Abolition a Sedition, by a Northern Man

Abolition A Sedition.

By A Northern Man.

Philadelphia:

Geo. W. Donohue,

No. 22, South Fourth Street.

MDCCCXXXIX.

Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1839, by GEO. W. DONOHUE, in the Clerk’s Office of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

+---------------------------------------------+ | Transcriber’s Notes: | | | | 1. Obvious printer and typographical errors | | silently corrected. | | 2. Archaic and inconsistent spelling and | | punctuation retained. | +---------------------------------------------+

Contents.

CHAPTER I. The character of the Abolition organization

CHAPTER II. The American Anti-slavery Society a seditious organization

CHAPTER III. The seditious character of the Annual Report of the American Anti-slavery Society, of 1838

CHAPTER IV. The seditious character of the American Anti-slavery Society farther considered

CHAPTER V. Violent reforms, and their connexion with Abolitionism

CHAPTER VI. The Abolition organization borrowed from the religious world

CHAPTER VII. The anarchical principles of Abolitionism

CHAPTER VIII. The incendiary doctrines of Abolitionism

CHAPTER IX. Political responsibility in regard to slavery

CHAPTER X. The romance of Abolitionism

CHAPTER XI. Every man mind his own business

CHAPTER XII. Perfectionism

CHAPTER XIII. Liberty and Equality

CHAPTER XIV. Social and political effects of Abolitionism

CHAPTER XV. The bad effects of Abolitionism on the free colored population, and on the condition and prospects of the slaves

CHAPTER XVI. A hypothetical view of Abolitionism

CHAPTER XVII. Abolitionism considered as proposing no compensation for slave property

CHAPTER XVIII. The condition of American slaves as compared with other portions of the African race

CHAPTER XIX. The example of the Quakers, or Society of Friends

CHAPTER XX. The South have done with argument

CHAPTER XXI. Reasons why the Abolition movement, under its present organization, will overthrow the Government

CHAPTER XXII. The Abolition organization destructive of republican liberty

Preface.

We trust it will be obvious to all, that it was impossible to treat Abolitionism according to its merits, or to exhibit its true character, without regarding it as a RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT. There are two prominent features of the moral and religious history of our country, with which we have been compelled to come in contact. We, therefore, take this opportunity so far to explain, as to bar the accident of being misapprehended. First, then, we have averred the philosophical connexion of antecedent and consequence between _Abolitionism_ and _violent reforms_. It is proper, therefore, that we should state how much we are willing to be understood as meaning by this couplet of terms, having such a relation to the subject of this work. We say, then, that by _violent reforms_, we mean those religious and moral agitations of our country, which have proved alike unfriendly to religious and social order, which are generally disapproved by sober Christians, and we believe by the great majority of Christians, of all, or nearly all, denominations. It is possible, that on a single point we have hit hard a cherished opinion of many persons, for whom we have the greatest respect; but as it relates merely to a _mode_ of action, we must claim to be indulged in our own opinion in that matter, as we allow the same privilege to others.

In the next place, we have found it necessary, in the _exhibit_ we have made of the political machinery of the Abolition movement, to enquire into its origin; and it will be manifest to all, that it was brought from the religious world. The fact, that the model of the American Anti-slavery Society was borrowed from the Religious and Benevolent Society system, could not implicate those institutions, in the estimation of the public, unless they should see fit to follow the same example, and so far as they might do it, by going over from the religious and moral, into the political sphere; which, we trust, they will be wise enough not to do. It was necessary to describe the machinery of those Societies in order to give the true picture of the one under particular consideration; but we have taken care at the same time to state, that the American Anti-slavery Society has betrayed and violated the principles of the Religious and Benevolent Society system, by first assuming its model, and then passing over into the field of political action. That all these machineries are well adapted to political ends, whenever they may be perverted and applied in that direction, it is unnecessary to say; and the only way to escape the charge, is to avoid the fault. The Abolition Society has gone openly into that field, on which account we have considered it fair and exactly true to represent it as a _political organization_, and as being necessarily such from the work it has taken in hand.

Having, therefore, explained on these two points, we submit the work, without farther comment, to speak for itself.

_January 1, 1839._

Chapter I.

The Character Of The Abolition Organization.

There seems to have been a uniform impression among the great majority of the citizens of the United States, that the Abolition movement in this country is wrong, as it stands related to our political fabric; but the exact character and extent of this wrong have not been so well defined in the public mind, as to enable the people to see how a remedy can be applied to arrest and control the mischief that appears to be growing out of this agitation. Every reflecting person in the land sees and feels, that it threatens to break asunder the American Union; and few doubt, that such will be the result, if it is permitted to go on. We take for granted, that the almost unanimous voice of the whole country would concur in the opinion, that a violent dissolution of the American Republic would be the greatest calamity that could happen in this Western world. Can it be, then, that there is no Constitutional power to suppress an organization, the rise and course of which tend so directly and so inevitably to the disruption and demolition of the Federal Government? Certainly, it would be a great and notable defect in the political structure of the United States, if there were to be found in it no principle of conservation against such a danger, and if the people of this country were compelled to see an enemy start up among themselves, and march directly to the overthrow of the Government, without any power to resist. Doubtless, in a last resort, the Union is too dear to the American people generally to allow it to be sacrificed without an attempt to maintain it, even if there should prove to be no provision in the Constitution and laws. The necessity and importance of the case would create a law for the occasion. The people would feel, that they have a better right to defend the Union, than an enemy has to destroy it. But if the law of necessity be waited for, the scale of chances as to the final issue may have become doubtful--too doubtful and too portentous to be prudently staked on such a hazard; and the American Union might be lost forever.

If, however, it can be shown, that the Abolition movement is at war with the genius and letter of the National Constitution and of the Constitutions of the States respectively, and with that social compact which created the Union, and under which it has hitherto been maintained, then clearly there will be presented a Constitutional basis on which this movement can be opposed, and by which, if it shall become necessary, it can be suppressed. We propose an attempt to establish the position, that such _is_ the character of this movement, and consequently, that there is a remedial power against its action in the Constitution and laws of the land.

Before we proceed to an array of the law which applies to the case, it may be useful to inquire into the nature and character of the organization, under which the Abolition movement is carried on. As this machinery is so well known to the public, it will only be necessary to refer to such general facts as the Abolitionists themselves will not deny, however they may differ from us in the character and name ascribed to them as a whole.

We observe, then, that the American Anti-Slavery Society, under the authority and by the action of which, this movement is conducted, is a _grand and permanent political organization, self-elected, self-governed, independent, and irresponsible, having no connexion with the Government of the country, but yet usurping the appropriate business of that Government_.

It is an _organization_. This, certainly, will require no proof, as nobody will deny it. It is formed after the model of the Religious and Benevolent Society system, which has been in action for about thirty years past, and which, in the later parts of this period, has grown into considerable importance in the United States and in Great Britain. The social influence of this system has been much greater in this country than in the father land. But so long and so far as it was confined to religious and benevolent objects, the political authorities and feeling of the community seem to have taken little or no alarm. It was obvious, from experience and observation, that these organizations were armed with a wide spread, and many of them with an all pervading influence; and that they were admirably calculated to acquire power, and to bring to bear an efficient and energetic action on their specific objects. In their history and progress, as their exigencies have seemed to require, they have severally erected a sort of State machinery, with a Constitution as a general basis of polity; with the customary law-making, executive and judicial powers; with principal and under secretaries; with a fiscal department; and with numerous subsidiary agencies, according to the nature and extent of their operations. Some of these institutions are engaged in enterprises as wide as the globe, have numerous foreign establishments of no mean consideration, and foreign colonies have been erected and are governed by them. Nothing but a state machinery, with a corresponding polity, was adequate to the execution of such designs. And while they were confined to religious and benevolent operations, they had not excited the jealousy of the political world; at least, so far as we know, not to any considerable extent.

And it may be remarked--as we shall have occasion hereafter to notice more particularly--that the Abolition movement, under its present organization, originated in religious sentiment, and commenced as a benevolent enterprise. It was natural, therefore, in view of the success which had attended these other institutions, and of the great power and efficiency they had acquired over the public mind, to adopt the same model--the same sort of State machinery in the several departments of its organization. And thus, in the American Anti-Slavery Society, we have an independent and powerful Commonwealth, organized, like every other State, on the basis of a Constitution declarative of its great and fundamental principles, with a head, with a cabinet, with its various State departments and secretaries, with a productive and regular system of fiscal operations, with a polity of its own, with a vast republic of subsidiary combinations, multiplying rapidly, and each constantly increasing in numbers and influence, acquiring talent, wealth, and power on a large scale, creating and sending forth upon the public a world of literature of its own chosen character, in the various forms of books, periodicals, journals, tracts, and pictorial representations; and able, on the principle of such an organization, while unresisted by any opposing power, to extend and wield an influence, which, sooner or later, will dissolve the Union, and send the Government of this proud Republic, in broken fragments, to the winds of heaven.

And it is a _political_ organization. It is true, indeed, that when Abolition first broke out in New York, in 1834, the most prominent leaders there disclaimed all participation in political matters, as will appear from the following note, unless it is to be regarded as a _ruse de guerre_ for the occasion: “It has been our object to address the hearts and consciences of our fellow citizens, and to defend our principles by facts and arguments; to encourage the people of color to great circumspection of conduct and forbearance; _and to abstain from mingling the objects of our society with either of the political parties_.”

Signed, “Arthur Tappan, John Rankin, E. Wright, jr., Joshua Leavitt, W. Goodell, Lewis Tappan, Samuel E. Cornish.

New York, July 16th, 1834.”

The following _Circular_, from the Anti-slavery office in New York, issued for electioneering purposes, in the New York political campaign of 1838, would seem to show, that great advances have been made in regard to the political character of this society, since 1834:--

“Dear Sir,

“Enclosed you have a list of the publications of this society, to which you will please direct any of our _Whig_ friends, who may desire a knowledge of the _truth_. I am gratified that our Abolition friends are to be found on the _Whig side_, rather than the _Loco Focos_; for the cause of the country and of humanity ought to go together. _If we can_ RIVET _ourselves firmly on one of these parties, we can gain our object. Be careful._ I am yours, &c. per Arthur Tappan. B. LE ROY.” New York, Nov. 1, 1838.

This _Circular_ was addressed to P. W. Wesley, jr., and marked No. 126. How many _more_ were sent out, of course we do not know--it might be _hundreds_, or it might be _thousands_.

It is no more than fair, however, to observe, that Mr. Arthur Tappan has disclaimed having authorized Mr. Le Roy the use of his name in this instance; which, indeed, is of very little consequence, and in no way affects the object we have in view by these references. Whether the gentlemen, who signed the note of July 16, 1834, were really so blind as not to see the _necessary_ connexion of their cause with politics, we cannot pretend to say. If they _did_ see it, their disclaimer, to say the least, was unbecoming. As men of common discernment, they _ought_ to have known as well then as now, that they could do nothing in this business, in the way they propose, without affecting the politics of the country; and that the movement _in toto_, from beginning to end, is political in its character and bearings. Certainly, since that time, the Abolitionists have better learned the position which they occupy. What shall we say? That their early disclaimer was a cloak to conceal their designs? We would rather suppose, that they did not know what they were about. Would, that we could say, they are equally ignorant now, that thereby they might be proved more innocent. Evidently, the disguise, if disguise it was, is thrown aside. By their own public avowals and acts, official and other, they are now fairly and openly in the political field. The following resolution was passed at the Annual meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society, at New York, May, 1838: “_Resolved_, that we deprecate the organization of any Abolition political party; but that we recommend to Abolitionists throughout the country, to interrogate candidates for office, with reference to their opinions on subjects connected with the abolition of slavery; and to vote, irrespective of party, for those only who will advocate the principles of universal liberty.”

Three of the Corresponding Secretaries of this Society, James G. Birney, E. Wright, jr., and Henry B. Stanton, issued a circular from the office at New York, in July 1838, to Agents in the country, quoting the above resolution, and remarking, that “resolutions embodying the same idea have been passed by the New England Anti-Slavery Convention, and we believe, by nearly all, if not all, the State Anti-Slavery Societies;” and that “they think the time has come, when the friends of the slave, throughout the free States, should act fully up to the letter and the spirit of these resolutions. We hope, therefore, you will, without delay, confer with Abolitionists in your region on the subject, by correspondence, by holding meetings, and in such other ways as may be deemed expedient, and take prompt and efficient measures, _to secure the election of such candidates for the National and State Legislatures_, as the friends of the slave can cheerfully support. By order of the Executive Committee.”

