coming out of sympathy with a Polish exile, a defeated soldier of
freedom, from his broken English to learn sound Roman Law. On each of
the other visits I have been in quite different company. I have
invariably met this Honorable Court, its kinsfolk and its most
intimate friends,--some member of the family of the distinguished
Judge, now fitly presiding over this trial.
1. It was Mr. George T. Curtis, the only brother of the honorable
Justice now on the bench,--born of the same mother and father,--who
had the glory of kidnapping Mr. Sims; it was he who seized Shadrach,
and gave such witness against one of the Angels of the Deliverance,
and then came back and enlarged his testimony; it was he who declared
the rescue an act of "treason;" he who hung the court house in chains,
and brought down the pliant neck of the Massachusetts Judges beneath
that symbolic line of linked fetters long drawn out. To what weak
forces will such necks bow when slavery commands!
2. It was the honorable Judge now on the distinguished bench who tried
men for the rescue of Shadrach. How he tried them is well known.
3. It was Edward G. Loring, another of this family so distinguished,
who kidnapped Mr. Burns and held him in irons; he whose broom swept up
together the marshal's guard; he who advised Mr. Burns's counsel to
make no defence,--"put no obstructions in the way of his going back,
as he probably will;" he who, in the darkness of midnight, sought to
sell his victim, before he had examined the evidence which might prove
him a free man; he who delivered him up as a slave, against evidence
as against law.
4. Another of the same family, William W. Greenough, brother-in-law of
Hon. Judge Curtis, was one of the grand-jury which found the
indictment against me, and "the most active of all in that work."
5. When I came here on the 29th of last November, the Hon. Judge
Curtis sat on the bench and determined the amount of my bail, and the
same eye which had frowned with such baleful aspect on the rescuers of
Shadrach, quailed down underneath my look and sought the ground.
* * * * *
In thus mentioning my former visits to the court, I but relate the
exploits of the Hon. Justice Curtis, of his kinsfolk and friends,
adding to their glory and their renown. Their chief title to
distinction rests on their devotion to the fugitive slave bill. It and
their honor are "one and inseparable." Once only humanity and good
letters brought me here, I met only scholars and philanthropists; on
five other occasions, when assaults on freedom compelled my
attendance, I have been confronted and surrounded with the loyalty of
the distinguished Judge and his kinsfolk and friends, valiantly and
disinterestedly obeying the fugitive slave bill "with alacrity;"
patriotically conquering their prejudices against man-stealing--if
such they ever had;--and earning for themselves an undying reputation
by "saving the Union" from Justice, Domestic Tranquillity, general
Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty.
If I am to be arraigned for any act, I regard it as a special good
fortune that I am charged with such deeds, with seeking to arouse the
noblest emotions of Human Nature; and by means of the grandest Ideas
which Human History has brought to light. I could not have chosen
nobler deeds in a life now stretching over nearly half a hundred
years. I count it an honor to be tried for them. Nay, it adds to my
happiness to look at the Court which is to try me--for if I were to
search all Christendom through, nay, throughout all Heathendom, I know
of no tribunal fitter to try a man for such deeds as I have done. I am
fortunate in the charges brought; thrice fortunate in the judges and
the attorney,--the Court which is to decide;--its history and
character are already a judgment.
