
minister from both the ministry and the church, for marrying a sister of
his deceased wife."--_The Church as it is_, p. 76.
[O] Colored persons are not competent witnesses on the trial of a white
man. Any white man, therefore, can, with perfect impunity, commit any
excess whatever upon any slaves, so long as they or their companions
alone are witnesses. So carefully does the law guard the honor of the
female slave!
[P] The original of this advertisement may be seen at the Anti-Slavery
office, Boston, 21, Cornhill, pasted on one side of a copy of the
newspaper called "Spirit of Liberty"! How appropriate a heading!
[Q] For this and other advertisements from Boston papers, I am indebted
to my friend Wendell Phillips.
[R] We cut this advertisement from the "Boston Daily Republican" of Aug.
30, 1849. It previously appeared in the "Providence Journal."
[S] A writer in the "New Orleans Argus," Sept. 1830, in an article on
the culture of the sugar-cane, says,--"The loss by death in bringing
slaves from a northern climate, which our planters are under the
necessity of doing, is not less than twenty-five per cent"! Our tables
prove the same thing. Of the 40,000 slaves annually carried south, only
29,101 are found to survive;--a greater sacrifice of life than that
caused by the middle passage!
[T] The Act of 1741, of which this law is in part a revision, reads
thus, sec. 45: "Which proclamation shall be published on a _sabbath-day
at the door of every church or chapel, or, for want of such, at the
place where divine service shall be performed in the said county, by the
parish clerk or reader, immediately after divine service_; and, if any
slave or slaves, against whom proclamation hath been thus issued, stay
out and do not immediately return home, it shall be lawful for any
person or persons whatsoever to kill and destroy such slave or slaves by
such ways or means as he or she shall think fit, without accusation or
impeachment of any crime for the same."--In those happy days, Father
Taylor would not have been called on to thank God, that the man who was
on the point of strangling his brother according to law was not troubled
by any feeling of _sentimentalism_!
[U] The Rev. Dr. Furman, of North Carolina, another Baptist clergyman,
like Dr. Fuller wrote a defence of slavery. After his death, his legal
representative advertised for sale at auction his real estate, and "a
library of a miscellaneous character, _chiefly theological_;
twenty-seven negroes, _some of them very prime_," &c. ("The Church as it
is," p. 73.)
[V] This point, and the legality of Colonial and State Slavery, are more
elaborated in an article called "The Constitutionality of Slavery,"
printed in the "Massachusetts Quarterly Review;" a purely legal,
uninteresting examination, which needs not to be repeated here.
For a more extended proof of the constitutionality of slavery, we refer
to Wendell Phillips's very able Review of Lysander Spooner's Essay.
[W] 5 Hen. Stat. 547.
[X] 6 Ibid. 356.
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
Text in italics is surrounded with underscores: _italics_.
Obvious typographical errors have been corrected as follows:
Page 66: opinon changed to opinion
Page 150: righfully changed to rightfully
Inconsistencies in spelling and hyphenation have been retained from
the original.
Punctuation has been corrected without note.