{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34688/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34688","id":"gutenberg_34688","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34688","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sermons, American","Unitarianism"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Julia Miller, Josephine Paolucci and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSPEECHES, ADDRESSES,\n\nAND\n\nOCCASIONAL SERMONS,\n\nBY\n\nTHEODORE PARKER,\n\nMINISTER OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN BOSTON.\n\nIN THREE VOLUMES.\n\nVOL. III.\n\nBOSTON:\nHORACE B. FULLER,\n\n(SUCCESSOR TO WALKER, FULLER, AND COMPANY,)\n\n245, WASHINGTON STREET.\n\n1867.\n\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by\nTHEODORE PARKER,\nin the Clerk's Office of the District Court\nof the District of Massachusetts.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF VOLUME III.\n\n\nI.\n\nA SPEECH AT A MEETING OF THE CITIZENS OF BOSTON\nIN FANEUIL HALL, MARCH 25, 1850, TO CONSIDER THE\nSPEECH OF MR. WEBSTER                                 PAGE 1\n\nII.\n\nA SPEECH AT THE NEW ENGLAND ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION\nIN BOSTON, MAY 29, 1850                                   38\n\nIII.\n\nA DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE DEATH OF THE LATE\nPRESIDENT TAYLOR.--Preached at the Melodeon, on\nSunday, July 14, 1850                                     87\n\nIV.\n\nTHE FUNCTION AND PLACE OF CONSCIENCE, IN RELATION\nTO THE LAWS OF MEN; A SERMON FOR THE\nTIMES.--Preached at the Melodeon, on Sunday, September\n22, 1850                                                 131\n\nV.\n\nTHE STATE OF THE NATION, CONSIDERED IN A SERMON\nFOR THANKSGIVING DAY.--Preached at the Melodeon,\nNovember 28, 1850                                        180\n\nVI.\n\nTHE CHIEF SINS OF THE PEOPLE.--A Sermon delivered\nat the Melodeon, on Fast Day, April 10, 1851             230\n\nVII.\n\nTHE THREE CHIEF SAFEGUARDS OF SOCIETY, CONSIDERED\nIN A SERMON AT THE MELODEON, on Sunday,\nJuly 6, 1851                                             292\n\nVIII.\n\nTHE POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR.--An\nAddress delivered at Waterville, August 8, 1849          346\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nSPEECH AT A MEETING OF THE CITIZENS OF BOSTON, IN FANEUIL HALL, MARCH\n25, 1850, TO CONSIDER THE SPEECH OF MR. WEBSTER.\n\n\nMr. President and Fellow Citizens: It is an important occasion which has\nbrought us together. A great crisis has occurred in the affairs of the\nUnited States. There is a great question now before the people. In any\nEuropean country west of Russia and east of Spain, it would produce a\nrevolution, and be settled with gunpowder. It narrowly concerns the\nmaterial welfare of the nation. The decision that is made will help\nmillions of human beings into life, or will hinder and prevent millions\nfrom being born. It will help or hinder the advance of the nation in\nwealth for a long time to come. It is a question which involves the\nhonor of the people. Your honor and my honor are concerned in this\nmatter, which is presently to be passed upon by the people of the\nUnited States. More than all this, it concerns the morality of the\npeople. We are presently to do a right deed, or to inflict a great wrong\non others and on ourselves, and thereby entail an evil upon this\ncontinent which will blight and curse it for many an age.\n\nIt is a great question, comprising many smaller ones:--Shall we extend\nand foster Slavery, or shall we extend and foster Freedom? Slavery, with\nits consequences, material, political, intellectual, moral; or Freedom,\nwith the consequences thereof?\n\nA question so important seldom comes to be decided before any generation\nof men. This age is full of great questions, but this of Freedom is the\nchief. It is the same question which in other forms comes up in Europe.\nThis is presently to be decided here in the United States by the\nservants of the people, I mean, by the Congress of the nation; in the\nname of the people; for the people, if justly decided; against them, if\nunjustly. If it were to be left to-morrow to the naked votes of the\nmajority, I should have no fear. But the public servants of the people\nmay decide otherwise. The political parties, as such, are not to pass\njudgment. It is not a question between whigs and democrats; old party\ndistinctions, once so sacred and rigidly observed, here vanish out of\nsight. The party of Slavery or the party of Freedom is to swallow up all\nthe other parties. Questions about tariffs and banks can hardly get a\nhearing. On the approach of a battle, men do not talk of the weather.\n\nFour great men in the Senate of the United States have given us their\ndecision; the four most eminent in the party politics of the nation--two\ngreat whigs, two great democrats. The Shibboleth of their party is\nforgotten by each; there is a strange unanimity in their decision. The\nHerod of free trade and the Pilate of protection are \"made friends,\"\nwhen freedom is to be crucified. All four decide adverse to freedom; in\nfavor of slavery; against the people. Their decisions are such as you\nmight look for in the politicians of Austria and Russia. Many smaller\nones have spoken on this side or on that. Last of all, but greatest, the\nmost illustrious of the four, so far as great gifts of the understanding\nare concerned, a son of New England, long known, and often and\ndeservedly honored, has given his decision. We waited long for his\nwords; we held our peace in his silence; we listened for his counsel.\nHere it is; adverse to freedom beyond the fears of his friends, and the\nhopes even of his foes. He has done wrong things before, cowardly things\nmore than once; but this, the wrongest and most cowardly of them all: we\ndid not look for it. No great man in America has had his faults or his\nfailings so leniently dealt with; private scandal we will not credit,\npublic shame we have tried to excuse, or, if inexcusable, to forget. We\nhave all of us been proud to go forward and honor his noble deeds, his\nnoble efforts, even his noble words. I wish we could take a mantle big\nand black enough, and go backward and cover up the shame of the great\nman who has fallen in the midst of us, and hide him till his honor and\nhis conscience shall return. But no, it cannot be; his deed is done in\nthe face of the world, and nothing can hide it.