The following is an extract from a letter written by Mr. Stanton, one of the Secretaries who signed the above Circular, showing how well he himself had been engaged in these duties: “From Lockport I returned to Utica. By request I delivered an address in the Bleeker street Church, the evening of the 10th inst. _on the political duties of the 40,000 Abolition voters in this State_, (New York) _with reference to the fall elections_.”

The following are extracts from the public, well considered, authoritative and solemn document of the Annual Report of the American Anti-Slavery Society for 1838:--“It is often said, that religion has nothing to do with our republican politics; and hence it is inferred, that a cause which is based upon and inseparable from religion, should not presume to meddle with political affairs. But to make the proposition true, we must read instead of _religion, sectarianism_.... The religious principles of Abolitionism have nothing to do with _sects_.... They are but the thoughts and opinions of all who truly love God.... Abolitionism _must_ have much to do with politics.... Abolitionists have resolved, _from the first_, to act upon slavery _politically_.... During the year this principle has produced the happiest results. The candidates of the opposing parties have been questioned, and their answers published; and in cases too numerous to mention, the election has resulted in favour of those who most decidedly pledged themselves to Anti-Slavery measures.”

The _religious_ character of Abolitionism, as here confessed, will be considered in a subsequent place. We do not dissent from the suggestion conveyed, that religion has its political _rights_, under the Constitution, as much as any other interest, feeling, or principle; but we do not see the force of the distinction drawn between _religion_ and _sectarianism_ for this particular purpose; although the distinction is in fact obvious. Are not Abolitionists a _sect_, and as strongly marked as any that can be named? They fall, therefore, under the ban of their own rule. But, although religion has its political _rights_, not excepting even _sectarianism_--and we have yet to learn that there is any religion in the country, which is not sectarian, both in its principles and modes of operation, not only in relation to other religious bodies, but to Christianity itself, the catholic standard--it must yet be very careful not to usurp political _powers_ in this country--not to have _too much_ “to do with our republican politics.” “Abolitionism _must_ have much to do with politics.” The word “must,” is italicised in the Report, and _may_, therefore, be taken as intended to be emphatically significant. We agree with them perfectly. But, that “Abolitionists have resolved, _from the first_, to act upon slavery _politically_,” is a matter which they must settle among themselves, inasmuch as when they _first set out_, they disclaimed it, as would appear from the note of July 16th, 1834, above introduced.

Our object in these quotations, is not to inform the public generally in regard to facts of this kind, as they are sufficiently well known--but merely to throw out a few tangible materials, connected with volumes of the same class, which might easily be collected, for the purpose of justifying in our pages the conclusions we deduce from them. We will trouble our readers with but one more which is from a _clerical_ Agent of the Society in the western part of New York, dated Aurora, Oct. 8, 1838. It is a letter to a fellow laborer in Chetauque County.

“Dear Sir,

“I have just had assigned to me, by the Executive Committee of the New York State Anti-Slavery Society, as my field of labor for several months to come, Niagara, Erie, Chetauque, and Cataraugus Counties. The first object to which I am bending all my energies, is the holding of County meetings _before the coming election, with a view especially of preparing and exciting Abolitionists to carry their principles to the polls, and wield all their_ POLITICAL, _as well as moral and religious power_ for the redemption, &c. ... Can you not create a _tremendous reaction_ at this time, &c.? ... The only way in which we can move the proslavery and dough-faced politicians, is by showing them our _political strength_, &c.... Now, will you call together your Executive Committee, and fix on a time and place for a Convention? Let me know immediately, and write letters all over the County,--_have notices given out in the_ CHURCHES, &c. ... and have town Abolition Meetings held before the County Convention. “Yours for the crushed slave, “T. M. BLAKESLEY.”

These extracts may serve to indicate the zeal and activity of the Secretaries and numerous Agents of this society, _clerical_ and other, previous to the New York elections, and the modes adopted to secure their ends. The interrogation of “candidates for the National and State Legislatures,” and for other civil and political stations, as resolved upon and recommended by the parent Society, has been scrupulously carried out. The correspondence between Messrs. Seward and Bradish on the one side, and the official organs of the Society on the other, while these two gentlemen stood before the people of the State of New York as candidates, the first for Governor, and the second for Lieutenant Governor, has been laid before the public--all tending to the same point. Not being exactly satisfied with the result of the election in New York, so far as it demonstrated the influence of the Anti-Slavery Society, it has been suggested by Gerritt Smith, Esq., who seems to be a sort of Dictator General in these matters, that the Abolition societies should undergo a new organization, with a view to the expurgation of the baser and unsound materials, by requiring the despotic test of binding the conscience in the use of the elective franchise. How this will go down, we are unable to say; though it seems to us to be carrying matters with a high hand. Doubtless, the business, in one form or another, will go ahead, in despite of the imprudence of individuals, until the people of this country can be made to see the real character and tendency of the movement. Suffice it to say, as is sufficiently evident, that the American Anti-Slavery Society is now a _grand political organization_, aiming, by the use of political agencies and powers, at a radical and great change in the American political fabric. We shall yet have occasion to show, that this change, urged in this mode and under present circumstances, unless the movement can be checked and suppressed, must necessarily and inevitably dissolve the Union, and consequently overthrow the Government, as it now exists. But our immediate object is to establish the proposition, as stated in _Italics_ on page 3, in order to prepare the way for the application of those principles of American Constitutional law, which will prove this Society to be a _seditious organization_.

The most essential point of the proposition now under consideration, is the fact, that the American Anti-Slavery Society is a _political_ organization. That, we think, may be regarded as already established; but it may still be fortified by the consideration, that it is _necessarily_ so from the object it has in view, apart from the position it has assumed before the public by its own avowals and measures, and by the agencies it has taken in hand. Slavery, as is well known, and as will hereafter be made apparent by the introduction of authorities, is a corporate part of the American political fabric, established by Constitutional law, and interwoven with the frame of the Federal Government. It is not only a thoroughly pervading element, and main pillar of political society in the slave-holding States, but it is made a part of the supreme law of the land in the Federal Constitution. It is impossible, therefore, from the nature of the case, to institute any action, private or public, individual or combined, in any form, or by any agency, to abolish or eradicate slavery from American society, which will not be of a political character. Consequently, the Abolition movement, which, as before remarked, originated in religious sentiment, which was prompted and is still sustained principally by religious men, and which borrowed the model of its organization from the action of the religious world, by instituting an exact copy, the moment it entered the field, was transformed into a political body from the very nature of the work it had undertaken, notwithstanding it was, and still is, actuated by religious sentiment. It is nevertheless political, and it is all the more dangerous, because religion is in it--not Christianity. We shall by and by attempt to show the difference between Christianity and that religion, which lies at the bottom, and is the instigator, of this movement. We have seen, that, in the first setting out, the leaders professed to disclaim political alliance; but, allowing they were sincere in that disclaimer, they soon discovered it was a false step. Throwing aside all disguise, they have now gone _the whole_ for political action. At first, they were timid, perhaps--did not know their strength, which might be a reason for not coming out under their own flag. But, _crescit eundo_--the cause soon obtained sympathy, and found way to importance; and behold! it dares to face the Government of the country in open conflict, and to erect its batteries against that Constitutional fabric, which has hitherto been so dear to American citizens.

We have stated, that this political organization is _permanent_. The meaning under which we propose to sustain the application of this epithet in this case, refers, by contradistinction, to a mode of popular political action, which, we conceive, is authorised by the Constitutional law of the land, and which proves equally, that a _permanent_ organization of this kind is unauthorised and prohibited. For the present we simply state, what we suppose will not be contradicted, that the American Anti-Slavery Society is a _permanent_ body, in distinction from those popular assemblages or conventions, which are customarily held in this country for political purposes, under the specific sanction of the Constitution and laws, which exist only for the time being, which do not presume to arm themselves with a distinct and separate polity, or to set up an imperium in imperio, independent and irresponsible.

We have stated also, that it is a _grand_ political organization. This term is of no farther importance than simply to indicate, what is very well known, that this Society is great and powerful. It claims to wield 40,000 of the political votes of the State of New York. Whether this be over or under the true estimate, we take it from themselves; and it is probably fair to conclude, that they are equally strong in most of the other free States. Admitting that they have one-half, or even one-fourth, of this power, it is enough to justify the application of this term. It is a _grand_ organization also, in consideration of its vast and complicated machinery, of the variety and extent of its operations, and of its means of influence. In 1838, this Society reports 1350 auxiliaries, of which 12 were State Societies, now 13, and 340 of these organized in the course of the previous year; 38 travelling Agents, so constantly engaged, as to have performed jointly 27 years’ labour in one; 75 local lecturers, circulating in adjacent towns, as far as convenient; money raised in the course of the year, $40,000, being $5,000 in excess of the previous year, notwithstanding the pecuniary embarrassments of the community; the issues of the press, 187,316 copies of Human Rights, 193,800 of the Emancipator, 42,100 Circulars and Prints, 12,054 bound volumes, 72,732 Tracts and Pamphlets, 97,600 of the Slaves’ Friend, and 40,000 of the Anti-Slavery Record. Total: 646,502.

This society, therefore, is a _grand_, and in its moral and political influence, a stupendous machinery.

And it is _self-erected_, _self-governed_, _independent_, and _irresponsible_. The truth of these statements, we think, is self-evident in all that we intend, or desire to be understood, by them. The first, certainly, is true. For what authority, independent of its component parts, suggested, or sanctioned it? And the second is equally true. For, where is the power, out of itself, that dictates, or controls, its proceedings? The third and fourth are also true. For what authority will they acknowledge, as competent to call them to account? They are, indeed, responsible to public opinion; but the relation we intend to express, is responsibility to some constituted authority; and in this view our proposition is sustained, so far as their designs are concerned. We presume they do not recognize the right of any known authority to call them to account. We think it fair, therefore, to represent this Society as _self-erected_, _self-governed_, _independent_, and _irresponsible_. So far as our individual opinion is concerned, we do indeed believe and hold, that they are responsible to an authority that is competent to act upon them, when a sense of public duty may require it, and that it is sufferance only that screens the action of this Society from uncomfortable rebuke. But we mean only to assert in our proposition, what we suppose is true: that they do not _hold_ themselves responsible; that there is no constituted, or official, connexion between them and a superior power; and that they consider themselves entitled to carry on the operations in which they are engaged, under their present organization, without check, control, or interference of any authority.

Moreover, _there is no such connexion between them and the Government of the country_, as is prescribed by constitutional law to popular assemblages, or associations, for political purposes. There is, indeed, no connexion at all. The government is not even advised of the existence of this society by its own official acts; at least we have never heard of it.

And yet further--which is the last point of our proposition--this society _has usurped the appropriate business of the Government_. They have formally and solemnly declared, in various forms, so far as their authority goes, that slavery is wrong by a higher and more imperative law than that of the country, and set themselves directly to do it away, by all the means they can employ, in the application of a stupendous machinery of their own creation, and under their own independent control. The elective franchise is only one means, and as yet by far the least efficient. Without any balance of influence to oppose and counteract the effect of their proceedings on the public mind, they have been enabled, by the advantages and power of their organization, to agitate the whole country, to throw the South into a state of consternation, and to menace the overthrow of the Government. No one doubts--and therefore we think we are justified in saying--that, had it not been for the necessary posture of self-defence, assumed by the slave-holding States, the Agents of this Society, without waiting for the action of Government, would have carried their incendiary measures directly into the South, and raised a servile insurrection and civil war. It is true, indeed, that this Society have commenced working hard at the polls, as a means of accomplishing their end, and so far have recognized the principle, that Government is to be consulted. But all their other operations, which comprehend the principal sum of their labors, have been of a character which would seem to imply, that the removal of slavery was their business. They have never entered on that course of action for a change in the political fabric of the country, which Constitutional law prescribes, by acting on the Government, the only legitimate organ. They have not even approached the Government, nor recognised either its existence or authority for such a purpose. We speak of the action of the Society _as such_, and not of the action of its individual members in their capacity as citizens. If citizens, desiring such an object, are required to address the Government, instead of seeking to undermine the Constitution and laws, by indirect and independent operations; and if this rule has been wisely enacted for the public peace and safety, much more is it incumbent on a powerful combination, in undertaking to change the laws of the country--if it be lawful for such a combination to be formed--to advise the Government of their wishes and proceedings. Just in proportion as they are more influential and more powerful than individuals, by virtue of association, is it more incumbent on them, and more important, to consult the regular and constituted authorities.

