When the Fugitive Slave Law was first promulgated, there was, as I
have stated, a very general outburst of indignation throughout the
North,--a feeling of dreadful shame, a sense of a most bitter insult.
The first impulse of the Unitarians, as of others, was to denounce it.
At their autumnal convention in Springfield, October, 1850, they did
so, though not without strong opposition to any vote or action on the
subject. Probably the opposers would have prevailed, and the law have
been left unrebuked, had not that venerable man, the late Rev. Dr.
Willard, of Deerfield, risen and earnestly--yes, solemnly--protested
against passing lightly over a matter of such fearful importance. Dr.
Willard was old, and had long been blind. Would to God that the moral
sight of many of his younger ministerial brethren had been half as
clear and pure as his! With tremulous eloquence he called upon them to
reconsider their motion. He appealed to their pity for men and women
over whom was impending the greatest calamity that could befall human
beings. He appealed to their regard for the honor of their country,
and besought them to avert her shame, by doing what they might to
show the world, that it was the statesmen and politicians, not the
people of the Northern States, who approved of this wicked, cruel law.
His words roused others, who spoke to the same effect; and so that
Convention was persuaded to adopt resolutions condemning the law. But
quite a number of the prominent ministers of the denomination soon
after gave strong utterance to an opposite opinion. I need mention but
three. Rev. Dr. Lunt, of Quincy, preached a discourse on the “Divine
Right of Government,” in which he endeavored to bring his hearers to
the conclusion that, “wise, practical men would allow the laws of the
land, which have been enacted in due form, to have their course and be
executed, until we can so far change the current of public opinion that
what is objectionable in those laws may be corrected.” He conceded,
indeed, that “there are cases when rulers may be rightfully resisted,
and when revolution is a duty; yet these are extreme cases, and require
for their justification the most imperative necessity.” He said this
all unconscious, it would seem, that such an extreme case was upon us;
unconscious, and leaving his hearers unconscious, that the Fugitive
Slave Law must be resisted, or the people of Massachusetts would
consent to become menials of the slaveholders, kidnappers, robbers of
men, bloodhounds.
The excellent Dr. E. S. Gannett, of Boston, was heard to say, more
than once, very emphatically, and to justify it, “that he should feel
it to be his duty to turn away from his door a fugitive slave,--unfed,
unaided in any way, rather than set at naught the law of the land.”
And Rev. Dr. Dewey, whom we accounted one of the ablest expounders and
most eloquent defenders of our Unitarian faith,--Dr. Dewey was reported
to have said at two different times, in public lectures or speeches
during the fall of 1850 and the winter of 1851, that “he would send his
_mother_ into slavery, rather than endanger the Union, by resisting
this law enacted by the constituted government of the nation.” He
has often denied that he spoke thus of his “maternal relative,” and
therefore I allow that he was misunderstood. But he has repeatedly
acknowledged that he did say, “I would consent that my own brother,
my own son, should go, _ten times rather_ would I go myself into
slavery, than that this Union should be sacrificed.” The rhetoric of
this sentence may be less shocking, but the principle that underlies
it is equally immoral and demoralizing. It is, that the inalienable,
God-given rights of man ought to be violated, outraged, rather than
overturn or seriously endanger a human institution called a government.