\n\nWe have come together to-night in Faneuil Hall, to talk the matter over,\nin our New England way; to look each other in the face; to say a few\nwords of warning, a few of counsel, perhaps something which may serve\nfor guidance. We are not met here to-night to \"calculate the value of\nthe Union,\" but to calculate the worth of freedom and the rights of man;\nto calculate the value of the Wilmot Proviso. Let us be cool and\ncareful, not violent, not rash; true and firm, not hasty or timid.\n\nImportant matters have brought our fathers here many times before now.\nBefore the Revolution, they came here to talk about the Molasses Act, or\nthe Sugar Act, or the Stamp Act, the Boston Port Bill, and the long list\nof grievances which stirred up their manly stomachs to the Revolution;\nafterwards, they met to consult about the Embargo, and the seizure of\nthe Chesapeake, and many other matters. Not long ago, only five years\nsince, we came here to protest against the annexation of Texas. But\nbefore the Revolution or after it, meetings have seldom been called in\nFaneuil Hall on such solemn occasions as this. Not only is there a great\npublic wrong contemplated, as in the annexation of Texas, but the\ncharacter and conduct of a great public servant of the people come up to\nbe looked after. This present conduct of Mr. Webster is a thing to be\nsolemnly considered. A similar thing once happened before. In 1807, a\nsenator from Massachusetts was disposed to accept a measure the\nPresident had advised, because he had \"recommended\" it \"on his high\nresponsibility.\" \"I would _not consider_,\" said the senator, \"I would\n_not deliberate_, I would _act_.\"[1] He did so; and with little\ndeliberation, with small counsel, as men thought at the time, he voted\nfor the Embargo, and the Embargo came. This was a measure which doomed\neight hundred thousand tons of shipping to rot at the wharf. It touched\nthe pockets of New England and all the North. It affected the daily\nmeals of millions of men. There was indignation, deep and loud\nindignation; but it was political in its nature and personal in its\nform; the obnoxious measure was purely political, not obviously immoral\nand unjust. But, long as John Quincy Adams lived, much as he did in his\nlatter years for mankind, he never wholly wiped off the stain which his\nconduct then brought upon him. Yet it may be that he was honest in his\nvote; it may have been an error of judgment, and nothing more; nay,\nthere are men who think it was no error at all, but a piece of political\nwisdom.\n\nA senator of Massachusetts has now committed a fault far greater than\nwas ever charged upon Mr. Adams by his most inveterate political foes.\nIt does not directly affect the shipping of New England and the North: I\nwish it did. It does not immediately concern our daily bread; if it were\nso, the contemplated wrong would receive a speedy adjustment. But it\nconcerns the liberty of millions of men yet unborn.\n\nLet us look at the matter carefully.\n\nHere is a profile of our national action on the subject now before the\npeople.\n\nIn 1774, we agreed to import no more slaves after that year, and never\nfinally repealed this act of agreement.\n\nIn 1776, we declared that all men are created equal, and endowed by\ntheir Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life,\nliberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\n\nIn 1778, we formed the Confederacy, with no provision for the surrender\nof fugitive slaves.\n\nIn 1787, we shut out slavery from the Northwest Territory for ever, by\nthe celebrated proviso of Mr. Jefferson.\n\nIn 1788, the Constitution was formed, with its compromises and\nguarantees.\n\nIn 1808, the importation of slaves was forbidden. But,\n\nIn 1803, we annexed Louisiana, and slavery along with it.\n\nIn 1819, we annexed Florida, with more slavery.\n\nIn 1820, we legally established slavery in the territory west of the\nMississippi, south of 36 deg. 30 min.\n\nIn 1845, we annexed Texas, with three hundred and twenty-five thousand\nfive hundred and twenty square miles, as a slave State.\n\nIn 1848, we acquired, by conquest and by treaty, the vast territory of\nCalifornia and New Mexico, containing five hundred and twenty-six\nthousand and seventy-eight square miles. Of this, two hundred and four\nthousand three hundred and eighty-three square miles are south of the\nslave line--south of 36 deg. 30 min. Here is territory enough to make\nmore than thirty slave States of the size of Massachusetts.\n\nAt the present day, it is proposed to have some further action on the\nmatter of slavery. Connected with this subject, four great questions\ncome up to be decided:--\n\n1. Shall four new slave States at any time be made out of Texas? This is\nnot a question which is to be decided at present, yet it is one of great\npresent importance, and furnishes an excellent test of the moral\ncharacter and political conduct of politicians at this moment. The\nother questions are of immediate and pressing concern. Here they are:--\n\n2. Shall Slavery be prohibited in California?\n\n3. Shall Slavery be prohibited in New Mexico?\n\n4. What laws shall be passed relative to fugitive slaves?\n\nMr. Webster, in this speech, defines his position in regard to each of\nthese four questions.\n\n1. In regard to the new States to be made hereafter out of Texas, he\ngives us his opinion, in language well studied, and even with an excess\nof caution. Let us look at it, and the resolution which annexed Texas.\nThat declares that \"new States ... not exceeding four in number, in\naddition to said State of Texas ... may hereafter, by the consent of\nsaid State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be\nentitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.\nAnd such States ... shall be admitted with or without slavery, as the\npeople of each State asking admission may desire.\"\n\nI will not stop to consider the constitutionality of the joint\nresolution which annexed Texas. Mr. Webster's opinion on that subject is\nwell known. But the resolution does two things: 1. It confers a power,\nthe power to make four new States on certain conditions; a qualified\npower, restricted by the terms of the act. 2d. It imposes an\nobligation, namely, the obligation to leave it to the people of the new\nState to keep slaves or not, when the State is admitted. The words _may\nbe_, etc., indicate the conferring of a power: the words _shall be_,\netc., the imposing of an obligation. But as the power is a qualified\npower, so is the obligation a qualified obligation; the _shall be_ is\ndependent on the _may be_, as much as the _may be_ on the _shall_.