But what has been the fact in regard to the operations of the American Anti-slavery Society? Simply, that they have gone to this work just as if it were their own proper business--as if there were no government in the land. They have never addressed the Government; they have never consulted it; they have never asked leave to be, to act, or to enter this field; but have erected a republic of their own, with a State machinery, and set themselves to change the government of the country, as if it devolved upon them by original and indefeasible right. In a word, they have taken in hand, by a virtual usurpation, the most delicate, and the most disturbing political question, which could possibly be agitated--a question, which, by the Constitutional frame of our Government, belongs properly and only to the States where slavery exists, and which, for that reason, the General Government itself can never meddle with, without the consent of those States. Clearly, the National Government is the only channel through which the subject can be lawfully approached from the free States; by the Federal compact the National Government is the public guardian of slavery; and consequently, when ever its abolition is attempted under the jurisdiction of the United States, independent of the action of the General Government, and without the consent of the slave States, it is a direct invasion of chartered rights, and a usurpation.

We have now done with the proposition laid down for the argument of this chapter, and will only repeat it in form for the consideration of the reader: _That the American Anti-slavery Society is a grand and permanent political organization, self-erected, self-governed, independent, and irresponsible, having no connexion with the Government of the country, but yet usurping the appropriate business of that government._

Chapter II.

The American Anti-Slavery Society A Seditious Organization.

We have shown, in the previous chapter, that the American Anti-slavery society is a _permanent political organization_, attempting to effect a change in the government of the country, by its own independent, and we may add, sovereign, operations. We now propose to show, that such an organization, under such independent and irresponsible action, is unconstitutional and illegal, and consequently seditious. Even if there were no law in the case, we suppose the sovereignty of a nation, in other words, of the majority of the people, in a government constituted like ours, is competent to interpose their authority to prevent the damage of the Republic in an unforeseen exigency. So far as Constitutional law is provided, it is the rule; but where it is wanting, necessity becomes law, to be used in the best discretion of the constituted authorities, in all emergencies in which the safety of the public may demand such a resort. This is the original and undisputed right of that sovereignty, which is always supposed to be vested in a national and independent government. It is of the nature of original legislation for a supposed occasion. It is the use of a right, and a violation of no law, inasmuch as no law exists that is applicable to the case.

But, fortunately, and to bar all controversy, there _is_ a law provided for the case now under consideration. It is well known--it is written in the characters of blood on the pages of our history--that our fathers fought and died to secure the right of the people to a representation in the Government, and to be heard by the government, whenever they feel the pressure of an evil demanding the interposition and action of the public authorities, before a remedy can be applied, in the usual forms of legislation, as the result of the use of the elective franchise. But it is not to be forgotten, that the most desirable, the most quiet, and the most salutary action of Government, is the regular and uniform routine of its legislative, executive, and judicial functions, as constituted for general purposes. But the experience of history proves, that public exigencies may arise, when the action of Government may be required out of the usual course; or when the measures of a Government may operate so uncomfortably and oppressively on the people, as to furnish occasion for an expression of their will, before it can be conveyed through the channel of the elective franchise. The Constitutional law of our country, both of the Federal Government and of the States, has provided for these occasions; and in that particular afforded an eminent advantage over that despotic sway of absolute monarchies, which rebukes and suppresses the expressions and interferences of the popular will. The most valuable right of our free institutions is the choice of our own rulers. Next to that, is the right of instructing them in a knowledge of what the people desire. For the conveyance of this will two Constitutional channels have been opened; one in the elective franchise, and the other by the right of petition and remonstrance. The use of both these rights is always supposed to have a direct and immediate connexion with the Government: the first appoints the Government, and the second instructs it. And there rights are found to be sufficient, because, if a Government refuses to respect the popular will, fairly expressed and well ascertained, the people have their remedy in the franchise. They can appoint such rulers as will do their pleasure. Hence there is never a necessity, and there can be no apology, for the dangerous resort to permanent political combinations, acting under an organized polity, independent of the Government of the country, having designs upon that Government, either to control its counsels, or to affect a change in its structure. But such precisely, as will be seen, is the American Anti-slavery Society.

Moreover, it is inconsistent with the _genius_ of a Constitutional government, that such an organization should be permitted to arise in its bosom, and make war upon it by original, usurped, and independent functions. The Constitution of a nation knows no rival, admits of none, within its own jurisdiction. It would be the same as to sanction sedition and treason; it would be forging the weapons of its own destruction, and turning a suicidal hand upon itself. The empire claimed, and designed to be maintained, by a Constitutional government, like that of the United States, is _sole_. It cannot, without peril to itself, admit a rival political and independent power on the same territory. But such is the American Anti-slavery Society. It is an independent Commonwealth, a republic _within_ the Republic, a State, having all the machinery of a State which its exigencies require, and is perpetually adding to that machinery, without limit, and without control. It has already proved sufficiently powerful to disturb the peace of the country, to endanger the lives of its citizens, and to threaten a dissolution of the Union; and who can say, that it will not revolutionise the government, and introduce anarchy and desolation? Such is the prospect, and such are the most sober convictions of discerning and far seeing minds, if it is permitted to go on.

But let us look to the law which applies to the case. The Constitution of the United States, and in accordance with that, the Constitutions of the several States, in the same manner, and in like terms, have provided a safety valve for the discontents and fermentations of the popular mind, under real or supposed grievances, or under any occasions of dissatisfaction, by guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press, the right of popular assemblies to declare and express the public will, and the right of petition and remonstrance addressed to the Government. The Constitution of the United States, on this point, reads thus: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania has it thus: “The printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the Legislature, or any branch of Government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and feelings is one of the invaluable rights of man; and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.... The citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address, or remonstrance.”

We have selected the Constitution of Pennsylvania for what it says on this point, as it is more full than any other, and contains the substance of all. We believe, that this extract, in connexion with that from the National Constitution, comprehends the whole of the Constitutional law of the country on the subject, and that is a fair expression of the public mind--of the political creed of the citizens of the United States, in regard to the particulars here represented.

We observe, then, that certain _specific_ modes of combined popular action for political purposes, are here licensed. Of course, we suppose it is fairly to be inferred, that the framers of these Constitutional laws did not intend to license _all_ and _any_ modes _whatever_ of popular action for public purposes. Such an assumption would be preposterous and absurd. It would be tantamount to the setting aside of all authority, and the dissolution of _one_ all government. On the contrary, the declaration, that _these_ modes are lawful, is an implied and virtual declaration, that _other_ modes are unlawful. We think there can be no mistake, and we trust, no difference of opinion, on this point. Because, if other mode be lawful, then _any_ and _all_ others are, and the rule falls to the ground--is good for nothing; it is, in that case, a mere mockery of legislation, and the community is left without law, and without government, in this particular.

Moreover, a consideration of the _occasion_ of this law goes to settle the question of its meaning and limitation: It was the common and known prohibition of these rights, under absolute and despotic governments, and more particularly under the Colonial administration of British law in America, that suggested these declarations of rights in the establishment of our independence, and which caused them to be adopted as parts of Constitutional and fundamental law. These rights were deemed sufficient, and they have always proved satisfactory. They have also been held very sacred. The people of this country would shed their most precious blood, before they would surrender them. It was an invaluable acquisition to liberty. And as this law is deemed sufficient, and has proved so by experience, we suppose it will be allowed to be equally important, that it should not be _transcended_, as that it should be _maintained_; and that a licentious _extension_ thereof is as criminal as an _abridgement_. It has every thing in it that a people can ask, who are free to choose their own legislators and magistrates. If the views of the public press, and the petitions and remonstrances of the people, carried forward to the Government, when they may see occasion for it, are not respected, the people know their remedy, and can effectually apply it at the polls. They have liberty of speech and of the press, the right of popular assemblages for the discussion of public interests and measures, and the right of petition, address, and remonstrance, guarantied to them; and to crown the whole, they are themselves the source of all law and government, always subjected to the will of the majority, in a Constitutional mode of action.

Now we ask, where is the license in the Constitutional law of this land for such a political machinery as the American Anti-Slavery Society? It cannot be found. Individuals are free to speak, write, and publish, what they please, on slavery, or any other subject--_they being responsible for the abuse of that liberty_. The people may assemble, _in a peaceable manner_, and discuss any subject that may be agreeable to them; they may pass any resolutions they may see fit, as an expression of their opinions or wishes; but the _only constitutional and lawful mode_ of popular action for political purposes, designed to influence the measures of the Government, or to effect any change in the laws, apart from the use of the elective franchise, is for the people to connect themselves with the proper authorities, by petition, or address, or remonstrance, unless they see reasons for abandoning their purpose. There is no license for a _permanent_ political organization, to act independently of the constituted authorities of the land; nor to act _with_ them. Government requires no such auxilliary; much less can it tolerate an _opponent_ of such a character. The Government is the _only_ permanent, political organization, which the Constitution recognises.

We are inclined to believe, that these statements will commend themselves to the common sense of all intelligent persons, and that this position will be admitted as indisputable. What! an independent political body _within_ the State, acting under a polity of its own, plotting and carrying on designs _against_ the State, and claiming the State’s protection, while it is enacting treason, if it chooses so to do! What an anomaly! Who ever dreamt that such a thing were possible? Who would think that it could be advocated and defended--maintained as a right? And yet, what else, and what less, is the American Anti-Slavery Society?

The wisdom of the Constitution, or Constitutions--for those of the States, and that of the nation, embody the same identical principles--in licensing such modes of political action as have been quoted, and in prohibiting all others, is obvious. If any association, or associations, of individuals, were at liberty to set up an independent political machinery, to be extended without limit, and to be managed without control or responsibility, there would be no safety for the constituted authorities of the States and Nation. They would be liable, at any time, to be undermined and overthrown by agencies under their own eyes. There is equal wisdom in prohibiting such combinations altogether; for there is no demand, there _can_ be no lawful occasion, for them in such a government as ours, where the people can always move, without let or hinderance, directly, towards the objects they desire, or which the majority desire, under the prescribed forms of the Constitution and laws. If it were allowable for the people to depart from these forms in one instance, they might do it in another; if in one degree, they might extend it at their own option; and there would be no end to it. Sedition and treason, in that case, would be authorised by law. But, most happily, the Constitutional law of this land has been minutely scrupulous in prohibiting all permanent political organizations, which are not created by itself, as parts of one great political fabric, asserting _sole_ empire over its own jurisdiction. We say, in _prohibiting_ them, as we have before shown, that the license given is equally a law of prohibition for all that is not licensed.

This wisdom is moreover apparent from the consideration, that by adhering to these forms, there is always a balance of influence against any attempts to injure, or impair, or overthrow the Government, Constitution, and laws of the land, or to surprise the public by the advantages acquired by political combinations of a permanent and organized character. The freedom of speech guaranteed to one citizen, is guaranteed to all. Hence, the private influence of one man on one side, is balanced by that of another on the other side, of the same question; and between the two, the chances are in favour of the right. The same remark applies to the influence of the press: there is always a balance of power, operating on the public, so long as the forms of the Constitution are observed. In the same manner, popular assemblies of one party and the other, so long as they keep within the Constitutional license, neutralize each other, in all their inordinate excesses, and afford a chance for the right to prevail. Whenever a petition, or address, or remonstrance is preferred to Government, in regard to which there is a difference of opinion, its undue influence will be counteracted by another. And so a salutary balance of power is maintained in all the Constitutional modes of political action.

But the moment the Constitutional license is transcended, as in the case of the American Anti-Slavery Society, this healthful balance of power is lost. Such an unconstitutional organization steals a march upon the public, and by the amazing power of its vast political machinery, assails the Constitution and laws of the country, with no rival influence to counteract it. While the rest of the people keep _within_ the laws, this combination has _transcended_ them, and occupies the field of its usurpation alone. There is no balance of influence any where, that can lawfully be employed, except in the strong arm of authority. The public, the Government, the world, have been taken by surprise. Here is an immense and powerful combination, that has suddenly leaped from the sphere of the religious world, brought with it a machinery which was manufactured in that sphere, seized upon affairs of State, usurped the business of State, and neither the public, nor the Government, seem yet to know which end, or how, head or tail, to take hold of the monster. It comes in shapes unknown, unrecognized before, and has pounced upon the political fabric of the nation, with an apparent determination to rend it asunder, and tear it down before the eyes of the world. Like as Satan, when he came with errand fatal to our race, from out Hell’s regions, and approached the gates that opened from that dark abyss, encountered and addressed his monster child, so the Government, not less amazed, seems also to say to this unexpected Apparition:

“Whence, and what art thou, execrable shape, That durst, though grim and terrible, advance Thy miscreated front athwart my way?”