6. For my sixth visit, I was recognized to appear on the fifth of
March, 1855--the eighty-fifth anniversary of the Boston Massacre. I
might have been bound over to any other of the great days of American
history--22d of December, 19th of April, 17th of June, or the 4th of
July. But as I am the first American ever brought to trial for a
speech in Faneuil Hall against kidnapping; as I am the first to be
tried under the act of 1790 for "obstructing an officer" with an
argument, committing a "misdemeanor" by a word which appeals to the
natural justice of mankind, so there could not perhaps be a fitter
time chosen. For on the fifth of March, 1770, British despotism also
delivered its first shot into the American bosom. Not far from this
place the hand of George III. wounded to death five innocent citizens
of Boston,--one of them a negro. It was the first shot Britain ever
fired into the body of the American people, then colonial subjects of
the king-power. That day the fire was not returned,--only with ringing
of bells and tumult of the public, with words and resolutions. The
next day that American blood lay frozen in the street. Soon after the
British government passed a law exempting all who should aid an
officer in his tyranny from trial for murder in the place where they
should commit their crime. Mr. Toucey has humbly copied that precedent
of despotism. It was very proper that the new tyranny growing up here,
should select that anniversary to shoot down freedom of thought and
speech among the subjects of the slave-power. I welcomed the omen. The
Fifth of March is a red-letter day in the calendar of Boston. The
Court could hardly have chosen a better to punish a man for a thought
and a word, especially a Boston man, for such a word in Faneuil
Hall--a word against man-stealing. But I knew the case would never
come to trial on that day--of course it was put off.
Mr. Sims and Mr. Burns were accused of no crime but birth from a
mother whom some one had stolen. They had only a mock trial, without
due process of law, with no judge, no jury, no judicial officer. But
I, accused of a grave offence, am to enjoy a trial with due process of
law. It is an actual judge before me and another judge at his side,
both judicial officers known to the constitution. I know beforehand
the decision of the court--its history is my judgment. Justice
Curtis's Charge of last June, would make my daily talk a
"misdemeanor," my public preaching and my private prayers a "crime,"
nay, my very existence is constructively an "obstruction" to the
marshal. On that side my condemnation is already sure.
But there is another element. Gentlemen of the Jury, the judges and
attorney cannot lay their hand on me until you twelve men with one
voice say, "Yes! put him in jail." In the mock trial of Sims and Burns
it was necessary to convince only a single official of the United
States Court, a "ministerial" officer selected and appointed to do its
inferior business, a man who needed no conviction, no evidence but the
oath of a slave-hunter and the extorted "admission" of his victim, an
official who was to have ten dollars for making a slave, five only for
setting free a man! But you are a Massachusetts Jury, not of purchased
officials, but of honest men. I think you have some "prejudices" to
conquer in favor of justice. It has not appeared that you are to be
paid twice as much for sending me to jail, as for acquitting me of the
charge. I doubt that you have yet advised my counsel to make no
defence, "put no obstructions in the way" of my being sent to jail as
"he probably will."
Gentlemen, a United States Commissioner has his place on condition
that he performs such services as his masters "require." These United
States Judges have their seat in consequence of services rendered to
the ruling power of America, and for others of like sort yet to be
paid to the stealers of men. Other rewards shine before them alluring
to new service,--additional salary can pay additional alacrity. But
you, Gentlemen, are not office-holders nor seekers of office, not
hoping to gain money, or power, or honor, by any wickedness. You are
to represent the unsophisticated Conscience of the People,--not the
slave-power, but the power of Freedom.
It is to you I shall address my defence! MY defence? No, Gentlemen,
YOUR defence, the defence of your own Rights, inherent in your
national Institutions as Americans, ay, in your Nature as Men. It is a
singular good fortune that to you, as judges, I am pleading your own
cause. You have more interest at stake than I. For at death my name
will perish, while children and children's children, I trust, will
gently mingle your memories in that fair tide of human life which
never ends.
* * * * *
So much have I said by way of introduction, treating only of the
accidents pertaining to this case. I will now come to the Primary
Qualities and Substance thereof.
This is a Political Trial. In _form_, I am charged with violating a
certain statute never before applied to actions like mine; never meant
to apply to such actions; not legally capable of such application. But
in _fact_, my offence is very different from what the indictment
attempts to set forth. The judges know this; the attorney knows it,
and "never expected to procure a conviction." It is your cause, even
more than mine, that I plead. So it concerns you to understand the
whole matter thoroughly, that you may justly judge our common cause.
To make the whole case clear, I will _land_ it out into four great
parcels of matter, which your mind can command at once, and then come
to the details of each, ploughing it all over before your face, furrow
by furrow. I shall speak,
I. Of the State of Affairs in America which has led to this
prosecution,--the Encroachments of a Power hostile to Democratic
Institutions.