\nAdmitting in argument what Mr. Webster has denied, that Congress had the\nconstitutional right to annex Texas by joint resolution, and also that\nthe resolution of one Congress binds the future Congress, it is plain\nCongress may admit new States from Texas, on those conditions, or refuse\nto admit them. This is plain, by any fair construction of the language.\nThe resolution does not say, they _shall_ be formed, only \"_may_ be\nformed,\" and \"shall be entitled to admission, under the provisions of\nthe Federal Constitution\"--not in spite of those provisions. The\nprovisions of the Constitution, in relation to the formation and\nadmission of new States, are well known, and sufficiently clear.\nCongress is no more bound to admit a new slave State formed out of\nTexas, than out of Kentucky. But Mr. Webster seems to say that Congress\nis bound to make four new States out of Texas, when there is sufficient\npopulation to warrant the measure, and a desire for it in the States\nthemselves, and to admit them with a Constitution allowing slavery. He\nsays, \"Its guaranty is, that new States shall be made out of it,... and\nthat such States ... may come in as slave States,\" etc. Quite the\ncontrary. It is only said they \"_may be_ formed,\" and admitted \"under\nthe provisions of the Constitution.\" The _shall be_ does not relate to\nthe fact of admission.\n\nThen he says, there is \"a solemn pledge,\" \"that if she shall be divided\ninto States, those States may come in as slave States.\" But there is no\n\"solemn pledge\" that they _shall come_ in at all. I make a \"solemn\npledge\" to John Doe, that if ever I give him any land, it shall be a\nthousand acres in the meadows on Connecticut River; but it does not\nfollow from this that I am bound to give John Doe any land at all. This\nsolemn pledge is worth nothing, if Congress says to new States, You\nshall not come in with your slave Constitution. To make this\n\"stipulation with Texas\" binding, it ought to have provided that \"new\nStates ... shall be formed out of the territory thereof ... such States\nshall be entitled to admission, in spite of the provisions of the\nConstitution.\" Even then it would be of no value; for as there can be no\nmoral obligation to do an immoral deed, so there can be no\nconstitutional obligation to do an unconstitutional deed. So much for\nthe first question. You see that Mr. Webster proposes to do what we\nnever stipulated to do, what is not \"so nominated in the bond.\" He\nwrests the resolution against freedom, and for the furtherance of the\nslave power!\n\n2 and 3. Mr. Webster has given his answer to the second and third\nquestions, which may be considered as a single question, Shall slavery\nbe legally forbidden by Congress in California and New Mexico? Mr.\nWebster is opposed to the prohibition by Congress. Here are his words:\n\"Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded\nfrom those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and\nsanctions it in Texas. I mean the law of nature, of physical geography,\nthe law of the formation of the earth.\"... \"I will say further, that if\na resolution or a law were now before us to provide a territorial\ngovernment for New Mexico, I would not vote to put any prohibition into\nit whatever. The use of such a prohibition would be idle, as it respects\nany effect it would have upon the territory: and I would not take pains\nto reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor to reenact the will of God.\"\n\"The gentlemen who belong to the Southern States would think it a taunt,\nan indignity; they would think it an act taking away from them what they\nregard as a proper equality of privilege\" ... \"a plain theoretic wrong,\"\n\"more or less derogatory to their character and their rights.\"\n\n\"African slavery,\" he tells us, \"cannot exist there.\" It could once\nexist in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Very little of this territory\nlies north of Mason and Dixon's line, the northern limit of Maryland;\nnone above the parallel of forty-two degrees; none of it extends fifty\nmiles above the northern limit of Virginia; two hundred and four\nthousand three hundred and fifty-three square miles of it lie south of\nthe line of the Missouri Compromise, south of 36 deg. 30'. Almost all of it\nis in the latitude of Virginia and the Carolinas. If slavery can exist\non the west coast of the Atlantic, I see not why it cannot on the east\nof the Pacific, and all the way between. There is no reason why it\ncannot. It will, unless we forbid it by positive laws, laws which no man\ncan misunderstand. Why, in 1787, it was thought necessary to forbid\nslavery in the Northwest Territory, which extends from the Ohio River to\nthe forty-ninth parallel of north latitude.\n\nNot exclude slavery from California and New Mexico, because it can never\nexist there! Why, it was there once, and Mexico abolished it by positive\nlaw. Abolished, did I say! We are not so sure of that; I mean, not sure\nthat the Senate of the United States is sure of it. Not a month before\nMr. Webster made this very speech, on the 13th and 14th of last\nFebruary, Mr. Davis, the Senator from Mississippi, maintained that\nslavery is not abolished in California and New Mexico. He denies that\nthe acts abolishing slavery in Mexico were made by competent powers;\ndenies that they have the force of law. But even if they have, he tells\nus, \"Suppose it be conceded that by law it was abolished--could that law\nbe perpetual? Could it extend to the territory after it became the\nproperty of the United States? Did we admit territory from Mexico,\nsubject to the Constitution and laws of Mexico? Did we pay fifteen\nmillion dollars for jurisdiction over California and New Mexico, that it\nmight be held subordinate to the laws of Mexico?\" The Commissioners of\nMexico, he tells us, did not think that \"we were to be bound by the\nedicts and statutes of Mexico.\" They pressed this point in the\nnegotiation, \"the continuation of their law for the exclusion of\nslavery;\" and Mr. Trist told them he could not make a treaty on that\ncondition; if they would \"offer him the land covered a foot thick with\npure gold, upon the single condition that slavery should be excluded\ntherefrom, I could not entertain the offer for a moment.\" Does not Mr.\nWebster know this? He knows it too well.\n\nBut Mr. Davis goes further. He does not think slavery is excluded by\nlegislation stronger than a joint resolution. This is his language: \"I\nbelieve it is essential, on account of the climate, productions, soil,\nand the peculiar character of cultivation, that we shall, during its\nfirst settlement, have that slavery [African slavery] in a part, at\nleast, of California and New Mexico.