But, we fear, that a like truce will not be made between these parties. Like as “SIN” gave her own history to her Father, so the world may yet be favoured with a philosophical account of this other monster, a part of which, peradventure, shall be found in these pages.

It is the perfectly anomalous character and position of the American Anti-Slavery Society, that has so embarrassed and overwhelmed the public mind, produced such a vast excitement, and frightened half the nation. Armed with a machinery hitherto unknown in the political world, it has broken through the bounds of law and the restraints of the Constitution, opened its artillery on both these departments of our political fabric, and so astounded the public, that few have yet learned how this audacious assault has been planned and executed, or what is the character of the enemy to be encountered. It is because, in this political crusade, the actors have thoroughly transcended the prescribed limits of Constitutional action, and entered a field untrodden before, in an unknown shape, that the public know not where to find them, or how to meet and take hold of them. The battle, hitherto, has been all their own; and it cannot be denied, that they have done execution, and stand responsible for infinite mischief. Neither is it any less certain, in our opinion, that, with all the advantage and power of their organization, if it should be recognized as lawful, and permitted by the public authorities of our country to go on, without check or control, they will revolutionize the Government, and divide the Union. All beyond this is uncertain, and fearfully so.

Suppose the Abolitionists had kept within the bounds of law, and contented themselves with that freedom of speech and of the press, with such public discussions, and with such petitions, addresses, and remonstrances to Government, as the Constitution authorises; suppose they had been as mild and Christian-like in their action on this subject, as the Quakers; their influence would then have distilled like the dew, fallen like the rain, and cheered the heart like the sun. In such a case, the subject could still have been discussed with reason and temperance, throughout the wide community, not excepting even the South; the South would not have been alarmed; the free colored population would not have been, as now, filled with all bitterness and malice; the amelioration of the condition of slaves would have continued and increased, as before, instead of that augmented rigour of discipline and surveillance to which the South has been compelled by these violent measures; the country would have remained in peace, and the whole subject would still have been open to free and candid discussion every where, and with every body. Whereas, the erection of this unconstitutional machinery, and the spirit with which it has been swayed, has put the whole Republic out of temper, and out of joint; has made pro-slavery men of one party, and fanatics of another; has unfitted the colored population, free and bond, for the culture of benevolence; has rivetted the chains of slavery with tenfold power, blighted the prospects, and thrown forward the period, of ultimate emancipation, for a time which baffles prophecy, unless, peradventure--which God forbid--this movement shall prevail to break down the Government, and let loose the spirit of fiends to desolate the land. The strife henceforth will be, not that of benevolence for the good of the slave--for the Abolitionists themselves are his most dangerous foes--but it will be between this organized sedition and the Government of the country--between the Constitution and a grand political faction. And all this as the consequence of departing from the wholesome regulations of law, of setting up a romantic sympathy as a substitute for true benevolence, and fanaticism for Christianity.

In view of the argument of this chapter, we trust we shall stand justified with all reasonable minds, for the heading we have placed over it, and for the title of the book. It has been from a conscientious conviction of the seditious character of the American Anti-slavery Society, that we have sat down to this task. The public generally have felt, that this association was warring against the supreme law of the land; but nobody has taken pains to set forth the argument by which it is proved. Every body has seen, that the tranquillity of the country has been disturbed, and a dissolution of the Union threatened, by the action of this Society; but the more common impression has been, that it is rather the result of rashness and imprudence, than the effect of an unlawful political combination. The popular disgust and indignation, with which some of the more outrageous proceedings of Abolitionists have been received, have arisen from a vague and undefined notion, that they were wrong--and wrong in relation to the Constitution and laws of the land; but, we think, that the true position, and proper political character of this Society, as being seditious, has not generally been perceived. If, indeed, we are right in the views here presented, we hope they may be the means of enlightening the public. Abolitionists themselves, especially the most active and determined, we have little hope of benefitting; else, we might have studied more to humour their prejudices, and gain them over to reason. We have rather been convinced, that the greatness and danger of the error demand a somewhat decided and vigorous treatment. We have observed with pain, that the people of the South are getting more and more into the feeling and conviction, that a dissolution of the Union will be necessary for their own protection. In so far, therefore, as the people of the North would deprecate such a result, it is most desirable, that they should thoroughly understand the position and character of the Abolition organization, in order that they may be prepared to appreciate and treat it according to its merits. If, indeed, it is a sedition, and can be clearly proved to be such, to the satisfaction of the public, can it be supposed, that it would continue to have the same moral power, even with its own advocates? Will not many of them shrink from the thought of being traitors to their country; and more especially when they shall have occasion to see, as by this time they ought to see, that, in such a course, they are rivetting, instead of breaking, the chains of slavery, unless they succeed in plunging the nation into a civil war, which ought to be still more revolting to their feelings? How much more should such a conviction arm that portion of the Northern public, who have never fallen into this delusion, with zeal and determination to vindicate the honor of their country, and maintain its laws, not, indeed, by a persecution of those who have been led astray, but by showing, in all suitable ways, their unyielding attachment to the Constitution and Government, in its unavoidable struggle against such an unlawful combination, and by convincing the people of the South, that there is a sympathy in the North, that will not abandon them in the trying and perilous condition, into which they have been thrown by this seditious movement?

And would we advise an authoritative suppression of this sedition? We say not, that we would. Ours is a Government of forbearance, because it is the Government of the people. As we have reason to suppose, that the public generally have not even yet discovered the true position of the Anti-slavery Society, in relation to the Constitution, much less can we presume to say, that the members of that Society, as a body, have ever imagined, that they were involved in the responsibility of seditious action against the Government of their country. We charitably believe, that for the most part, their benevolent sympathies have been worked upon by the exaggerated statements and high colored pictures of more artful, of ambitious, and less innocent men; and that, when left to choose between sedition and the Union, they will unhesitatingly prefer the latter, even though the former, if it had been a lawful enterprise, might still seem to them a worthy and desirable object. But, if the extremity must unavoidably come, to dissolve the Union and the Government, or encounter this movement by the strong arm of authority, with our present views of its seditious character, we cannot entertain a doubt, on which side it would be our duty to engage. Nevertheless, our confidence in the good sense of the people, leads us to hope for better things.

Chapter III.

THE SEDITIOUS CHARACTER OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY OF 1838.

If the showing already made, in regard to the seditious _organization_ of the American Anti-slavery Society, be a fair one, its action as such becomes a conspiracy in the Republic, so far as it militates against its political fabric. It is no more than fair to notice, that in the first article of the Constitution of this Society, it is assumed, that “slavery is contrary to the principles of _our_ republican form of government.” This is a very material point, vital, fundamental, so far as it relates to the question now in hand. The truth of this assumption would justify the _cause_, in which this Society are engaged, so long as it should be sustained in a Constitutional way; though it cannot justify an independent political organization in the Republic for such an object. We have already pointed out, as we trust clearly, the only Constitutional modes of political action for reform, or any other purposes, under the Government; and shown that this Society is unconstitutional. The truth of this assumption, therefore, would not justify its mode of action, and it would still be open to the charge of sedition. But, let us see, whether this assumption be true.

“Slavery is contrary to the principles of _our_ republican form of government.” If they mean to say, it is contrary to the principles of the free States, as recognised and established for their own separate jurisdictions, it is true. But it was quite unnecessary to say it, as all the world knew it before. If they mean to say it is contrary to the principles of a republican form of government in the _abstract_, as a _theory_, it may be true, or it may be false, and depends entirely upon the character of the theory that is set up. This is a question, which cannot easily be settled, because it is a matter of _opinion_, not of _fact_. The people of the South would be on one side, and those of the North on the other; and we ourself, be it known, should be on the side of the North. If the question be as to the _common_ opinion, prevalent among mankind, of the principles of a republican form of government, this Society is doubtless right on _that_ ground. But we apprehend, indeed we know, and every body knows, that it is not a question of opinion, but of fact, that is involved in this assumption. Did the Society mean to say, that “slavery is contrary to the principles” of the Slave-holding States? Manifestly not. What, then, did they mean? Contrary to the principles of the Government of the United States, undoubtedly. “Slavery is contrary to the principles of _our_ Republican form of Government.” We say, then, that as a _fact_, this is _false_; and we need travel no further to prove it, than from the Preamble of the Constitution of this Society, in which this assertion is made, to the second Article, where we find this clause: “While it (the Society) admits, that each State, in which slavery exists, has the _exclusive_ right, _by the Constitution of the United States_, to legislate in regard to its Abolition in said State,” &c. As this is a candid recognition of that part, and of those “_principles_ of _our_ Republican form of Government,” which we shall have occasion in another place to introduce in form, it is superfluous to quote the passages here, inasmuch as this Society, by its own confession, has done the work _for_ us, and _against_ itself. It is a simple question of _fact_; and that fact recognized, in express terms, by the Society, in the second article of its own Constitution, the assumption of the Preamble, in regard to this point, is proved to be _false_. Slavery, therefore, is _not_ contrary to the principles of _our_ Republican form of Government; and the Constitution of the United States, (Art. II. Sec. 2d. Clause 3d.) which we shall hereafter consider, recognises the _validity_ of property in the Slave, and engages to defend it throughout the Union; and it is well known, that, by the force of this law, runaway Slaves are habitually recovered. It will be understood, that we are not discussing the propriety of this law, but the fact. It is a “_principle_ of _our_ Republican form of Government;” and as would seem, a potent and paramount one.

All the other principles of the American Anti-Slavery Society will avail nothing, _politically considered_, so long as they are false in this. They have hazarded their whole cause, in an open and seditious conflict with the Government of the United States, _on a false assumption as to fact_!

We shall now proceed to a consideration of the seditious character of the ANNUAL REPORT of this Society, of 1838. This Society must now be viewed, as we have proved it to be, in the light of a grand and independent political organization, set up in the Republic, and at war with it--as an unconstitutional and self-erected corporation. Any political action it may assume, therefore, whether _for_ or _against_ the Republic, is unconstitutional. The Government wants not its help--certainly it has never asked for it--much less can it tolerate a conspiracy. What may be lawful for a private citizen to do, is unlawful for this Society as a political organization of its specific character. What may be lawful for popular assemblies, or associations, acting in the modes prescribed by the Constitution, for political ends, of whatever nature, is unlawful for this Society, because it is a body unknown to the Constitution and laws of the land. It is a State _within_ the State, that has asked no leave to be, that is prohibited by law, acting under a State machinery, disturbing the peace of the State, and threatening its overthrow.

The Annual Report of this Society of 1838, is a document of a remarkable character, when viewed in this light. It is almost exclusively political. It seems true enough, as its own language declares, that “abolitionism _must_ have much to do with politics.” It discusses all the affairs of the nation, and of the States, in relation to this great and portentous subject, as must be confessed with no inconsiderable ability, and with a boldness which might astound any one who looks at the position which this Society occupies, and the sweep of its influence; and more especially, when we consider the decorum, and the gravity, and the solemnity which, one would think, ought to characterize such a document, emanating from so great a body, on such an occasion, and so exciting a theme, when every opportunity for reflexion had been afforded, and when there could be little apology for violence of language, or uncourteous demeanor, towards public men, and the public authorities. Even if the existence and action of this Society had been constitutional and lawful, as it was no doubt thought to be by its members, still there was something in the elevation and responsibility of its position before the public, on account of which the ordinary proprieties, which might seem to be reasonably incumbent on all such bodies, had strong claims to be respected. In all seriousness, we do not think the time has come--certainly we hope not--when the political violence and rancour of newspaper columns, can be regarded as becoming in such a document. Could it easily be believed, by those who have not read this Report--a document occupying one hundred and fifty-two crowded octavo pages, the major part of which breathes the same spirit--that all public men, from the President of the United States downwards, including Senators, Governors, Ministers to foreign nations, Magistrates, and officers of every grade, of the States and Nation, who may have manifested any symptoms of opposition to Abolitionism, or whose public acts have been unfavorable to it, are treated as if ---- but we will not trust ourselves to describe it, lest we fall into the same excess of rudeness.

Freedom of speech, and of the press, in treating of public men and public measures, is undoubtedly guaranteed by the Constitutional law of this land; and if this Report had emanated from an authorised and constitutional body, no legal exception could have been taken to its character or terms, however it might seem to be indecorous and undignified, not to say inflammatory and incendiary. In point of dignity, as being the public and solemn act of such a body, we think there could be but one opinion of its character. As if the genius that presided over its composition were not prolific enough in nerve astounding artillery, it seems to have taken out a license to cater from the widest range of Newspaper authorities, and ex parte statements and reports, for its facts and arguments, and for its delicious treat of suavity and kindness.