Although our denomination at that time was numerically a very small
one, yet it was so prominent, not only in Boston and its immediate
vicinity, but before the whole nation, and in view of all the world,
that it seemed to me to be a matter of great moral consequence that
it should take and maintain a truly Christian stand respecting this
high-handed, glaring attempt to bring our Northern free States into
entire subjection to the slaveholding oligarchy. Therefore, at the next
annual meeting of the American Unitarian Association, in May, 1851, I
offered the following Preamble and Resolution:--
“Whereas, his Excellency, Millard Fillmore, whose official
signature made the Fugitive Slave Bill a law, is a _Unitarian_;
and the Hon. Daniel Webster, who exerted all his official and
personal influence to procure the passage of that bill, has
been until recently, if he is not now, a member of a Unitarian
church; and whereas, one of the only three Representatives from
New England, who voted for that bill, is the Hon. S. A. Eliot, a
distinguished Unitarian of Boston, known to have been educated for
the Unitarian ministry; and whereas, the present representative of
the United States Government at the Court of the British Empire is
a Unitarian, and his two immediate predecessors were once preachers
of this Gospel, and one of them, Hon. Edward Everett, has publicly
declared his approval of Mr. Webster’s course touching this most
wicked law; and whereas, the Hon. Jared Sparks, President of
Harvard College, and President of the Divinity School at Cambridge,
formerly a distinguished minister, and a very elaborate and able
expounder of our distinctive doctrines, is one of the number who
addressed a letter to Mr. Webster, commending him for what he had
said and done in behalf of the Fugitive Slave Law; and still more,
because the late President of this American Unitarian Association
(Dr. Dewey), one of the most popular preachers, expounders, and
champions of the Unitarian faith, has been more earnest and
emphatic than any man in his asseveration that this law, infernal
as it is, ought nevertheless to be obeyed; and because the
gentleman who this day retires from the highest position in our
ecclesiastical body, the Rev. Dr. Gannett, is understood to have
given his adhesion to this lowest of all laws, and several of the
distinguished, titled ministers of our denomination in and near
Boston, the head-quarters of Unitarians, have preached obedience to
_this law_,--
“We, therefore, feel especially called upon by the highest
considerations, at this, the first general gathering of our body,
since the above-named exposures of the unsoundness of our members,
to declare in the most public and emphatic manner that we consider
the Fugitive Slave Law a most fearful violation of the law of God,
as taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles, and, therefore, all
obedience to it is practical infidelity to the Author and Finisher
of the Christian faith, and to the impartial Father of the whole
human family.
“_Resolved_, Therefore, that we, the American Unitarian
Association, earnestly exhort all who would honor the Christian
name, but especially all who have embraced with us views of human
nature similar to those held up by our revered Channing,--to
remember those in bonds as bound with them; ever to attempt to do
for them, as we would that the now enslaved or fugitive should do
for us in an exchange of circumstances,--to comfort and aid them in
all their attempts to escape from their oppressors, and by no means
to betray the fugitives, or in any way assist or give the least
countenance to the cruel men who would return them to slavery.”
Both the Preamble and Resolutions were cordially seconded by Rev.
Theodore Parker, and their adoption urged in a brief but most
significant speech. The moment he had ceased speaking Henry Fuller,
Esq., of Boston, sprang to his feet, and, in an impassioned manner,
moved that the paper just read by the Rev. Mr. May, of Syracuse, be not
even received by the Association. “This ecclesiastical body had nothing
to do with such a political matter. The entertaining of the subject
here would be indecorous, and only help to increase the alienation
of feeling between the South and the North.” With equal warmth of
manner and speech Rev. Joseph Richardson, of Hingham, seconded Mr.
Fuller’s motion, and cut off all debate by calling for the “previous
question.” So the motion not to receive my paper was put, and carried
by twenty-seven to twenty-two.
The next day, at a meeting of the “Ministerial Conference,” which
comprised all the clerical members of the American Unitarian
Association, I proposed for adoption the same Preamble and Resolution,
and am happy to add, with a much more gratifying result. The following
is a very brief report of the discussion and action of that body, taken
from _The Commonwealth_ of June 2, 1851:--
“Rev. Mr. Judd, of Augusta, Me., thought it the duty of the clergy
to speak freely upon the question of slavery, but with perfect
plainness to all parties. He approved of the sentiment of the
resolve, but disliked the preamble, as too personal in its language.
“Rev. Mr. May, of Syracuse, N. Y., said reference was made in the
resolve to those only whom the Conference had a right to mention,
namely, prominent Unitarians who had sustained the Fugitive Slave
Law.
“Rev. Dr. Hall, of Providence, R. I., thought that, as citizens, as
Unitarians, and as Christians, they were called upon to speak in
opposition to the law, but the right place should be selected, in
order that no false impression should be given in case the topic
should not be acted upon. For himself, he should not obey the law,
though the country went to pieces.
“Rev. Mr. Parker, of Boston, read extracts from an English paper,
showing the action of an ecclesiastical body abroad that had
resolved not to countenance or admit to its pulpits any of the
American clergy who uphold the Fugitive Slave Law or slavery.
