of attacking the character or motives of the _advocates_ of false
opinions, or of holding them up, individually, to public odium.
Erroneous opinions are sometimes the consequence of unavoidable
ignorance, or of mental imbecility, or of a weak and erring judgment, or
of false testimony from others, which cannot be rectified. In such
cases, the advocates of false opinions are to be pitied rather than
blamed; and while the opinions and their tendencies may be publicly
exposed, the men may be objects of affection and kindness.
In other cases, erroneous opinions spring from criminal indifference,
from prejudice, from indolence, from pride, from evil passions, or from
selfish interest. In all such cases, men deserve blame for their
pernicious opinions, and the evils which flow from them.
But, it maybe asked, how are men to decide, when their fellow-men are
guilty for holding wrong opinions; when they deserve blame, and when
they are to be regarded only with pity and commiseration by those who
believe them to be in the wrong? Here, surely, is a place where some
correct principle is greatly needed.
Is every man to sit in judgment upon his fellow-man, and decide what are
his intellectual capacities, and what the measure of his judgment? Is
every man to take the office of the Searcher of Hearts, to try the
feelings and motives of his fellow-man? Is that most difficult of all
analysis, the estimating of the feelings, purposes, and motives, which
every man, who examines his own secret thoughts, finds to be so complex,
so recondite, so intricate; is this to be the basis, not only of
individual opinion, but of public reward and censure? Is every man to
constitute himself a judge of the amount of time and interest given to
the proper investigation of truth by his fellow-man? Surely, this cannot
be a correct principle.
Though there may be single cases in which we can know that our
fellow-men are weak in intellect, or erring in judgment, or perverse in
feeling, or misled by passion, or biased by selfish interest, as a
general fact we are not competent to decide these matters, in regard to
those who differ from us in opinion.
For this reason it is manifestly wrong and irrelevant, when discussing
questions of duty or expediency, to bring before the public the
character or the motives of the individual advocates of opinions.
But, it may be urged, how can the evil tendencies of opinions or of
practices be investigated, without involving a consideration of the
character and conduct of those who advocate them? To this it may be
replied, that the tendencies of opinions and practices can never be
ascertained by discussing individual character. It is _classes_ of
persons, or large _communities_, embracing persons of all varieties of
character and circumstances, that are the only proper subjects of
investigation for this object. For example, a community of Catholics,
and a community of Protestants, may be compared, for the purpose of
learning the moral tendencies of their different opinions. Scotland and
New England, where the principles opposite to Catholicism have most
prevailed, may properly be compared with Spain and Italy, where the
Catholic system has been most fairly tried. But to select certain
individuals who are defenders of these two different systems, as
examples to illustrate their tendencies, would be as improper as it
would be to select a kernel of grain to prove the good or bad character
of a whole crop.
To illustrate by a more particular example. The doctrines of the Atheist
school are now under discussion, and Robert Owen and Fanny Wright have
been their prominent advocates.
In agreement with the above principles, it is a right, and the duty of
every man who has any influence and opportunity, to show the absurdity
of their doctrines, the weakness of their arguments, and the fatal
tendencies of their opinions. It is right to show that the _practical_
adoption of their principles indicates a want of common sense, just as
sowing the ocean with grain and expecting a crop would indicate the same
deficiency. If the advocates of these doctrines carry out their
principles into practice, in any such way as to offend the taste, or
infringe on the rights of others, it is proper to express disgust and
disapprobation. If the female advocate chooses to come upon a stage, and
expose her person, dress, and elocution to public criticism, it is right
to express disgust at whatever is offensive and indecorous, as it is to
criticize the book of an author, or the dancing of an actress, or any
thing else that is presented to public observation. And it is right to
make all these things appear as odious and reprehensible to others as
they do to ourselves.
But what is the private character of Robert Owen or Fanny Wright?
Whether they are ignorant or weak in intellect; whether they have
properly examined the sources of truth; how much they have been biased
by pride, passion, or vice, in adopting their opinions; whether they are
honest and sincere in their belief; whether they are selfish or
benevolent in their aims, are not matters which in any way pertain to
the discussion. They are questions about which none are qualified to
judge, except those in close and intimate communion with them. We may
inquire with propriety as to the character of a _community_ of Atheists,
or of a community where such sentiments extensively prevail, as compared
with a community of opposite sentiments. But the private character,
feelings, and motives of the individual advocates of these doctrines,
are not proper subjects of investigation in any public discussion.
If, then, it be true, that attacks on the character and motives of the
advocates of opinions are entirely irrelevant and not at all necessary
for the discovery of truth; if injury inflicted on character is the most
severe penalty that can be employed to restrain freedom of opinions and
freedom of speech, what are we to say of the state of things in this
nation?