But there is yet a more portentous aspect of this Report, that remains to be considered. We allude to its treatment of the decisions of the highest Legislative Assembly of the Nation: the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

It is well known, that the disposal made in Congress of petitions on the subject of Abolition, has not been agreeable to the members of this Society, although it might be difficult to see how it could have been done very differently, so long as the majority of both Houses were opposed to the object; unless it be claimed as a right to occupy the whole time of the National Legislature, in reading and discussing these petitions, to the neglect of all other business, which would seem to be very unreasonable. No new idea could be presented; the mind of Congress was made up; and it would seem to be factious to demand a separate consideration of every petition on this subject, without any prospect or hope of a different result. So far from involving a denial of the right of petition, any other course would have been a manifest violation of public duty, in neglecting the ordinary and other affairs of legislation. The wishes of these petitioners being known, the design of the Constitution in regard to such a matter was answered; and so long as they were known to be a very small minority of the nation, and the great majority opposed, no action on the subject, in the way of legislation, could be expected. It would be altogether unreasonable, and “contrary to the principles of our republican form of Government.” Moreover, the great majority of both houses of Congress considered it, not only disturbing, but unconstitutional, either for them, as a branch of the Government, or for the people, not citizens of the Slave States, to meddle with the subject, with a view to legislation, as these petitions requested. Of course, no farther action could be expected, in that quarter, till the use of the elective franchise might carry into Congress a set of men of a different opinion.

Not to speak particularly of the charges of violating the Constitution, thrown upon the House of Representatives, by this Report; or of its “seditious members,” as it calls them; or of the “demoniac yells,” by which the remonstrance of the Ex-President Adams was silenced; it is more to our present purpose to call attention to the treatment rendered to the Senate, in this same document, for the resolutions passed in that body on this subject, in January, 1838:--

“Neither humanity, nor patriotism, will permit us to pass over this proceeding of the Senate, without setting it in what seems to us its true light. _We pronounce it a bootless usurpation--an act equally unconstitutional and impotent._ If these expressions should seem disrespectful towards the highest branch of the National Legislature, let it be remembered, that that officially august body can claim to be respected only while it respects the primary act of the people, by virtue of which it exists. _When it oversteps the limits of the Constitution_, for any object whatever, _its authority is forfeited_. But when it oversteps those limits for the attainment of an object which is in itself essentially absurd and impossible--when it essays to do by mere resolutions what it would be ridiculous to attempt by statutory enactment--_it must sink to the level of contempt_.... If we are correct in these views of the nature and force of our Federal Constitution, the Senate of the United States was employed from the 3d to the 13th of January, 1838, _in enacting a farce_ well adapted to turn legislation into mockery.”

Not to speak of the _exceeding indecorum_ of this language, as coming from what ought to be a _reverend_, as it is doubtless a _religious_ as well as a political body, it is certainly going quite far enough for a power, whose lawful existence and action for any such purposes, hang suspended at best in a doubtful balance. It falls on the ear like the death sounding knell of revolutionary times. But we cannot consider it doubtful, in view of the facts and reasonings heretofore brought under review, whether this Society be a lawful one, or not. Our own convictions compel us to “pronounce it,” not simply “a bootless,” but _seditious_ “usurpation.”

Here, then, is a grand and permanent political organization, self-erected, self-governed, independent, and irresponsible, having no connexion with the Government of the country, but yet usurping the business of that Government; having come into existence, and set up its action, in violation of the prescribed forms of the Constitution; with a distinct and systematic polity of its own creation, on a scale comparing with the machinery of a State; with a President and seventeen Vice Presidents; four Secretaries, one for correspondence with lecturing agents scattered over the country, and for other general purposes; one for correspondence with foreign countries; one devoted to domestic political action and financial agents; and one to record the doings of the Society; a Treasurer; a Board of one hundred and three Managers; 1350 auxiliaries, 13 of which are on the grand scale of State Societies; 38 travelling agents, and 75 circulating within a narrower compass; disbursing an annual income of $50,000, besides a vast amount of gratuitous labour; employing the power of the press to the amount of 646,502 copies of various literary productions annually distributed; and all these various forms of political and combined power constantly augmenting. Such is the machinery of this institution--and such the history of its origin,--an institution, which, in its annual assemblage, by representation from all its dependencies, dares, by its own public, recorded, and proclaimed acts, to “pronounce” the solemn decisions of the Senate of the nation “_an unconstitutional usurpation_,” and to declare its “_authority forfeited_!”--thus unfurling the flag of rebellion, and like the Jacobins of revolutionary France, seeming to say to the swelling of its train--Onward! Such a power legalized, with no balance of influence to counteract it, with all the advantages of its organization, of its peculiar and effective modes of operation, is enough to revolutionize any State, and any nation.

Chapter IV.

THE SEDITIOUS CHARACTER OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY FARTHER CONSIDERED.

Having proved the sedition of the American Anti-Slavery Society as a political organization, which has usurped the business of the Government, under a form prohibited by the Constitution, which of course involves two points of criminality, we shall now proceed to show, that it is seditious in another important and grave particular, as having committed, and as continuing to commit, a trespass on the political rights of the slave-holding States, as guaranteed to them by the Federal Compact, and as recognized by the law of nations.

In the first place, the action of this Society, as a grand political organization, on the social fabric of foreign States--for the slave States are foreign in respect to it--with the intent to change it against their consent, and thus disturbing their domestic tranquility, is a violation of the law of nations. This is sedition in a higher and more important sense, than any combined assault on the social institutions of a community by its own members, inasmuch as the remedy is more difficult to be attained, and more momentous in its consequences. It can be settled only by the sword. The noninterference of one nation in the domestic condition of another, is an established doctrine, and a settled maxim, of international law. A trespass on this principle is always considered tantamount to a declaration of war. Just in proportion as the peace of nations, in their relations to each other, is more important than the domestic tranquility of a single State, and the breach of it more difficult to be healed, is the criminality of such trespass increased. The action of the American Anti-Slavery Society, therefore, on the slave-holding States, as an interference of this kind, is much more responsible and more criminal, than as a violation of the social fabric of the United States. It matters not what may be the faults in the social condition of any State or nation, in the judgment and conscience of the people of another State or nation; such considerations, however aggravated and serious, furnish no ground or justification for interference; but the fact of interference is war begun.

The American Anti-Slavery Society, as we have seen, is a political organization--unlawful, indeed, but yet such is its character--and as such they have great power. They hold in their hands the peace and well being of all the slave States. On the principle above recognized--the soundness of which we dare to say will not be questioned--its action on those States is war. It is impossible that this Society should screen itself from this responsibility under the plea, that they are only using that freedom of speech and of the press, and other modes of social influence, which the Constitutional law of the land has guaranteed. For we have shown, that in the machinery they have set up, and in their modes of action, they have transcended that law; and as a consequence it will follow, that they have cast themselves beyond its protection. It will, moreover, be vain for them to plead, that they are a part of the same nation, and that however it may appear, that they have been guilty of sedition in disturbing the tranquility, by violating the laws, of the Federal Commonwealth, they have not trespassed on the law of nations. For, we shall yet, and very soon, have occasion to see, that the sovereignty of the States composing the American Union, is perfect and unimpaired, in all that has not been resigned or prohibited in the Federal Constitution for national purposes; and that, with these exceptions, the several States occupy precisely the same position, in their relations to each other, as do any other States or nations. And the institution of slavery is not comprehended in these exceptions, but remains the sovereign right of the States where it is established, so far as it concerns other States, and other nations, and so far as concerns the whole world out of their jurisdiction. It is therefore true, that the American Anti-Slavery Society, being a political body, incorporated in its own claimed and independent right, has made war on the slave-holding States of the Union.

But as it happens, this Society is a nondescript organization, because it is an unlawful one. It has no territorial jurisdiction, and no political relations, apart from its own constituent elements; it is a parvenu and stranger among recognised republics and nations--a mere pirate, a brigand, that has broken loose from law, and invaded, from inaccessible ambushes, the peace of whole communities, putting in peril the lives of their citizens, and their institutions. It cannot, therefore, be approached by the injured parties, under that _lex talionis_ of nations, which is customarily resorted to, when their honor has been insulted, their rights violated, or their interests impaired, by a foreign foe. This Society protects itself under the shield of that Government, of the laws of which its very existence is a violation. That Government, therefore, is responsible for its action, and the injured parties have a claim upon it for indemnification and redress of the evils which they suffer. In existing circumstances, this is the only medium by which a remedy can be obtained. Nevertheless, the law of nations has been violated by foreign interference in the domestic condition of the slaveholding States--an interference, which, in any other case, would be regarded as a just occasion for retaliation by a resort to arms.

In the discussion of this point of the subject, we have nothing to do with the rights of the slave in relation to the authorities by which he is held in bondage, any more than with those of the serfs of Poland, or of Hungary, or of Prussia, in case the sympathies of this Society should happen to take that direction, and make war on the peace and social institutions of those countries. The two cases are precisely parallel, and one is as justifiable as the other, by the law of nations, and of human society as it exists. The authorities of those countries would fairly hold the Government of the United States responsible for such an invasion, in the same manner, as we are bound by treaty with the British Government to maintain our obligations of neutrality on the Canadian frontier, and to prevent our citizens from invading the rights, and destroying the lives of British subjects in their own territory. Even though it could be shown, that the Canadians are oppressed, and deprived of their just rights, still it would be no justification or apology for the interference of our citizens. The same principle precisely applies to the action of the American Anti-Slavery Society on the Southern States.

But this Society is even more criminal than these invaders of Canada, because it has first violated the laws of the United States by the erection of a systematic and unlawful polity, an unconstitutional and powerful machinery, the plans and scope of which, if not abandoned or suppressed, are adequate to protract, perpetuate, and forever to augment the illegal and destructive powers they have set in operation, till they shall upset the Government, and desolate the South; whereas the invasion of Canada is nothing more than the mad enterprise of a few deluded individuals. Had they followed the example of the American Anti-Slavery Society,--which, doubtless, they had an equal right to do--and set up a like political organization, under like immunities, and with like strength of preparation, they would inevitably have involved this country in a war with Great Britain. What sufferance, therefore, has been practised towards this Society! And what protracted injuries have the Southern States been compelled to endure!

As remarked in the previous chapter, it is the perfectly anomalous character of this enterprise, which has so long embarrassed the public mind. All not engaged in it, have felt it to be wrong; the wide spread indignation, and the popular outbreaks it has occasioned in rebuke of its designs and operations, show that it involves some great and vitally important principle in our social fabric; but its distinct and definite character, and its exact political position and relations, have not heretofore been evolved and so exhibited, as to enable the public to see it clearly, and to know how to treat it. It was the suddenness and novelty of the movement, as a grand and unlawful political transaction, that astounded the public mind, and threw it from the balance of its wonted composure; but the agitation and disturbance it occasioned are prima facie evidence of its aberration from right principles--of its criminality. That cannot be regarded, by sober minds, other than a highly responsible operation in society, which breaks its peace, and puts in peril its political existence; and we dare to aver, that the common impression of its criminality cannot be without good reason. Even if no law had been violated, other than a common and implied obligation of all good citizens to keep the peace, and sustain the tranquil operation of our Constitution and laws, that is enough to authorize a verdict of guilty against this Society on the _general_ charge of a public nuisance. But in all points of view we find there is recognised and written law for the case, and the common feeling of the public mind is honored and sustained by the investigation. We might fairly presume it impossible for this feeling to be wrong, as it springs up spontaneously in the bosom of a community where slavery is not only disapproved, but abhorred.

It is morally certain, therefore, that it is not a feeling of complacency in slavery, nor any desire, nor even willingness, to see it perpetuated, that has arrayed itself so generally in the North against the Abolition movement. But it is a conviction, that the supreme law of the land has been invaded, and the certain knowledge, that the public peace has been disturbed, and the stability and permanence of our social and political institutions put in peril. It is a correct view of the nature of our political fabric, which leads the public mind, in such an exigency, to the conclusion, that the people of one State have no right to interfere with the domestic condition of another, unless that right has been _specified_ and conferred in the Federal compact; and that even then, it can be employed only in general concert by a representation of all the States in Congress assembled. The people know, as they are bound to know, so long as they claim the privilege of self-government, that the rights of the several States, not transferred or prohibited by the general Constitution, are sacred in their own keeping, and ought to be sacred from foreign interference and invasion. And although they may not have discovered, and as would appear, have not, as a body, that the _organization_ of the American Anti-Slavery is an open and flagrant violation of law, yet they have felt and been convinced, that its _transactions_ are of this character. Hence the public feeling of remonstrance and indignation, that has been manifested. It is not unprovoked and wanton; it is not an opposition to the principle of Abolition in itself considered, for all the early and abiding prejudices of the North are on that side; it is not persecution, however such a clamour may be raised, for there is no adequate moral cause; but it is an attachment to the existing, and long tried, institutions of the country, which, though they may not be perfect, are yet deemed too valuable to be suddenly and ruthlessly broken down by a faction--by an organized sedition. This feeling, therefore, is worthy of some respect--nay, of the greatest respect--for it proves to be based on sound Constitutional principles. We hold it to be impossible, that a lawful enterprise could produce so great an excitement, under a Constitution and Government so good, and so well approved, as ours.