II. Of the Mode of Operation pursued by this Encroaching Power, in
other times and in our own,--of Systematic Corruption of the
Judiciary.
III. Of the great Safeguard which has been found serviceable in
protecting Democratic Institutions and the Rights of Man they are
designed to defend,--of the Trial by Jury.
IV. Of the Circumstances of this special case, UNITED STATES _versus_
THEODORE PARKER.
I shall speak of each in its order, and begin at the head.
I. OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN AMERICA, WHICH HAS LED TO THIS
PROSECUTION--THE ENCROACHMENTS OF A POWER HOSTILE TO DEMOCRATIC
INSTITUTIONS.
In a republic where all emanates from the People, political
institutions must have a Basis of Idea in the Nation's Thought, before
they can acquire a Basis of Fact in the Force of the Nation. Now in
America there are two diverse Ideas recognized as principles of
Action--the Idea of Freedom and the Idea of Slavery. Allow me to read
my analysis and description of each.
The Idea of Freedom first got a national expression on the
Fourth of July, 1776. Here it is. I put it in a philosophic
form. There are five points to it.
First, All men are endowed by their Creator with certain
natural rights, amongst which is the right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
Second, These rights are unalienable; they can be alienated
only by the possessor thereof; the father cannot alienate
them for the son, nor the son for the father; nor the
husband for the wife, nor the wife for the husband; nor the
strong for the weak, nor the weak for the strong; nor the
few for the many, nor the many for the few; and so on.
Third, In respect to these, all men are equal; the rich man
has not more, and the poor less; the strong man has not
more, and the weak man less:--all are exactly equal in these
rights, however unequal in their powers.
Fourth, It is the function of government to secure these
natural, unalienable, and equal rights to every man.
Fifth, Government derives all its divine right from its
conformity with these ideas, all its human sanction from the
consent of the governed.
That is the Idea of Freedom. I used to call it "the American
Idea;" that was when I was younger than I am to-day. It is
derived from human nature; it rests on the immutable Laws of
God; it is part of the natural religion of mankind. It
demands a government after natural Justice, which is the
point common between the conscience of God and the
conscience of mankind; it is the point common also between
the interests of one man and of all men.
Now this government, just in its substance, in its form must
be democratic: that is to say, the government of all, by
all, and for all. You see what consequences must follow from
such an idea, and the attempt to reenact the Law of God into
political institutions. There will follow the freedom of the
people, respect for every natural right of all men, the
rights of their body and of their spirit--the rights of mind
and conscience, heart and soul. There must be some
restraint--as of children by their parents, as of bad men by
good men; but it will be restraint for the joint good of all
parties concerned; not restraint for the exclusive benefit
of the restrainer. The ultimate consequence of this will be
the material and spiritual welfare of all--riches, comfort,
noble manhood, all desirable things.
That is the Idea of Freedom. It appears in the Declaration
of Independence; it reappears in the Preamble to the
American Constitution, which aims "to establish Justice,
insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common
defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of Liberty." That is a religious idea; and when
men pray for the "Reign of Justice" and the "Kingdom of
Heaven" to come on earth politically, I suppose they mean
that there may be a Commonwealth where every man has his
natural rights of mind, body, and estate.
* * * * *
Next is the Idea of Slavery. Here it is. I put it also in a
philosophic form. There are three points which I make.
First, There are no natural, unalienable, and equal rights,
wherewith men are endowed by their Creator; no natural,
unalienable, and equal right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
Second, There is a great diversity of powers, and in virtue
thereof the strong man may rule and oppress, enslave and
ruin the weak, for his interest and against theirs.
Third, There is no natural law of God to forbid the strong
to oppress the weak, and enslave and ruin the weak.
That is the Idea of Slavery. It has never got a national
expression in America; it has never been laid down as a
Principle in any act of the American people, nor in any
single State, so far as I know. All profess the opposite;
but it is involved in the Measures of both State and Nation.