Where is there a party which does not in effect say to every man, "if
you dare to oppose the principles or practices we sustain, you shall be
punished with personal odium?" which does not say to every member of the
party, "uphold your party, right or wrong; oppose all that is adverse to
your party, right or wrong, or else suffer the penalty of having your
motives, character, and conduct, impeached?"
Look first at the political arena. Where is the advocate of any measure
that does not suffer sneers, ridicule, contempt, and all that tends to
depreciate character in public estimation? Where is the partisan that is
not attacked, as either weak in intellect, or dishonest in principle, or
selfish in motives? And where is the man who is linked with any
political party, that dares to stand up fearlessly and defend what is
good in opposers, and reprove what is wrong in his own party?
Look into the religious world. There, even those who take their party
name from their professed liberality, are saying, "whoever shall adopt
principles that exclude us from the Christian church, and our clergy
from the pulpit, shall be held up either as intellectually degraded, or
as narrow-minded and bigoted, or as ambitious, partisan and persecuting
in spirit. No man shall believe a creed that excludes us from the pale
of Christianity, under penalty of all the odium we can inflict."
So in the Catholic controversy. Catholics and their friends practically
declare war against all free discussion on this point. The decree has
gone forth, that "no man shall appear for the purpose of proving that
Catholicism is contrary to Scripture, or immoral and anti-republican in
tendency, under penalty of being denounced as a dupe, or a hypocrite, or
a persecutor, or a narrow-minded and prejudiced bigot."
On the contrary, those who attack what is called liberal Christianity,
or who aim to oppose the progress of Catholicism, how often do they
exhibit a severe and uncharitable spirit towards the individuals whose
opinions they controvert. Instead of loving the men, and rendering to
them all the offices of Christian kindness, and according to them all
due credit for whatever is desirable in character and conduct, how often
do opposers seem to feel, that it will not answer to allow that there is
any thing good, either in the system or in those who have adopted it.
"Every thing about my party is right, and every thing in the opposing
party is wrong," seems to be the universal maxim of the times. And it
is the remark of some of the most intelligent foreign travellers among
us, and of our own citizens who go abroad, that there is no country to
be found, where freedom of opinion, and freedom of speech is more really
influenced and controlled by the fear of pains and penalties, than in
this land of boasted freedom. In other nations, the control is exercised
by government, in respect to a very few matters; in this country it is
party-spirit that rules with an iron rod, and shakes its scorpion whips
over every interest and every employment of man.
From this mighty source spring constant detraction, gossiping,
tale-bearing, falsehood, anger, pride, malice, revenge, and every evil
word and work.
Every man sets himself up as the judge of the intellectual character,
the honesty, the sincerity, the feelings, opportunities, motives, and
intentions, of his fellow-man. And so they fall upon each other, not
with swords and spears, but with the tongue, "that unruly member, that
setteth on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire of hell."
Can any person who seeks to maintain the peaceful, loving, and gentle
spirit of Christianity, go out into the world at this day, without being
bewildered at the endless conflicts, and grieved and dismayed at the
bitter and unhallowed passions they engender? Can an honest, upright and
Christian man, go into these conflicts, and with unflinching firmness
stand up for all that is good, and oppose all that is evil, in whatever
party it may be found, without a measure of moral courage such as few
can command? And if he carries himself through with an unyielding
integrity, and maintains his consistency, is he not exposed to storms of
bitter revilings, and to peltings from both parties between which he may
stand?
What is the end of these things to be? Must we give up free discussion,
and again chain up the human mind under the despotism of past ages? No,
this will never be. God designs that every intelligent mind shall be
governed, not by coercion, but by reason, and conscience, and truth.
Man must reason, and experiment, and compare past and present results,
and hear and know all that can be said on _both_ sides of every question
which influences either private or public happiness, either for this
life or for the life to come.
But while this process is going on, must we be distracted and tortured
by the baleful passions and wicked works that unrestrained party-spirit
and ungoverned factions will bring upon us, under such a government as
ours? Must we rush on to disunion, and civil wars, and servile wars,
till all their train of horrors pass over us like devouring fire?
There is an influence that can avert these dangers--a spirit that can
allay the storm--that can say to the troubled winds and waters, "peace,
be still."
It is that spirit which is gentle and easy to be entreated, which
thinketh no evil, which rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the
truth, which is not easily provoked, which hopeth all things, which
beareth all things. Let this spirit be infused into the mass of the
nation, and then truth may be sought, defended, and propagated, and
error detected, and its evils exposed; and yet we may escape the evils
that now rage through this nation, and threaten us with such fiery
plagues.