But, having disposed of this subject, as a violation of the law of nations, which involves the highest criminality, because it is liable to work mischief on the largest scale, and of the deepest die, let us consider it as a violation of the Federal Compact, in an Article not yet introduced: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is the Tenth Article of the Constitution of the United States; and although it involves precisely the same principle of international law, as that we have just been considering, it presents itself here in the character and with the sanction of a corporate element of our own political fabric. It draws the line, in black and white, between the powers of the nation and those of the States respectively. It leaves the States in absolute and uncontrolled possession of all the sovereign powers, customarily asserted and employed by sovereign States, which are not delegated or prohibited in the general Constitution; and one of those powers is a sovereign right of legislation and control over the institution of slavery. Another, of course, is the common and national right, universally recognized, of claiming the unrestricted scope and benefit of the law of noninterference in regard to this matter. This Article of the Federal Constitution places every State precisely on the footing, and in the position, of nations entirely independent of each other, in all particulars not surrendered or prohibited by this instrument. Its language is, that all other powers--“the powers not delegated, &c. are _reserved_ to the States _respectively_, or to the people.” Whatever may have been intended by this alternative of “_the people_,” it cannot be construed to qualify or restrict the object of our present remarks. We suppose it points to the principle of general sovereignty, as appears to be recognized in the Ninth Article, as follows: “The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” that is--if we may be allowed the privilege of interpretation here--those general rights of sovereignty, which belong to all nations, acting in their Constitutional modes, authorizing measures adapted to unforeseen exigencies. Certainly, this rule cannot be construed to authorize a minority, or a faction, to do what they please, or to depart from the constituted forms of law. And that is all the bar we have any occasion, for our present purpose, to introduce, whatever other interpretation may be given to it.

The sovereignty of the States, in and over their own respective jurisdictions, in all that is not taken out of their hands by the National Constitution, is recognized and settled by the Tenth Article; and the power to claim the privilege of _noninterference_ from foreign quarters, as to their domestic condition, is a part of that sovereignty. Consequently, if the people, or any association of people, in one State, should interfere with the domestic concerns of another, they are guilty of sedition in and against the Republic; and on the principles of international law, if it be a seriously disturbing movement--of which the injured party is constituted judge--they have made war upon that State, and furnished a just occasion of resort to arms, if remedy and redress can be obtained in no other way. We speak not the language of advice, but of the law simply--of recognized and established principles of civilized and political society;--and so far as the question of sedition is concerned, we speak of the supreme law of this land. In the condition and relations of the members of our Confederacy, the remedy for such interference is doubtless to be sought through the medium, and by the action, of the General Government. If that Government should prove incompetent, or be unwilling, to perform the duty claimed by the injured party, and devolving upon it in such an exigency, the natural consequence would be a dissolution of the Union, and a probable resort to arms. And this is the result to which our country is now imminently exposed by the seditious and criminal interferences of the American Anti-Slavery Society, with the domestic condition of the slave-holding States. They have no more right to meddle with Southern slavery, than with that of the Irish peasantry, or of the miserable beings immured in British Manufactories, or of Hungarian, or Polish, or Russian boors, which, in each of these instances, is far more worthy of commiseration and relief, than the slavery of the Southern States, and calls louder for the offices of humanity, if any such interferences would be tolerated.

But the case is even stronger than has yet been stated. The General Government itself cannot interfere in this matter, except to keep the peace, and _prevent_ interference; and this they are bound to do. The Federal Constitution has recognized the validity of slave property, and established a law to maintain and defend it, throughout the jurisdiction of the United States, as follows: “No person held to service, or labor, in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping to another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service, or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due.” Art. IV, Sect. II, Clause 3d. The Tenth Article of the Constitution cuts off all interference of the General Government, in the matter of slavery, as it exists in any of the States. Next, it debars interference to all the States, in relation to each other. Much more does it debar such interference to private citizens, or to any combinations of citizens, in any State, or States, with the slavery of other States. For, surely, that right of property, which the public authorities may not infringe, may not be infringed by those who are not invested with authority. Neither can a private citizen, or any combinations of citizens, lawfully disturb or weaken the possession of property, which is sanctioned and upheld by the laws of the land.

Moreover, the General Government is bound by an express law of the Federal Constitution to protect and defend this species of property against invasion, conspiracy, insurrection, and violence: “The United States shall protect every State in this Union _against invasion_; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive, when the legislature cannot be convened, _against domestic violence_.” Of course, this is a general and comprehensive rule for all possible exigencies of the kind; but it is generally understood--the last clause, particularly, respecting “domestic violence”--to have been enacted in anticipation of _servile_ insurrections, and such other disturbances as are liable to occur under a system of slavery. Any how, the rule applies to these cases, and comprehends them; and that is enough. The General Government is bound to keep the peace under its own laws; and whenever the slave-holding States shall have occasion for its services, in consequence of “domestic violence,” or of “invasion,” they have a right to demand them, under this law of the Constitution; and they would no doubt be promptly afforded.

We see, therefore, that slavery is protected and defended at all points by the political fabric of this country. We profess, that we have no complacency in slavery, and never had: and that we have no gratification in coming to this conclusion, so far as it presents the prospect of the perpetuity of this acknowledged evil. But the time has come when a far greater evil, than that of slavery, threatens this land, in the unlawful measures which have been concerted, and which are being unlawfully urged, to do it away. The time has come, when it is important for the public to know what the law is, in relation to this movement; that they may know how to appreciate it, and how to act. The time has come, when it would be treason to the country wilfully to conceal the law, or to misinterpret it; for the law is the only power, that can settle this question in the public mind, on this side of that fearful resort, which brings despotism first, and barbarism last. Whatever the law is, we want to know it; the people of this country want to know it; and we believe they will abide by it, till, in peaceable times, they can make a better, if a better can be made.

The Abolitionists of this country are fast driving the people to the law--to a law, which has long been asleep and forgotten, because there was no demand for its authority; to a law, which we think, will assuredly work against the Agitators; to a law, which may yet have occasion to say to the tempest they have raised--“Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further.”

Chapter V.

Violent Reforms, And Their Connexion With Abolitionism.

It can hardly have escaped the attentive observer of the history of our country, that for a considerable period, and to a great extent, it has been characterised by _violent reforms_, both in religion and morals; and it would be impossible, in our judgment, to understand the causes of the Abolition movement, if we should leave out of view this important and prominent historical feature. All great movements in society have their moral causes, and it is by referring to them, that we are enabled to ascertain their true character.

Religion has always been a potent element in American society, and it is to the conservative power of Christianity, that we owe our greatest blessings. But it does not remain for us to prove what history has decided, that religion may be abused and perverted. In such a case, it becomes important to distinguish between Christianity and religious excesses, or corruptions, and to rescue the former from a responsibility which would dishonor and injure it. When religion is profaned and degraded by extravagant modes of action; when it becomes rude and violent, instead of maintaining the genuine character of Christian suavity and mildness; when it assumes an overbearing and despotic dictation to private and public conscience, instead of the kind and winning arts of persuasion, which shine so conspicuously in the example of the Divine founder of Christianity, and of his Apostles;--and more especially, when it has leaped from its appropriate sphere of the moral, to the agitations of the political, world, seized on a stupendous political machinery in violation of the laws of the country, disturbed civil order to an alarming extent, threatened to overthrow the Government, and to deluge the land in the blood of a civil war--it is time to enquire into the causes of such a movement, how it originated, and how it may be checked, if checked it can be. These causes cannot be understood, without alluding to the facts and events of our religious history; for it is after all, and in truth, a religious movement, even by its own public and authoritative confession, as before seen. The Constitutional law of this land has carefully excluded religion from a participation in the authorities of State, and it cannot lawfully meddle with its affairs. It is a notable fact, however, notwithstanding these cautious provisions, that it has finally and suddenly overstepped these constitutional barriers, and usurped the most important and most momentous State questions, that could possibly be taken in hand.

In the first place, we remark, as a simple matter of fact--the deductions from which will afterwards claim our attention--that certain very extraordinary and painful scenes, sufficiently well known, have been enacted in our religious history, bordering on fanaticism, in some of the means employed, and modes adopted, for the extension of the interests of religion, according to the particular views of those engaged in these measures. So long, however, as those excesses were confined to religious action, they have been tolerated and protected by the laws of the land. It is the spirit of our Government, and the general temper of the community, not to disturb religion, even when its measures, in the judgment of the more sober, are deemed very extravagant and fanatical. Hence the rather _forcing_ methods that have been so extensively adopted to gain and multiply converts, have been connived at, because they have been allowed to be sincere, and it was hoped they might be useful, as a conscientiously religious man is a better citizen than one whose sense of moral obligation is not founded in religious motives. This high stimulation of the moral world, however, has had the effect to produce an extensive and powerfully active leaven of a specific character, which seemed to require a wider scope of action, or an action the results of which might be somewhat more palpable in the common regions of society, than that which relates merely to the spiritual affections of mankind. In a word, instead of being satisfied with the religion of those “who declare plainly, that they _seek_ a country” not yet possessed, it has shown a disposition to take under its charge a country _already_ possessed. A religious faith, which ought to have maintained ulterior and higher aims, has degenerated somewhat into a religious patriotism; which still might have been well enough, as to any objections from general society, if it had not transcended the laws of the land. But it was perfectly natural, that a spirit which was violent, and addicted to forcing measures in one department of society, should also be violent, and employ like forcing measures in another, whenever its drift or inclinations should tempt it from its original and legitimate sphere of action.

It will be understood, of course, that we allude, in the first place, to the violence which has been so extensively manifested in religious reforms; and next, to the same spirit which afterwards took hold of Abolitionism. It was the breaking over of all religious order in the first instance, which prepared the way for the violation of civil order in the second. That boldness which trampled on custom in one case, was naturally schooled to set at defiance the law in the other.

But all breaches of propriety and of law, human or divine, are generally a work of degrees. Moral reforms came next to the religious--to neither of which, of course, do we take exception, any farther than as respects the violence that has been practised. But it is equally known, that the excesses which characterized one class, have been carried into the other. That religious patriotism, if we may call it so--an honorable appellation, certainly--which began to trouble itself with the condition and affairs of the country, soon discovered, that the state of public and general morals required attention--a conclusion most natural and most worthy, and an object which could hardly fail to meet with general approbation. And accordingly it has been approved, and well sustained. It was a work, in its various forms, from which much good was expected, and by which, no doubt, much good has been done.

But, unfortunately, the same excesses and the same violence, which characterized the religious operations of the country so extensively, were transferred into the moral reforms which were undertaken, and became a principal ingredient, because it happened, that the most violent religionists had a principal hand and a controlling influence in these matters also. As in religion, they undertook to convert sinners by force, so they undertook to reclaim mankind from their vices by force; and as they had adopted various new inventions and machineries for the former operations, so they did for the latter. But _force_ was the dominant power in all--forcing opinions, forcing conscience, forcing the will--in the one case fulminating the terrors which come up from the future world to frighten mankind into religion; and in the other, arming themselves with all the power of an associated influence to destroy the characters of those who differed from them in opinion, as to the best modes of moral reformation, or who did not fall in with all their extravagant and coercing measures. The sanctuary of domestic and private life was not secure from their invasion; the thunders of authoritative anathemas pealed on the ears of the public, from the solemn decisions of imposing popular Conventions, to proscribe opposition and remonstrance, because it was _assumed_ to be wrong and criminal, by a judgment _ex cathedra_; the title was claimed to examine every private citizen as to his private habits and opinions, and to denounce him, if heterodox; nor did they wait even for that; for they had the sagacity to discover what a man was by looking in his face. The character of no man was safe under such an inquisitorial, all pervading, self-constituted, and irresponsible tribunal, if he did not succumb at once to its authority.