This Idea is founded in the selfishness of man; it is
atheistic.
The idea must lead to a corresponding government; that will
be unjust in its substance,--for it will depend not on
natural right, but on personal force; not on the
Constitution of the Universe, but on the compact of men. It
is the abnegation of God in the universe and of conscience
in man. Its form will be despotism,--the government of all,
by a part, for the sake of a part. It may be a single-headed
despotism, or a despotism of many heads; but whether a
Cyclops or a Hydra, it is alike "the abomination which
maketh desolate." Its ultimate consequence is plain to
foresee--poverty to a nation, misery, ruin.
* * * * *
These two Ideas are now fairly on foot. They are hostile;
they are both mutually invasive and destructive. They are in
exact opposition to each other, and the nation which
embodies these two is not a figure of equilibrium. As both
are active forces in the minds of men, and as each idea
tends to become a fact--a universal and exclusive fact,--as
men with these ideas organize into parties as a means to
make their idea into a fact,--it follows that there must not
only be strife amongst philosophical men about these
antagonistic Principles and Ideas, but a strife of practical
men about corresponding Facts and Measures. So the quarrel,
if not otherwise ended, will pass from words to what seems
more serious; and one will overcome the other.
So long as these two Ideas exist in the nation as two
political forces, there is no national unity of Idea, of
course no unity of action. For there is no centre of gravity
common to Freedom and Slavery. They will not compose an
equilibrious figure. You may cry "Peace! Peace!" but so long
as these two antagonistic Ideas remain, each seeking to
organize itself and get exclusive power, there is no peace;
there can be none.
The question before the nation to-day is, Which shall
prevail--the Idea and Fact of Freedom, or the Idea and the
Fact of Slavery; Freedom, exclusive and universal, or
Slavery, exclusive and universal? The question is not
merely, Shall the African be bond or free? but, Shall
America be a Democracy or a Despotism? For nothing is so
remorseless as an idea, and no logic is so strong as the
historical development of a national idea by millions of
men. A measure is nothing without its Principle. The Idea
which allows Slavery in South Carolina will establish it
also in New England. The bondage of a black man in
Alexandria imperils every white woman's daughter in Boston.
You cannot escape the consequences of a first Principle more
than you can "take the leap of Niagara and stop when
half-way down." The Principle which recognizes Slavery in
the Constitution of the United States would make all America
a Despotism, while the Principle which made John Quincy
Adams a free man would extirpate Slavery from Louisiana and
Texas. It is plain America cannot long hold these two
contradictions in the national consciousness. Equilibrium
must come.[4]
[Footnote 4: See this statement in Mr. Parker's Additional Speeches,
Addresses, and Occasional Sermons. Boston, 1855, vol. ii. p. 250, _et
seq._]
These two ideas are represented by two parties which aim at the
ultimate organization of their respective doctrines, the party
indicating the special tendency towards Democracy or Despotism. The
Party of Freedom is not yet well organized; that of Slavery is in
admirable order and discipline. These two parties are continually at
war attended with various success.
1. In the individual States of the North, since the Revolution, the
Party of Freedom has gained some great victories; it has abolished
Personal Slavery in every northern State, and on a deep-laid
foundation has built up Democratic Institutions with well proportioned
beauty. The Idea of Freedom, so genial to the Anglo-Saxon, so welcome
to all of Puritanic birth and breeding, has taken deep root in the
consciousness of the great mass of the People at the North. In the
severe simplicity of national deduction they will carry it to logical
conclusions not yet foreseen by human providence. The free States are
progressively democratic.
But in all the Northern States, and more especially in its
cities,--and here chiefly among the men of exclusive intellectual
culture and the votaries of commerce and its riches,--there are
exceptional men who embrace the Idea of Slavery and belong to its
Party. They know no law higher than the transient interest of their
politics or their commerce, their ease or ambition. They may not
theoretically hate the People, but they so love their own money, their
own ease or pleasure, that practically they oppose what promotes the
welfare of mankind, and seek their own personal advancement to the
injury of the human race. These are Northern men with Southern
"Principles." They have their Journals too well known in Boston to
need mention here.