And is there not a peculiar propriety in such an emergency, in looking
for the especial agency and assistance of females, who are shut out from
the many temptations that assail the other sex,--who are the appointed
ministers of all the gentler charities of life,--who are mingled
throughout the whole mass of the community,--who dwell in those
retirements where only peace and love ought ever to enter,--whose
comfort, influence, and dearest blessings, all depend on preserving
peace and good will among men?
In the present aspect of affairs among us, when everything seems to be
tending to disunion and distraction, it surely has become the duty of
every female instantly to relinquish the attitude of a partisan, in
every matter of clashing interests, and to assume the office of a
mediator, and an advocate of peace. And to do this, it is not necessary
that a woman should in any manner relinquish her opinion as to the
evils or the benefits, the right or the wrong, of any principle or
practice. But, while quietly holding her own opinions, and calmly
avowing them, when conscience and integrity make the duty imperative,
every female can employ her influence, not for the purpose of exciting
or regulating public sentiment, but rather for the purpose of promoting
a spirit of candour, forbearance, charity, and peace.
And there are certain prominent maxims which every woman can adopt as
peculiarly belonging to her, as the advocate of charity and peace, and
which it should be her especial office to illustrate, enforce, and
sustain, by every method in her power.
The first is, that every person ought to be sustained, not only in the
right of propagating his own opinions and practices, but in opposing all
those principles and practices which he deems erroneous. For there is no
opinion which a man can propagate, that does not oppose some adverse
interest; and if a man must cease to advocate his own views of truth and
rectitude, because he opposes the interest or prejudices of some other
man or party, all freedom of opinion, of speech, and of action, is gone.
All that can be demanded is, that a man shall not resort to falsehood,
false reasoning, or to attacks on character, in maintaining his own
rights. If he states things which are false, it is right to show the
falsehood,--if he reasons falsely, it is right to point out his
sophistry,--if he impeaches the character or motives of opponents, it is
right to express disapprobation and disgust; but if he uses only facts,
arguments, and persuasions, he is to be honoured and sustained for all
the efforts he makes to uphold what he deems to be right, and to put
down what he believes to be wrong.
Another maxim, which is partially involved in the first, is, that every
man ought to allow his own principles and practices to be freely
discussed, with patience and magnanimity, and not to complain of
persecution, or to attack the character or motives of those who claim
that he is in the wrong. If he is belied, if his character is impeached,
if his motives are assailed, if his intellectual capabilities are made
the objects of sneers or commiseration, he has a right to complain, and
to seek sympathy as an injured man; but no man is a consistent friend
and defender of liberty of speech, who cannot bear to have his own
principles and practices subjected to the same ordeal as he demands
should be imposed on others.
Another maxim of peace and charity is, that every man's own testimony is
to be taken in regard to his motives, feelings, and intentions. Though
we may fear that a fellow-man is mistaken in his views of his own
feelings, or that he does not speak the truth, it is as contrary to the
rules of good breeding as it is to the laws of Christianity, to assume
or even insinuate that this is the case. If a man's word cannot be taken
in regard to his own motives, feelings, and intentions, he can find no
redress for the wrong that may be done to him. It is unjust and
unreasonable in the extreme to take any other course than the one here
urged.
Another most important maxim of candour and charity is, that when we are
to assign motives for the conduct of our fellow-men, especially of
those who oppose our interests, we are obligated to put the best, rather
than the worst construction, on all they say and do. Instead of
assigning the worst as the probable motive, it is always a duty to
_hope_ that it is the best, until evidence is so unequivocal that there
is no place for such a hope.
Another maxim of peace and charity respects the subject of
_retaliation_. Whatever may be said respecting the literal construction
of some of the rules of the gospel, no one can deny that they do,
whether figurative or not, forbid retaliation and revenge; that they do
assume that men are not to be judges and executioners of their own
wrongs; but that injuries are to be borne with meekness, and that
retributive justice must be left to God, and to the laws. If a man
strikes, we are not to return the blow, but appeal to the laws. If a man
uses abusive or invidious language, we are not to return railing for
railing. If a man impeaches our motives and attacks our character, we
are not to return the evil. If a man sneers and ridicules, we are not to
retaliate with ridicule and sneers. If a man reports our weaknesses and
failings, we are not to revenge ourselves by reporting his. No man has a
right to report evil of others, except when the justification of the
innocent, or a regard for public or individual safety, demands it. This
is the strict law of the gospel, inscribed in all its pages, and meeting
in the face all those unchristian and indecent violations that now are
so common, in almost every conflict of intellect or of interest.