\" Now on questions of \"A law of\nnature and physical geography,\" the Senator from Mississippi is as good\nauthority as the Senator from Massachusetts, and a good deal nearer to\nthe facts of the case.\n\nIn the House of Representatives, Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina,\namongst others, wants New Mexico for slave soil. Pass the Wilmot Proviso\nover this territory, and the question is settled, disposed of for ever.\nOmit to pass it, and slavery will go there, and you may get it out if\nyou can. Once there, it will be said that the \"Compromises of the\nConstitution\" are on its side, and we have no jurisdiction over the\nslavery which we have established there.\n\nHear what Mr. Foote said of a similar matter on the 26th of June, 1848,\nin his place in the Senate: \"Gentlemen have said this is not a practical\nquestion, that slaves will never be taken to Oregon. With all deference\nto their opinion, I differ with them totally. I believe, if permitted,\nslaves would be carried there, and that slavery would continue, at\nleast, as long as in Maryland or Virginia. ['The whole of Oregon' is\nnorth of forty-two degrees.] The Pacific coast is totally different in\ntemperature from the Atlantic. It is far milder.... Green peas are eaten\nin the Oregon city at Christmas. Where is the corresponding climate to\nbe found on this side the continent? Where we sit--near the\nthirty-ninth? No, sir; but to the south of us.\" \"The latitude of Georgia\ngives, on the Pacific, a tropical climate.\" \"The prohibition of slavery\nin the laws of Oregon was adopted for the express purpose of excluding\nslaves.\" \"A few had been brought in; further importations were expected;\nand it was with a view to put a stop to them, that the prohibitory act\nwas passed.\"\n\nNow, Mr. Foote of Mississippi--\"Hangman Foote,\" as he has been\ncalled--understands the laws of the formation of the earth as well as\nthe distinguished senator from Massachusetts. Why, the inhabitants of\nthat part of the Northwest Territory, which now forms the States of\nIndiana and Illinois, repeatedly asked Congress to allow them to\nintroduce slaves north of the Ohio; and but for the ordinance of '87,\nthat territory would now be covered with the mildew of slavery!\n\nBut I have not yet adduced all the testimony of Mr. Foote. Last year, on\nthe 23d of February, 1849, he declared: \"No one acquainted with the vast\nmineral resources of California and New Mexico, and who is aware of the\npeculiar adaptedness of slave labor to the development of mineral\ntreasures, can doubt for a moment, that were slaves introduced into\nCalifornia and New Mexico, being employed in the mining operations there\nin progress, their labor would result in the acquisition of pecuniary\nprofits not heretofore realized by the most successful cotton or sugar\nplanter of this country?\" Does not Mr. Webster know this? Perhaps he did\nnot hear Mr. Foote's speech last year; perhaps he has a short memory,\nand has forgotten it. Then let us remind the nation of what its Senator\nforgets. Not know this--forget it? Who will credit such a statement? Mr.\nWebster is not an obscure clergyman, busy with far different things, but\nthe foremost politician of the United States.\n\nBut why do I mention the speeches of Mr. Foote, a year ago? Here is\nsomething hardly dry from the printing-press. Here is an advertisement\nfrom the \"Mississippian\" of March 7th, 1850, the very day of that\nspeech. The \"Mississippian\" is published at the city of Jackson, in\nMississippi.\n\n     \"CALIFORNIA,\n\n     \"THE SOUTHERN SLAVE COLONY.\n\n     \"Citizens of the slave States, desirous of emigrating to\n     California with their slave property, are requested to send\n     their names, number of slaves, and period of contemplated\n     departure, to the address of 'SOUTHERN SLAVE COLONY,'\n     Jackson, Miss....\n\n     \"It is the desire of the friends of this enterprise to\n     settle in the richest mining and agricultural portions of\n     California, and to have the uninterrupted enjoyment of slave\n     property. It is estimated that, by the first of May next,\n     the members of this Slave Colony will amount to about five\n     thousand, and the slaves to about ten thousand. The mode of\n     effecting organization, &c., will be privately transmitted\n     to actual members.\n\n     \"Jackson (Miss.), Feb. 24, 1850.     \"dtf.\n\n\n\n\nWhat does Mr. Webster say in view of all this? \"If a proposition were\nnow here for a government for New Mexico, and it was moved to insert a\nprovision for the prohibition of slavery, I would not vote for it.\" Why\nnot vote for it? There is a specious pretence, which is publicly\nproclaimed, but there is a real reason for it which is not mentioned!\n\nIn the face of all these facts, Mr. Webster says that these men would\nwish \"to protect the everlasting snows of Canada from the pest of\nslavery by the same overspreading wing of an act of Congress.\" Exactly\nso. If we ever annex Labrador--if we \"re-annex\" Greenland, and\nKamskatka, I would extend the Wilmot Proviso there, and exclude slavery\nforever and forever.\n\nBut Mr. Webster would not \"reaffirm an ordinance of nature,\" nor\n\"reenact the will of God.\" I would. I would reaffirm nothing else, enact\nnothing else. What is justice but the \"ordinance of nature?\" What is\nright but \"the will of God?\" When you make a law, \"Thou shalt not kill,\"\nwhat do you but \"reenact the will of God?\" When you make laws for the\nsecurity of the \"unalienable rights\" of man, and protect for every man\nthe right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are you not\nre-affirming an ordinance of nature? Not reenact the will of God? Why, I\nwould enact nothing else. The will of God is a theological term; it\nmeans truth and justice, in common speech. What is the theological\nopposite to \"The will of God?\" It is \"The will of the devil.\" One of the\ntwo you must enact--either the will of God, or of the devil. The two\nare the only theological categories for such matters. _Aut Deus aut\nDiabolus._ There is no other alternative, \"Choose you which you will\nserve.\"\n\nSo much for the second and third questions. Let us now come to the last\nthing to be considered. What laws shall be enacted relative to fugitive\nslaves? Let us look at Mr. Webster's opinion on this point.