2. In the individual States of the South, the Idea and Party of
Slavery has also gained great victories and been uniformly successful;
it has extended and strengthened personal slavery, which has now a
firmer hold in the minds of the controlling classes of Southern
men,--the rich and "educated,"--than in 1776, or ever before. The
Southern States are progressively despotic.
Still, in all the Southern States there are exceptional men, hostile
to slavery,--the intelligent and religious from conviction, others
from mere personal interest. These are Southern men with Northern
Principles. They are much oppressed at home--kept from political
advancement or social respectability, as much as democrats would be at
Rome or Naples,--have no journals and little influence.
3. In the Federal Government, the warfare goes on, each party seeking
for mastery over the whole United States--the contest is carried on in
Congress, in all the local legislatures; newspapers, speeches, even
sermons, resound with the din of battle. See what forces contend and
with what results.
The nation lives by its productive industry, whereof there are these
five chief departments:--Hunting and Fishing, the appropriation of the
spontaneous live products of the land and sea; Agriculture, the use of
the productive forces of the earth's surface; Mining, the
appropriation of the metallic products of her bosom; Manufactures, the
application of toil and thought to the products of Hunting and
Fishing, Mining and Agriculture; Commerce, the exchange of value,
distribution of the products of these four departments of industry,
directly productive.
Hunting and Fishing, Mining, Manufactures, Commerce, are mainly in the
hands of Northern men--the South is almost wholly Agricultural. Her
wealth consists of land and slaves. In 1850 the fifteen slave States
had not fourteen hundred millions of other property. In the South
property, with its consequent influence, is in few hands--in the North
it is wide spread.
Now the few controlling men of the South, the holders of land and
slaves, have Unity of pecuniary Interest--the support of Slavery as a
local measure,--for it is the source of their material wealth, and
also a consequent Unity of political Idea, the support of Slavery as a
universal Principle, for it is the source likewise of their political
power. Accordingly the South presents against the North an even and
well-disciplined front of veteran soldiers, is always hostile to
Freedom, and as her "best educated" men devote much time to politics,
making it the profession of their whole lives, it is plain they become
formidable antagonists.
But the North has a great variety of conflicting interests, a great
amount of intellectual activity, where education and its consequent
habits of reading and thinking are so wide spread, and therefore a
great variety of opinion. Accordingly there is not the same Unity of
pecuniary Interest and of political Idea, which distinguishes the
South. Besides, in the North the ablest and best educated men do not
devote their time to the thankless and stormy calling of politics;
Virginia cares for nothing but Negroes and Politics, her loins and her
brains gender but this twofold product: Massachusetts and New York
care for much beside. So the North does not present against the South
an even and well-disciplined front of veteran soldiers, but a ragged,
discordant line of raw recruits, enlisting for a short time with some
special or even personal local interest to serve.
What makes the matter yet worse for us, Gentlemen of the Jury, is
this: While the great mass of the people at the North, engrossed in
direct productive industry, are really hostile to slavery, those
absorbed in the large operations of commerce, taken as a whole class,
feel little interest in the Idea of Freedom; nay, they are positively
opposed to it. Before the African Slave-trade was treated like other
kindred forms of piracy, as a capital crime, they had their ships in
that felonious traffic; and now their vessels engage in the American
Slave-trade and their hand still deals in the bodies of their fellow
men. In all the great commercial cities, like Philadelphia, New York
and Boston these men prevail, and are the "eminent citizens,"
overslaughing the press, the pulpit, the bar, and the court, with the
Ideas of their lower law, and sweeping along all metropolitan and
suburban fashion and respectability in their slimy flood. Hence the
great cities of the North, governed by the low maxims of this class,
have become the asylum of Northern men with Southern "Principles," and
so the strong-hold of Slavery. And hitherto these great cities have
controlled the politics of the Northern States, crowding the Apostles
of Freedom out from the national board, and helping the party of
slavery to triumph in all great battles.