Violent _moral_ reforms constituted the _second_ stage of advancement with this disturbing spirit of our land; and the impunity which it realized in its progress seemed to be a warrant for the still farther extension of its domain. And behold! the next step was an invasion of the political fabric of our country, by a crusade on the Southern States for the rescue of the slaves! By this time a mighty moral associated power had been arrayed for any violent enterprise that should be set on foot. The entire ranks had been well schooled in a thorough contempt of all opinions except their own, and seemed to think, that the whole world were under a moral obligation to respect and yield to theirs. Custom and law seemed to have no respect in their eyes _because_ they were custom and law; but existing institutions were rather assumed to be wrong _because_ they existed. They had found the religious world all wrong, and undertook to revolutionize it without scruple; they had found the conventional social state all wrong, and assumed the task of imposing new laws upon that; and now they have discovered that the political fabric of our country is wrong, and have begun to tear it down, without leave, and in open violation of the supreme law of the land. Before they had stepped foot upon this ground, they had nothing to oppose them, and success inspired confidence. Wrong themselves they could not be, in their own esteem; they have never dreamed of being wrong; it is not the nature of fanaticism. But this stepping out of the appropriate sphere of religious and moral reform, into the arena of political strife, under a vast and powerful political machinery of their own creation, puts them in a new position. The religious world, and the conventional social state, they might invade with impunity, and devastate at pleasure; there was no adequate power to withstand them; but a recognized and long established political fabric will not give way so easy.

Avaunt, ye infidels, and suspend your song of triumph, that religion is fallen, though it cannot be denied, that she is dishonored. She has been betrayed in her own house, and by her professed adherents: but their true character stands revealed. Christianity has never authorized such proceedings; but they are violations of her most sacred principles.

It requires but the slightest observation to justify the position we have assumed, as to the connexion between Abolitionism and other violent reforms. We do not, indeed, suppose it true, that all Abolitionists have been engaged in the other; or that all who may have taken part in the violences which came first, are engaged in the last. We only mean to aver, that there is not only a natural and common sympathy in all these movements, but that the most prominent leaders in any one of them, are generally found in all; and that they are a flock which instinctively jump together over the same fence, when any one of them gives the lead. “We mean, moreover, to be understood as maintaining, that Abolitionism is only a new form of an old spirit, which, having found no great impediment in its former pranks, has thought fit to lay aside the comedy, and attempt the more grave enactment of a tragedy. This we regard as the philosophy of its history.”

So far as Abolitionists themselves may turn their eyes upon these pages, we beg leave to assure them, that we mean nothing uncharitable by these remarks, or in our general treatment of this subject. They must be quite aware that the affluence of language has been exhausted, used up, and worn out, on their side, in epithets of censure on their opponents; and that they are the assailants in the most important particular. We believe, that the great majority of those, who have been drawn into the Abolition ranks, are honest, good people; but, that they are deceived. As we are convinced, that this business cannot go on much longer, in its present shape, without ruining the country, we therefore think the time has come, when the language of plainness is demanded, if, peradventure, the deluded may be undeceived; at least, that that portion of the public, not already committed to this cause, may clearly understand its character and position. It professes to be engaged in the cause of humanity and liberty; while in fact it leads directly to anarchy and bloodshed. It originated in violence, and has never lost its character--a violence which has been successively jumping from one line of movement, and from one object of assault, to another, acquiring strength in every stage of progress by the principle of organization. Finding, that its coercive measures did not answer all its purposes in the religious sphere, on account of certain obstacles existing in the state of public morals, it buckled on its armour for this new field, and applied the screw and lever to the dead weights found there. After working awhile with the same characteristic violence, and with some success, but on the whole, with a reasonable prospect of defeat, on account of its mode of operation, it jumped over into the political arena, where it now is, well at work with accumulated and accumulating powers; and what shall be the end thereof, heaven only knows; but it is, at least, a dangerous business. Of course, in consequence of the division of its forces, it can only carry on its former enterprises with diminished vigor, while it is supremely bent upon this. But the immense machinery that has been in operation, which is continually augmenting in its parts and power, is growing more and more formidable, and more and more efficient. Encountered it must be by the authorities of the nation, or else, in our opinion, it will soon force those authorities to resign their places.

Chapter VI.

The Abolition Organization Borrowed From The Religious World.

We have nothing to do with the merits of the Religious and Benevolent Society system of this country; it is only necessary for us to allude to the character, skill, operation, and efficiency of its framework, to illustrate the fabric of the American Anti-Slavery Society, which has been constructed precisely after that model. To accomplish the various objects of the religious and benevolent public, they have thought it expedient and necessary to erect themselves, by association, into sundry bodies politic, or incorporations, which originally were small, but which have gradually grown to considerable importance. It has been found by experience, that by a skilful organization, and by an economical application of its means and agencies, a single Society, enjoying public favor, can operate upon the whole country, to secure interest, raise money, and carry on its designs. But the very necessities of the case have put in requisition a sort of State machinery, which, as is well known, has been erected, and in some instances extended, on a very large scale; and they are conducted with as much system, as the affairs of a Nation, not unfrequently with a superior tact and efficiency, as compared with the ordinary concerns of the political world. The fact, that rotation of office does not follow in these Societies, as in the State, gives them greater advantage in this particular. The various officers and agents become highly accomplished and skilled in their vocation, are supported by fixed and adequate salaries, and can devote themselves entirely to their work, from the day of their induction to the day of their death. They are at home in their several places and spheres, and know all about them. They understand by what means their objects can best be obtained, are always growing wiser by experience, and consequently more influential and powerful, in this particular. These Societies have always a Head; a Council Board; legislative, executive, and judicial departments of Government; Secretaries and Under-secretaries; a fiscal system; itinerating Agents; subsidiary organizations, multiplying in numbers, and increasing in influence; journals, periodicals, tracts, books, &c. &c.--all subserving their designs. These machineries are all the inventions of a single age, and constitute a new era in human Society. They are, undeniably, institutions of great influence and power. For religious and benevolent objects, they seem to have been welcomed by the Christian world generally, have been encouragingly sustained; and some of them are engaged in large schemes, as wide as the human family, and might vie, in the extent of their correspondence and responsibilities, with the ordinary operations of political Governments. Confining themselves to the objects and cares which they have assumed before the public, they have neither roused the jealousies, nor encountered the opposition, of the political world. Their powers are of a high order, of great scope, and of no inconsiderable importance in the social system.

Exactly according to this pattern is the American Anti-slavery Society. The simple fact, that it has borrowed this machinery from this quarter, proves, that the argument of the previous chapter, showing it to be a religious movement, is founded in truth. Such, beyond all question, is its character. Neither is it any the less political on that account. The sum of the matter is: IT IS RELIGION IN THE STATE; and so much _worse_ than a _Union of Church and State_, as that it is a _usurpation_, set up in defiance of the State’s authority, and in open violation of its highest, strongest, most sacred law!

It is well for the Churches of this land, that they are not engaged in this business, that they have lifted their voices against it, and acquitted themselves of its responsibilities. It would be enough to sink Christianity amongst us to the lowest depths, to rise again, no one could tell when. But, fortunately, the public, the world will see, that this responsibility rests on a few, and only a few, designing, ambitious, turbulent spirits; that the great majority of those who have been drawn into this mad enterprise, are perfectly innocent of any evil designs, have never dreamed of violating law, have had their best feelings worked upon by exaggerated statements and false representations, have been made to believe that this was their proper business, and been constituted Judges of that which did not belong to them, and which they know little or nothing about. We are disposed to believe, to hope, certainly, that it will only be necessary for them to be enlightened in the knowledge of their position, as members and abettors of such an organization, to be induced to withdraw, and wash their hands of its responsibilities. It is the moral power which their numbers give to it, that constitutes its importance and influence. It is in fact a vast and powerful machinery, from the very nature of its organization, and the methods of its operation, so long as it can hold its own; more especially, so long as it is in a state of actual growth, and in an advancing career. The Government of this country, and those States which are parties concerned, cannot be too much alive to this fact. The public generally ought to understand it; and if the knowledge and conviction should generally obtain, that this Society is a seditious organization, and engaged in a work of sedition, which, by continuance, may grow into treason, it is believed, that no more acquisitions to its numbers and power could be made, and that it would gradually die away, and cease to agitate the public mind, without the intervention of the public authorities.

We have shown, as we think, by the fairest argument, that this Society _is_ an _organized_ sedition. But even if there were any doubt upon the subject, that doubt ought to go in favour of public peace and safety--_Ne quid detrementi respublica capiat_--lest the republic receive damage.

If, in the judgment of the constituted authorities of this country, the public safety should require it, we have no more doubt of their competency to dissolve the American Anti-Slavery Society, and suppress its action as an organization, than of the power of a Court of Chancery to issue an injunction to arrest an alledged and apparent violation of law, till the case can be fairly tried. But whether, or when, it may be expedient, is for the proper authorities themselves, in their discretion, to decide. In such a case, the present component parts of this Society would be reduced to the Constitutional basis, with all the license of the Constitutional provisions; and on that ground they would be harmless. Whereas, as a _permanent_ and _independent_ political organization, they are an unconstitutional, vast, formidable, and dangerous power. This Society is in fact a rival Empire on the territories of the Republic; and the simple question is, whether this usurpation, or the old and Constitutional Government, shall stand. If this organization has _already_ attained sufficient strength and confidence in its power, to refuse submission to the claims of the Constitution, and if it would _now_ resist the empire of the law, in case it should be asserted, the very grave and portentious question arises, what is likely to be the state of things in this country, after the continued action and growth of this Society shall _compel_ the Government to take a stand against it? There is all the difference between the two cases, as between the strength of a bud, and the vigorous trunk and extended arms of a full grown tree.

Chapter VII.

The Anarchical Principles Of Abolitionism.

_Nous verrons_--Onward! seems to be alike the maxim and tendency of all violent reforms. It may be said, that Abolitionism has at last come to a fair and palpable _denoument_, in the formation of the _New England Non-resistence Society_, which was organized at Boston, in September, 1838, with William Lloyd Garrison, and such others, men and _women_, leaders. The fundamental principle of this new association is _identical_ with that of the Abolition movement. Both hinge upon the same pivot. Indeed, it will be found, that all the violent reforms of our country are based upon this. It is stated in the Constitution of the Non-resistence Society in the following terms: “It appears to us a self-evident truth, that whatever the Gospel is designed to _destroy_ at any period of the world, being contrary to it, ought _now_ to be abandoned.” The mischievous element of this proposition, as reduced to practice by the violent reformers, is _occult_, and would appear in its naked form by substituting for the last word “_abandoned_,” that of _destroyed_--“ought _now_ to be _destroyed_;” for these reformers do not admit, that those customs and laws, judged by their interpretation of the Gospel unlawful, may be retained till _persuasion_ shall produce reform, and simply preach, that they “_ought_ to be _abandoned_.” But they clearly show their meaning is, that they “ought to be _destroyed_” and that it is not only lawful, but praiseworthy and a duty, to destroy them. _Destruction_ is the ruling power of the code; and society, the world, is to take its chances for the setting up of a better state of things.

Now, we maintain, that this is a fair statement of the principles of Abolitionism, and of all other of the violent movements. Their doctrine of _immediatism_--if we may invent a new term--is always one and the same, and always has been. Wherever they find an evil, or wrong--_Down with it_--is the rule. _Fiat Justitia, ruat calum_--a sound principle, certainly; and a good maxim, in prudent hands; but a terrible one, in rash hands.