\n\nThe Constitution provides--you all know that too well--that every person\n\"held to service or labor in one State,... escaping into another, shall\nbe delivered up.\" By whom shall he be delivered up? There are only three\nparties to whom this phrase can possibly apply. They are,\n\n1. Individual men and women; or,\n\n2. The local authorities of the States concerned; or,\n\n3. The Federal Government itself.\n\nIt has sometimes been contended that the Constitution imposes an\nobligation on you, and me, and every other man, to deliver up fugitive\nslaves. But there are no laws or decisions that favor that construction.\nMr. Webster takes the next scheme, and says, \"I always thought that the\nConstitution addressed itself to the Legislatures of the States, or to\nthe States themselves.\" \"It seems to me that the import of the passage\nis, that the State itself ... shall cause him [the fugitive] to be\ndelivered up. That is my judgment.\" But the Supreme Court, some years\nago, decided otherwise, that \"The business of seeing that these\nfugitives are delivered up resides in the power of congress and the\nnational judicature.\" So the matter stands now. But it is proposed to\nmake more stringent laws relative to the return of fugitive slaves. So\ncontinues Mr. Webster--\"My friend at the head of the judiciary committee\nhas a bill on the subject now before the Senate, with some amendments to\nit, which I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest\nextent.\"\n\nEverybody knows the act of Congress of 1793, relative to the surrender\nof fugitive slaves, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the \"Prigg\ncase,\" 1842. But everybody does not know the bill of Mr. Webster's\n\"friend at the head of the judiciary committee.\" There is a bill\nproviding \"for the more effectual execution of the third clause of the\nsecond section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United\nStates.\" It is as follows:--\n\n     _\"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives\n     of the United States of America, in Congress assembled_,\n     That when a person held to service or labor, in any State or\n     Territory of the United States, under the laws of such State\n     or territory, shall escape into any other of the said States\n     or territories, the person to whom such service or labor may\n     be due, his or her agent, or attorney, is hereby empowered\n     to seize or arrest such fugitive from service or labor, and\n     to take him or her before any Judge of the Circuit or\n     District Courts of the United States, or before any\n     commissioner or clerk of such courts, or marshal thereof, or\n     before any postmaster of the United States, or collector of\n     the customs of the United States, residing or being within\n     such State wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made;\n     and, upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge,\n     commissioner, clerk, postmaster, or collector, as the case\n     may be, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before\n     and certified by any person authorized to administer an oath\n     under the laws of the United States, or of any State, that\n     the person so seized or arrested, under the laws of the\n     State or territory, from which he or she fled, owes service\n     or labor to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the\n     duty of such judge, commissioner, clerk, marshal,\n     postmaster, or collector, to give a certificate thereof to\n     such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, which\n     certificate shall be a sufficient warrant for taking and\n     removing such fugitive from service or labor to the State or\n     territory from which he or she fled.\n\n     \"Sec. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That when a person\n     held to service or labor, as mentioned in the first section\n     of this act, shall escape from such service or labor,\n     therein mentioned, the person to whom such service or labor\n     may be due, his or her agent or attorney, may apply to any\n     one of the officers of the United States named in said\n     section, other than a marshal of the United States, for a\n     warrant to seize and arrest such fugitive; and upon\n     affidavit being made before such officer (each of whom, for\n     the purposes of this act, is hereby authorized to administer\n     an oath or affirmation), by such claimant, his or her agent,\n     that such person does, under the laws of the State or\n     territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labor to\n     such claimant, it shall be and is hereby made the duty of\n     such officer, to and before whom such application and\n     affidavits are made to issue his warrant to any marshal of\n     any of the courts of the United States, to seize and arrest\n     such alleged fugitive, and to bring him or her forthwith, or\n     on a day to be named in such warrant, before the officer\n     issuing such warrant, or either of the other officers\n     mentioned in said first section, except the marshal to whom\n     the said warrant is directed, which said warrant or\n     authority, the said marshal is hereby authorized and\n     directed in all things to obey.\n\n     \"Sec. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That upon affidavit\n     made as aforesaid, by the claimant of such fugitive, his\n     agent or attorney, after such certificate has been issued,\n     that he has reason to apprehend that such fugitive will be\n     rescued by force from his or their possession, before he can\n     be taken beyond the limits of the State in which the arrest\n     is made, it shall be the duty of the officer making the\n     arrest, to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to\n     remove him to the State whence he fled, and there to deliver\n     him to said claimant, his agent or attorney. And to this\n     end, the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required\n     to employ so many persons as he may deem necessary to\n     overcome such force, and to retain them in his service, so\n     long as circumstances may require. The said officer and his\n     assistants, while so employed, to receive the same\n     compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses as are now\n     allowed by law, for transportation of criminals, to be\n     certified by the judge of the district within which the\n     arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United\n     States: _Provided_, That before such charges are incurred,\n     the claimant, his agent, or attorney, shall secure to said\n     officer payment of the same, and in case no actual force be\n     opposed, then they shall be paid by such claimant, his agent\n     or attorney.