“Rev. Mr. Holland, of Rochester, N. Y., deemed obedience to the law
a violation of conscience and duty. His voice and prayer were for
progress and liberty.
“Rev. Mr. Frost, of Concord, Mass., had had a committee of his
society ask him to abstain from preaching on slavery thenceforth.
He replied, that when the slave power had taken possession of the
departments of Government, controlled the decisions of our courts,
and influenced the moral position of the Church itself, glossing
over all the iniquities of the system, he should not keep silence.
Obedience to the Fugitive Law was treason to God; he preferred to
be disloyal to man.
“Rev. William H. Channing, of New York City, thought the Church
should take common ground against this national sin. But to the
slaveholder he would be fair and candid. He would meet him in
conclave, show him the evils of slavery, the worth of freedom,
and join with him in removing the willing free colored population
to the lands of the West, and as a remuneration give them the
blessings of free labor and social prosperity.
“Rev. Mr. Osgood, of New York City, admitted the iniquity of the
Fugitive Slave Law, and the sin of slavery, and thought them proper
subjects for pulpit discussion; but he wanted a moral influence to
be exerted, without a violation of Christian gentleness. He said
Rev. Mr. Furness, of Philadelphia, and Rev. Dr. Dewey, of New York,
had had a correspondence in reference to the latter’s position on
political questions, and he (Mr. Osgood) honestly believed, from
the results of that correspondence, and from conversations he
himself had held with the Doctor, that, in his support of the Slave
Law, he was making self-sacrifice to what he conceived his duty.
“Rev. Mr. Pierpont, of Medford, proclaimed the superiority of God’s
law to man’s law. He would not obey the latter when it interfered
with the former. The government might fine and imprison, but it
could do no more; he was mindful of the penalty, but he would
not obey. If all would act with him the law would fail of being
executed.
“Rev. Dr. Gannett, of Boston, was impressed with the immensity
of this question, the terrible awfulness that lay behind it, and
he would discuss it with all solemnity and seriousness in view
of the impending evil. He believed in his heart the maintenance
of government, the comfort of the people, _and the perpetuity of
our Union depended on the support of the Fugitive Law_. He would
not have the subject treated lightly, but prayerfully, fearfully,
in view of the great responsibilities resting upon it. We should
respect private convictions, and allow the integrity of motives of
those who differ with us.
“Rev. Mr. Ellis, of Charlestown, hailed that day as the first
when these differences had been rightly discussed. But if the
Conference, comprising members of different though honest views,
should take ground on this question, he should leave it. As an
organized body we have nothing to do with it. No action could be
binding, and he was unwilling to have the Conference interfere
with the question. He had himself ever entertained ultra-abolition
views, and did now; but he had no such fears for the Union as
Brother Gannett. If the Union was held together by so feeble a
tenure as here presented, he thought it was not worth saving; and
further, if our Northern land is to be the scouring-ground of
slave-hunters, the sooner the Union was sundered the better. But
our sphere of action did not allow interference with the question.
“Dr. Gannett spoke of the character of that parishioner of his who
returned a slave (Curtis). He had done so from convictions of his
constitutional obligations as an upholder of law and as a good
citizen, and he esteemed that a wrong was done him in stigmatizing
him as a ‘cruel’ man, because of that return, as the resolution
expressed it.
“On motion of Mr. Pierpont, the word ‘cruel’ was stricken out, and
the resolution having been previously altered so as to make it a
proposition for discussion rather than as a test for votes, it was
entered upon the records.
“The debate (of which I have given a very limited sketch) here
terminated by general consent, the feeling being almost unanimous
as expressed by the majority of the speakers.”
But the Unitarians as a body were by no means redeemed from the moral
thraldom in which the whole nation was held. There was still among them
so little heartfelt abhorrence of slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law,
that the year after Mr. Fillmore was dropped from the presidency of
the nation, which he had so dishonored, he was specially invited to
preside at the Annual Festival of the Unitarians, to be given, if I
remember correctly, in Faneuil Hall. He declined the honor proffered
him, but our denomination was left to bear the shame of having asked
him to receive an expression of our respect, as there was no protest
against the action of the Committee.