It is a good thing, and a very instructive result, that the principles of these Destructives have at last come out, and been openly published to the world, in the Constitution and “Bill of sentiments,” adopted by the New England Non-resistance Society. There is now no longer a disguise. They openly renounce allegiance to all government: “_We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government!_” Here, then, it is, fairly ushered into the light of day--_a condition of universal anarchy_, the proclaimed Jubilee of these reformers. We have only to say, that this new Society has come honestly and openly to the end, to which all the _Immediatists_ of whatever name, are rapidly advancing. The maxim--_Down with it_--which governs them all, and which is the soul, body, and foundation of their enterprise--cannot stop short of anarchy. There is nothing of importance in the avowed principles of this new Society, revolting and shocking as they are, which is not a legitimate consequence of Abolitionism; or, by the remotest degree of relationship, cousin-german to it. In the first place, they renounce allegiance to human government; the Abolitionists, to be consistent, ought to do the same; for they have made open war against it. _They_ have announced the doctrine of _Immediatism_[1] as their fundamental principle; that also is the fundamental principle of the Abolitionists. _They_ have levelled all distinctions in society, of rank, color, caste, and _sex_; and the doctrines of Abolitionism, carried out, have legitimately led them to this. _They_ have proclaimed the Agrarian principle, in all forms of application, and denied the right of defending property, or any civil inheritance, by human authority, or force of arms; and Abolitionism requires the sanction of this principle to affect its designs. _They_ recognise but one ruler--the King of heaven; it is equally necessary for the Abolitionists to set aside the authorities of earth. _They_ have no country but the world, and no countrymen but mankind; the Abolitionists seem to be equally devoid of patriotism. _They_ avow that neither nations, nor individuals, have a right to defend themselves against aggression; this will be convenient, and even necessary, to Abolitionists, in the execution of their plans. _They_ pronounce the doctrine, that “the powers that be are ordained of God,” “an absurd and impious dogma;” this, too, will be convenient to the Abolitionists, and it might be supposed, they had adopted it. _They_ declare against all military preparations; we presume the Abolitionists are equally unfriendly to them, as they might prove uncomfortable opponents in their career. “As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its laws enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet,” _they_ “repudiate all human politics” and legislation; the Abolitionists are equally averse to the “politics” and legislation of the slave-holding States, and of course to the political fabric of the Union. _They_ deny the right of prosecution and indemnification for felony, which of course would be impossible, where there is no law; the Abolitionists deny the right of indemnification for the deprivation of property in slaves. _They_ deny the right of all punishment for crimes; this would be extremely convenient for Abolitionists. _They_ deny that their “doctrines are Jacobinical;” and why set up this defence before they are accused, except from the consciousness, that all the world will pronounce them so? The Abolitionists, too, as we think, are somewhat involved in this predicament. The members of this new Society are advocates of Non-resistance, _on one side_; and so are the Abolitionists: both are averse to being _opposed_, except so far as it may afford them the opportunity and title to plead the rights of the honest Connecticut negro’s conscience, who, being asked by his master, what it said, replied, “Why, Massa, it says, I _won’t_.” But the members of this Society are to be great fighters, after all, and that, too, in the way of _aggression_, as they claim the right and declare the purpose of making war “boldly, by the application of their principles, upon all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions;” that is, as one, remarking well on their scheme, hath it, “to take the greatest possible pains to get mobbed, persecuted, imprisoned, hung, and murdered.” And little pity would they get. They, of course, are the framers of their own conscience, and its interpreters; and that is the empire, the rights of which they claim, under their professions of _Non-resistance_. Allow any man that, and what, repudiating the restraints of law, could he ask more?

[Footnote 1: The abstract notion, that whatever is judged to be wrong in the customs or laws of society, _may_ and _must_ be broken down, or rooted out, _forthwith_, without any regard to consequences.]

But, notwithstanding the magisterial offices of society, they say, “We believe that the penal code of the old Covenant, ‘_An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth_,’ has been abrogated by Jesus Christ,” &c. In other words, we suppose, they mean to set aside the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures; of course, the Decalogue: and _in_ course, proceeding onward, the whole Bible. In this way, the Abolitionists would gain an important point, and procure the right of making a Bible to suit themselves. Thus endeth the career of violent reform--_in universal anarchy_. The New England Non-resistance Society is the climax; and it is remarkable, that there is scarcely a principle involved in the public declaration of their Creed, which, in some form of application, does not exactly suit the case and cause of the Abolitionists.--None, we apprehend, which does not very naturally and legitimately flow from it. _They were_ Abolitionists in the previous stage of their career, and one of them was the founder of Abolitionism.[2] It only happens, that he still keeps the lead; and he and his present associates are only more consistent and more honest, in having opened the entire budget to the public gaze. There are, indeed, some few _outré_ peculiarities of this new Association, ingeniously appended and incorporated, just enough to attract attention, and make it interesting as a curiosity. But there is nothing surprising in it, when we inquire into the causes which have generated the extravagant opinions, and set on foot the violent reforms, of our country. They may all be traced backward, through all their stages, and in all their connexions, under the broad and clear sun light of philosophical research.

[Footnote 2: Of Abolitionism in its modern garb of a violent reform--a totally, radically, and essentially, different thing from Emancipation in the sense attached to it before this agitation commenced. Abolitionism is now identified with an unconstitutional, and as we have proved, seditious interference of a combination of people in the free States, with the domestic condition of the slave States. It is shorn of the honors, both of a humane and patriotic enterprise, and merged in the responsibility of a political misdemeanor. This is the sense in which we use the term throughout this work; and we have supposed there was some foundation for ascribing the authorship of this movement to the gentleman above alluded to. Certainly, he was the most conspicuous actor, when it began to attract public attention. And behold! he is at the head, and we suppose at the bottom--(for we take for granted he must be the leader wherever he is)--of an Association set up professedly and without disguise, to overthrow all Government. This last stage--for we see not how it can go any further--is, in our esteem, an open and fair _denoument_ of the principles of Abolitionism. Not, indeed, that the Abolitionists, as a body, have any such designs--for we charitably suppose, and fully believe, they have not--but the action of their fundamental principle of _immediatism_, to gain, by a _coup de main_, a visionary state of _perfectionism_, cannot stop short of this.]

It is proper to remark, that, in the comprehensive picture given in this chapter, of the principles of the New England Non-resistance Society, we have taken the liberty to lay aside the garb in which they have presented them, except here and there a literal quotation, not only for brevity’s sake, but to show them in their naked form. We think, however, that we have not misrepresented; and even if we have done so, in any slight shades, the moiety of this delicious _morceau_, is enough to show the _taste_ of those who have swallowed it, and how the _physic_ is likely to operate. As to the feature of _non-resistance_, it is what is vulgarly called a “fudge,” they having reserved to themselves the privilege of conscience, according to their own interpretation of its prerogatives, and moreover declared their resolute and unflinching purpose to “_assail_ all existing institutions.” Besides, this _pretension_, to adopt their own language, is “a measure of sound policy;” for they could not otherwise be tolerated for a moment; and they hope to gain sympathy by _appearing_ not to resist, while they themselves are engaged in _open war_ on every thing that is valuable and dear to society. To show the connexion between this and things that had gone before, it is only necessary to quote one sentence from their own hand: “The triumphant progress of the cause of _Temperance_ and _Abolition_ in our land ... _encourages us_ to _combine_ our own means and efforts for the promotion of a STILL GREATER CAUSE.” Far be it from us, however, by this allusion, to disparage the Temperance reformation, any farther than the violent and overstrained part of it is concerned. And this qualification, we trust, will be satisfactory to all, whose good opinion we have any hope of enjoying.

Chapter VIII.

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?

Chapter IX.

Political Responsibility In Regard To Slavery.

We believe the Abolitionists are accustomed to find one apology for the movement in which they are engaged, in the assumption, that all the Members of the American Union are responsible for the existence of slavery therein, if not equally, yet in part; and being conscientiously opposed to slavery, their conscience obliges them to act in obedience to its dictates. They cannot, therefore, choose to abstain from this enterprise, if they would. We propose here to consider this question, as it cannot be denied, if the assumption be founded in truth and justice, that there is some weight in the statement. It is obviously proper to begin at the _beginning_, and enquire where the responsibility rests for introducing slavery into this country.

We say, therefore, that it was imposed upon this country against the avowed wishes, and resolute remonstrances of the ancestors of those, who now have charge of the evil that was thus entailed; and that resistance to the imposition came to the brink of a rebellion--nay, was a cause of rebellion.

“So early as 1502, the Spaniards begun to employ a few negroes in the mines of Hispaniola; and in the year 1517, the Emperor, Charles V., granted a patent to certain persons for the exclusive supply of 4000 negroes annually, to the islands of Hispaniola, Jamaica, Cuba, and Puerto Rico.”[3] John Hawkins, an Englishman, received the honors of knighthood, and was made Treasurer of the Navy, by Queen Elizabeth, for his achievements in the slave trade. Elizabeth, James I., Charles I., and II., were all in the habit of chartering companies to carry it on. Charles II., his brother, the Duke of York, noblemen, gentry, and _ladies_ of high rank and quality, were subscribers to these companies; and England, Europe, revolted not at the deed! The public conscience of the world seemed to tolerate it! When the slave trade first commenced, from Great Britain, under Elizabeth, the American Colonies did not exist. The succeeding princes patronized the traffic, and introduced slavery into their American provinces. “In 1760, South Carolina, a British Colony, passed an act to prohibit further importation; but Great Britain rejected this act with indignation, and declared that the slave trade was beneficial and necessary to the mother country. The Governors of the Colonies had _positive orders_ to sanction no law enacted against the slave trade. In Jamaica, in the year 1765, an attempt was made to abolish the trade to that island. The Governor declared, that his instructions would never allow him to sign the Bill. It was tried again in 1774, but Great Britain, by the Earl of Dartmouth, President of the Board, answered: _We cannot allow the Colonies to check or discourage, in any degree, a traffic so beneficial to the nations._”[4]

[Footnote 3: Bryant Edward’s West Indies.]

[Footnote 4: Professor Dew’s Review of the Debate in the Virginia legislature, of 1831-’32.]

The history of legislation, in the Colony of Virginia, records _twenty-three_ Acts, imposing duties on the importation of slaves, with the avowed design of suppressing the trade. “In 1772, most of the duties, previously imposed, were re-enacted, and the Assembly transmitted, at the same time, a petition to the Throne, of which the following are extracts:--

“‘We are encouraged to look up to the Throne, and _implore_ your Majesty’s paternal assistance, in averting a calamity of a most alarming nature.... The importation of slaves into the Colonies from the coast of Africa, hath long been considered a trade of _great inhumanity_, and under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear, will endanger the very existence of your Majesty’s American dominions. Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most _humbly beseech_ your Majesty _to remove all those restraints_ on your Majesty’s Governors of this Colony, which prohibit such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce.’

“The _first_ Assembly which met in Virginia, after the adoption of her Constitution, prohibited the traffic; and ‘_the inhuman use of the royal prerogative_’ against the action of the Colony upon this subject, is enumerated in the _first_ clause of the first Virginia Constitution, _as a reason of the separation from the mother country_.”[5]

[Footnote 5: Professor Dew.]

Such was the _common_ feeling of the Southern Colonies, though more decidedly manifested in Virginia. They never invited, they never tempted the slave trade, except by a silent acquiescence for a season, in what was imposed upon them by the cupidity of foreigners, and the mandates of authority, before the public conscience of mankind had begun to remonstrate; and the moment they opened their eyes to its domestic results among themselves, they set their faces, and employed all their lawful powers, against it.

“Federal America interdicted the slave trade from her ports _thirteen_ years before Great Britain; she made it punishable as a crime _seven_ years before, she fixed _four_ years sooner the period of non-importation--which period was earlier than that determined upon by Great Britain for her Colonies.”[6]

[Footnote 6: Walsh’s Appeal.]

For the introduction of Slavery into America, therefore, the Americans themselves are acquit of all political responsibility. All that can be said is, that individuals purchased slaves that were brought and offered, when the public conscience of the world tolerated the traffic; but it was under the authority, and by the imposition, of a parent Government, in another Continent, that slavery was reared into a domestic and political institution, the process all the while having been solemnly protested against by those whose voice had a claim to be heard, and who were most intimately concerned, until it grew into a magnitude and importance, too formidable to be dealt with by a violent hand of excision and extirpation--sufficiently formidable, indeed, to demand the utmost wisdom and prudence of man for its treatment and ultimate disposal.

Thus, having fairly wiped from the American escutcheon the political responsibility of introducing slavery in this Continent, and among ourselves, it remains to be considered, how far the present generation of slaveholding Americans are responsible for this state of things. The sum of the matter lies in one short sentence: _They were born into the world the heirs of this condition._ In no manner or degree are they responsible for it, any farther than they maintain it, and _as_ they maintain it. We suppose the Abolitionists themselves would not differ widely from us here, except as, peradventure, some of them may take their stand on the theological proposition--“In Adam’s fall we sinned all.” If, however, it may be assumed, that all agree on this point, it is the simple and the great question at issue. The slave States say, that is _their_ business; and the Abolitionists say, it is _ours_. This is the _contest_--the question _to be tried_.

And one of the apologies of the Abolitionists, for interference in this concern, is, that the whole nation is involved in the responsibility. Let us see, whether this be true. It must be admitted, that it requires some study to comprehend the nature of our political fabric, as a nation, with the relations of its parts to each other, and to the Unity; but still, like a mathematical problem, though obscure and misty to the intellect, before it is laid down and demons