\n\n     \"Sec. 4. _And be it further enacted_, When a warrant shall\n     have been issued by any of the officers under the second\n     section of this act, and there shall be no marshal or deputy\n     marshal within ten miles of the place where such warrant is\n     issued, it shall be the duty of the officer issuing the\n     same, at the request of the claimant, his agent, or\n     attorney, to appoint some fit and discreet person, who shall\n     be willing to act as marshal, for the purpose of executing\n     said warrant; and such persons so appointed shall, to the\n     extent of executing such warrant, and detaining and\n     transporting the fugitive named therein, have all the power\n     and the authority, and he, with his assistants, entitled to\n     the same compensation and expenses, provided in this act, in\n     cases where the services are performed by the marshals of\n     the courts.\n\n     \"Sec. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who\n     shall knowingly and wilfully obstruct or hinder such\n     claimant, his agent, or attorney, or any person or persons\n     assisting him, her or them, in so serving or arresting such\n     fugitive from service or labor, or shall rescue such\n     fugitive from such claimant, his agent, or attorney, when so\n     arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given or\n     declared, or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing\n     service or labor, to escape from such claimant, his agent,\n     or attorney, or shall harbor or conceal such person, after\n     notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor, as\n     aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit\n     and pay the sum of one thousand dollars, which penalty may\n     be recovered by, and for the benefit of, such claimant, by\n     action of debt in any court proper to try the same, saving,\n     moreover, to the person claiming such labor or service, his\n     right of action for, on account of, the said injuries, or\n     either of them.\n\n     \"Sec. 6. _And be it further enacted_, That when such person\n     is seized and arrested, under and by virtue of the said\n     warrant, by such marshal, and is brought before either of\n     the officers aforesaid, other than said marshal, it shall be\n     the duty of such officer to proceed in the case of such\n     person, in the same way that he is directed and authorized\n     to do, when such person is seized and arrested by the person\n     claiming him, or by his or her agent, or attorney, and is\n     brought before such officer or attorney, under the\n     provisions of the first section of this act.\"\n\nThis is the bill known as \"Mason's Bill,\" introduced by Mr. Butler of\nSouth Carolina, on the 16th of January last. This is the bill which Mr.\nWebster proposes to support, \"with all its provisions to the fullest\nextent.\" It is a Bill of abominations, but there are \"some amendments\nto it,\" which modify the bill a little. Look at them. Here they are. The\nfirst provides in addition to the fine of one thousand dollars for\naiding and abetting the escape of a fugitive, for harboring and\nconcealing him, that the offender \"shall also be imprisoned twelve\nmonths.\" The second amendment is as follows--\"And in no trial or hearing\nunder this act shall the testimony of such fugitive be admitted in\nevidence.\"\n\nThese are Mr. Mason's amendments, offered on the twenty-third of last\nJanuary. This is the bill, \"with some amendments,\" which Mr. Webster\nsays, \"I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest\nextent.\" Mr. Seward's bill was also before the Senate--a bill granting\nthe fugitive slave a trial by jury in the State where he is found, to\ndetermine whether or not he is a slave. Mr. Webster says not a word\nabout this bill. He does not propose to support it.\n\nSuppose the bill of Mr. Webster's friend shall pass Congress, what will\nthe action of it be? A slave-hunter comes here to Boston, he seizes any\ndark-looking man that is unknown and friendless, he has him before the\npostmaster, the collector of customs, or some clerk or marshal of some\nUnited States court, and makes oath that the dark man is his slave. The\nslave-hunter is allowed his oath. The fugitive is not allowed his\ntestimony. The man born free as you and I, on the false oath of a\nslave-hunter, or the purchased affidavit of some one, is surrendered to\na southern State, to bondage life-long and irremediable. Will you say,\nthe postmaster, the collector, the clerks and marshals in Boston would\nnot act in such matters? They have no option; it is their official\nbusiness to do so. But they would not decide against the unalienable\nrights of man--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\nThat may be, or may not be. The slave-hunter may have his \"fugitive\"\nbefore the collector of Boston, or the postmaster of Truro, if he sees\nfit. If they, remembering their Old Testament, refuse to \"bewray him\nthat wandereth,\" the slave-hunter may bring on his officer with him from\nGeorgia or Florida; he may bring the custom-house officer from Mobile or\nWilmington, some little petty postmaster from a town you never heard of\nin South Carolina or Texas, and have any dark man in Boston up before\nthat \"magistrate,\" and on his decision have the fugitive carried off to\nLouisiana or Arkansas, to bondage for ever. The bill provides that the\ntrial may be had before any such officer, \"residing or being\" in the\nState where the fugitive is found!\n\nThere were three fugitives at my house the other night. Ellen Craft was\none of them. You all know Ellen Craft is a slave; she, with her husband,\nfled from Georgia to Philadelphia, and is here before us now. She is not\nso dark as Mr. Webster himself, if any of you think freedom is to be\ndealt out in proportion to the whiteness of the skin. If Mason's bill\npasses, I might have some miserable postmaster from Texas or the\nDistrict of Columbia, some purchased agent of Messrs. Bruin & Hill, the\ngreat slave-dealers of the Capitol, have him here in Boston, take Ellen\nCraft before the caitiff, and on his decision hurry her off to bondage\nas cheerless, as hopeless, and as irremediable as the grave!