Another most important maxim of peace and charity imposes the obligation
to guard our fellow-men from all unnecessary temptation. We are taught
daily to pray, "lead us not into temptation;" and thus are admonished
not only to avoid all unnecessary temptation ourselves, but to save our
fellow-men from the danger. Can we ask our Heavenly Parent to protect us
from temptation, while we recklessly spread baits and snares for our
fellow-men? No, we are bound in every measure to have a tender regard
for the weaknesses and liabilities of all around, and ever to be ready
to yield even our just rights, when we can lawfully do it, rather than
to tempt others to sin. The generous and high-minded Apostle declares,
"if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world
standeth;" and it is the spirit of this maxim that every Christian ought
to cultivate. There are no occasions when this maxim is more needed,
than when we wish to modify the opinions, or alter the practices of our
fellow-men. If, in such cases, we find that the probabilities are, that
any interference of ours will increase the power of temptation, and lead
to greater evils than those we wish to remedy, we are bound to forbear.
If we find that one mode of attempting a measure will increase the power
of temptation, and another will not involve this danger, we are bound to
take the safest course. In all cases we are obligated to be as careful
to protect our fellow-men from temptation, as we are to watch and pray
against it in regard to ourselves.
Another maxim of peace and charity requires a most scrupulous regard to
the reputation, character, and feelings of our fellow-men, and
especially of those who are opposed in any way to our wishes and
interests. Every man and every woman feels that it is wrong for others
to propagate their faults and weakness through the community. Every one
feels wounded and injured to find that others are making his defects and
infirmities the subject of sneers and ridicule. And what, then, is the
rule of duty? "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to
them." With this rule before his eyes and in his mind, can a man retail
his neighbour's faults, or sneer at his deficiencies, or ridicule his
infirmities, with a clear conscience? There are cases when the safety of
individuals, or public justice, demands that a man's defects of
character, or crimes, be made public; but no man is justified in
communicating to others any evil respecting any of his fellow-men, when
he cannot appeal to God as his witness that he does it from benevolent
interest in the welfare of his fellow-men--from a desire to save
individuals or the public from some evil--and not from a malevolent or
gossiping propensity. Oh, that this law of love and charity could find
an illustration and an advocate in every female of this nation! Oh, that
every current slander, and every injurious report, might stand abashed,
whenever it meets the notice of a woman!
These are the maxims of peace and charity, which it is in the power of
the females of our country to advocate, both by example and by
entreaties. These are the principles which alone can protect and
preserve the right of free discussion, the freedom of speech, and
liberty of the press. And with our form of government, and our
liabilities to faction and party-spirit, the country will be safe and
happy only in proportion to the prevalence of these maxims among the
mass of the community. There probably will never arrive a period in the
history of this nation, when the influence of these principles will be
more needed, than the present. The question of slavery involves more
pecuniary interests, touches more private relations, involves more
prejudices, is entwined with more sectional, party, and political
interests, than any other which can ever again arise. It is a matter
which, if discussed and controlled without the influence of these
principles of charity and peace, will shake this nation like an
earthquake, and pour over us the volcanic waves of every terrific
passion. The trembling earth, the low murmuring thunders, already
admonish us of our danger; and if females can exert any saving influence
in this emergency, it is time for them to awake.
And there are topics that they may urge upon the attention of their
friends, at least as matters worthy of serious consideration and
inquiry.
Is a woman surrounded by those who favour the Abolition measures? Can
she not with propriety urge such inquiries as these?
Is not slavery to be brought to an end by free discussion, and is it not
a war upon the right of free discussion to impeach the motives and
depreciate the character of the opposers of Abolition measures? When the
opposers of Abolition movements claim that they honestly and sincerely
believe that these measures tend to perpetuate slavery, or to bring it
to an end by servile wars, and civil disunion, and the most terrific
miseries--when they object to the use of their pulpits, to the embodying
of literary students, to the agitation of the community, by Abolition
agents--when they object to the circulation of such papers and tracts as
Abolitionists prepare, because they believe them most pernicious in
their influence and tendencies, is it not as much persecution to use
invidious insinuations, depreciating accusation and impeachment of
motive, in order to intimidate, as it is for the opposers of
Abolitionism to use physical force? Is not the only method by which the
South can be brought to relinquish slavery, a conviction that not only
her _duty_, but her highest _interest_, requires her to do it? And is
not _calm, rational Christian_ discussion the only proper method of
securing this end? Can a community that are thrown into such a state of
high exasperation as now exists at the South, ever engage in such
discussions, till the storm of excitement and passion is allayed? Ought
not every friend of liberty and of free discussion, to take every
possible means to soothe exasperated feelings, and to avoid all those
offensive peculiarities that in their nature tend to inflame and offend?