\n\nLet me interest you in a scene which might happen. Suppose a poor\nfugitive, wrongfully held as a slave--let it be Ellen Craft--has escaped\nfrom Savannah in some northern ship. No one knows of her presence on\nboard; she has lain with the cargo in the hold of the vessel. Harder\nthings have happened. Men have journeyed hundreds of miles bent double\nin a box half the size of a coffin, journeying towards freedom. Suppose\nthe ship comes up to Long Wharf, at the foot of State Street. Bulk is\nbroken to remove the cargo; the woman escapes, emaciated with hunger,\nfeeble from long confinement in a ship's hold, sick with the tossing of\nthe heedless sea, and still further etiolated and blanched with the\nmingling emotions of hope and fear. She escapes to land. But her\npursuer, more remorseless than the sea, has been here beforehand; laid\nhis case before the official he has brought with him, or purchased here,\nand claims his slave. She runs for her life, fear adding wings. Imagine\nthe scene--the flight, the hot pursuit through State Street, Merchants'\nRow--your magistrates in hot pursuit. To make the irony of nature still\nmore complete, let us suppose this shall take place on some of the\nmemorable days in the history of America--on the 19th of April, when our\nfathers first laid down their lives \"in the sacred cause of God and\ntheir country;\" on the 17th of June, the 22d of December, or on any of\nthe sacramental days in the long sad history of our struggle for our own\nfreedom! Suppose the weary fugitive takes refuge in Faneuil Hall, and\nhere, in the old Cradle of Liberty, in the midst of its associations,\nunder that eye of Samuel Adams, the bloodhounds seize their prey!\nImagine Mr. Webster and Mr. Winthrop looking on, cheering the\nslave-hunter, intercepting the fugitive fleeing for her life. Would not\nthat be a pretty spectacle?\n\nPropose to support that bill to the fullest extent, with all its\nprovisions! Ridiculous talk! Does Mr. Webster suppose that such a law\ncould be executed in Boston? that the people of Massachusetts will ever\nreturn a single fugitive slave, under such an act as that? Then he knows\nhis constituents very little, and proves that he needs \"Instruction.\"[2]\n\n\"Slavery is a moral and religious blessing,\" says somebody in the\npresent Congress. But it seems some thirty thousand slaves have been\nblind to the benefits--moral and religious benefits--which it confers,\nand have fled to the free States. Mr. Clingman estimates the value of\nall the fugitive slaves in the North at $15,000,000. Delaware loses\n$100,000 in a year in this way; her riches taking to themselves not\nwings, but legs. Maryland lost $100,000 in six months. I fear Mr.\nMason's bill and Mr. Webster's speech will not do much to protect that\nsort of \"property\" from this kind of loss. Such action is prevented \"by\na law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas.\"\n\nSuch are Mr. Webster's opinions on these four great questions. Now,\nthere are two ways of accounting for this speech, or, at least, two ways\nof looking at it. One is, to regard it as the work of a statesman\nseeking to avert some great evil from the whole nation. This is the way\nMr. Webster would have us look at it, I suppose. His friends tell us it\nis a statesmanlike speech--very statesmanlike. He himself says _Vera pro\ngratis_[3]--true words in preference to words merely pleasing. _Etsi\nmeum ingenium non moneret necessitas cogit_--Albeit my own humor should\nnot prompt the counsel, necessity compels it. The necessity so cogent is\nthe attempt to dissolve the Union, in case the Wilmot Proviso should be\nextended over the new territory. Does any man seriously believe that\nMr. Webster really fears a dissolution of this Union undertaken and\naccomplished on this plea, and by the Southern States? I will not insult\nthe foremost understanding of this continent by supposing he deems it\npossible. No, we cannot take this view of his conduct.\n\nThe other way is to regard it as the work of a politician, seeking\nsomething beside the permanent good of a great nation. The lease of the\nPresidency is to be disposed of for the next four years by a sort of\nauction. It is in the hands of certain political brokers, who \"operate\"\nin presidential and other political stock. The majority of those brokers\nare slaveholders or pro-slavery men; they must be conciliated, or they\nwill \"not understand the nod\" of the candidate--I mean of the man who\nbids for the lease. All the illustrious men in the national politics\nhave an eye on the transaction, but sometimes the bid has been taken for\npersons whose chance at the sale seemed very poor. General Cass made his\nbid some time ago. I think his offer is recorded in the famous\n\"Nicholson Letter.\" He was a Northern man, and bid Non-intervention--The\nunconstitutionality of any intervention with slavery in the new\nterritory. Mr. Clay made his bid, for old Kentucky \"never tires,\" the\nsame old bid that he has often made--a Compromise. Mr. Calhoun did as he\nhas always done. I will not say he made any bid at all; he was too sick\nfor that, too sick for any thought of the Presidency. Perhaps at this\nmoment the angel of death is dealing with that famed and remarkable man.\nNay, he may already have gone where \"The servant is free from his\nmaster, and the weary are at rest;\" have gone home to his God, who is\nthe Father of the great politician and the feeblest-minded slave. If it\nbe so, let us follow him only with pity for his errors, and the prayer\nthat his soul may be at rest. He has fought manfully in an unmanly\ncause. He seemed sincerely in the wrong, and spite of the badness of the\ncause to which he devoted his best energies, you cannot but respect the\nman.\n\nLast of all, Mr. Webster makes his bid for the lease of \"that bad\neminence,\" the Presidency. He bids higher than the others, of course, as\ncoming later; bids Non-intervention, Four new slave States in Texas,\nMason's Bill for Capturing Fugitive slaves, and Denunciation of all the\nAnti-slavery movements of the North, public and private. That is what he\nbids, looking to the southern side of the board of political brokers.\nThen he nods northward, and says, The Wilmot Proviso is my \"thunder;\"\nthen timidly glances to the South and adds, But I will never use it.\n\nI think this is the only reasonable way in which we can estimate this\nspeech--as a bid for the Presidency. I will not insult that mighty\nintellect by supposing that he, in his private heart, regards it in any\nother light. Mr. Calhoun might well be content with that, and say\n\"Organize the territories on the principle of that gentleman, and give\nus a free scope and sufficient time to get in--we ask nothing but that,\nand we never will ask it.\"\n\nSuch are the four great questions before us; such Mr. Webster's answers\nthereunto; such the two ways of looking at his speech. He decides in\nadvance against freedom in Texas, against freedom in California, against\nfreedom in New Mexico, against freedom in the United States, by his\ngratuitous offer of support to Mr. Mason's bill. His great eloquence,\nhis great understanding, his great name, give weight to all his words.\nPains are industriously taken to make it appear that his opinions are\nthe opinions of Boston. Is it so? [Cries of No, No.] That was rather a\nfeeble cry. Perhaps it is the opinion of the prevailing party in Boston.\n[No, No.] But I put it to you, Is it the opinion of Massachusetts? [Loud\ncries of No, No, No.] Well, so I say, No; it is not the opinion of\nMassachusetts.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBefore now, servants of the people and leaders of the people have proved\nfalse to their employers, and betrayed their trust. Amongst all\npolitical men who have been weighed in the balance, and found wanting,\nwith whom shall I compare him? Not with John Quincy Adams, who, in 1807,\nvoted for the embargo. It may have been the mistake of an honest\nintention, though I confess I cannot think so yet. At any rate, laying\nan embargo, which he probably thought would last but a few months, was a\nsmall thing compared with the refusal to restrict slavery, willingness\nto enact laws to the disadvantage of mankind, and the voluntary support\nof Mason's iniquitous bill. Besides, Mr. Adams lived a long life; if he\nerred, or if he sinned in this matter, he afterwards fought most\nvaliantly for the rights of man.\n\nShall I compare Mr. Webster with Thomas Wentworth, the great Earl of\nStrafford, a man \"whose doubtful character and memorable end have made\nhim the most conspicuous character of a reign so fertile in\nrecollections?\" He, like Webster, was a man of large powers, and once\ndevoted them to noble uses. Did Wentworth defend the \"Petition of\nRight?\" So did Webster many times defend the great cause of liberty. But\nit was written of Strafford, that \"in his self-interested and ambitious\nmind,\" patriotism \"was the seed sown among thorns!\" \"If we reflect upon\nthis man's cold-blooded apostasy on the first lure to his ambition, and\non his splendid abilities, which enhanced the guilt of that desertion,\nwe must feel some indignation at those who have palliated all his\niniquities, and embalmed his memory with the attributes of patriot\nheroism. Great he surely was, since that epithet can never be denied\nwithout paradox to so much comprehension of mind, such ardor and\nenergy, such courage and eloquence, those commanding qualities of soul,\nwhich, impressed upon his dark and stern countenance, struck his\ncontemporaries with mingled awe and hate ... But it may be reckoned a\nsufficient ground for distrusting any one's attachment to the English\nConstitution, that he reveres the name of Strafford.\" His measures for\nstifling liberty in England, which he and his contemporaries\nsignificantly called \"Thorough\" in the reign of Charles I., were not\nmore atrocious, than the measures which Daniel Webster proposes himself,\nor proposes to support \"to the fullest extent.\" But Strafford paid the\nforfeit--tasting the sharp and bitter edge of the remorseless axe. Let\nhis awful shade pass by. I mourn at the parallel between him and the\nmighty son of our own New England. Would God it were not thus!\n\nFor a sadder parallel, I shall turn off from the sour features of that\ngreat British politician, and find another man in our own fair land.\nThis name carries us back to \"the times that tried men's souls,\" when\nalso there were souls that could not stand the rack. It calls me back to\n\"The famous year of '80;\" to the little American army in the highlands\nof New York; to the time when the torch of American liberty which now\nsends its blaze far up to heaven, at the same time lighting the northern\nlakes and the Mexique Bay, tinging with welcome radiance the eastern and\nthe western sea, was a feeble flame flickering about a thin and hungry\nwick, and one hand was raised to quench in darkness, and put out\nforever, that feeble and uncertain flame. Gentlemen, I hate to speak\nthus. I honor the majestic talents of this great man. I hate to couple\nhis name with that other, which few Americans care to pronounce. But I\nknow no deed in American history, done by a son of New England, to which\nI can compare this, but the act of Benedict Arnold!\n\nShame that I should say this of any man; but his own motto shall be\nmine--VERA PRO GRATIS--and I am not responsible for what he has made the\nTRUTH; certainly, _meum ingenium non moneret, necessitas cogit_!\n\nI would speak with all possible tenderness of any man, of every man; of\nsuch an one, so honored, and so able, with the respect I feel for\nsuperior powers. I would often question my sense of justice, before I\ndared to pronounce an adverse conclusion. But the Wrong is palpable, the\nInjustice is open as the day. I must remember, here are twenty millions,\nwhose material welfare his counsel defeats; whose honor his counsel\nstains; whose political, intellectual, moral growth he is using all his\nmighty powers to hinder and keep back. \"_Vera pro gratis. Necessitas\ncogit. Vellem, equidem, vobis placere, sed multo malo vos salvos esse,\nqualicunque erga me animo futuri estis._\"\n\nLet me take a word of warning and of counsel from the same author; yes,\nfrom the same imaginary speech of Quintus Capitolinis, whence Mr.\nWebster has drawn his motto:--_Ante portas est bellum: si inde non\npellitur, jam intra maenia erit, et arcem et Capitolium scandet, et in\ndomos vestras vos persequetur._ The war [against the extension of\nSlavery, not against the Volscians, in this case] is before your very\ndoors: if not driven thence, it will be within your walls [namely, it\nwill be in California and New Mexico]; it will ascend the citadel and\nthe capitol [to wit, it will be in the House of Representatives and the\nSenate]; and it will follow you into your very homes [that is, the curse\nof Slavery will corrupt the morals of the nation].\n\n_Sedemus desides domi, mulierum ritu inter nos altercantes; praesenti\npace laeti, nec cernentes_ EX OTIO ILLO BREVI MULTIPLEX BELLUM REDITURUM.\nWe [the famous Senators of the United States] sit idle at home,\nwrangling amongst ourselves like women [to see who shall get the lease\nof the Presidency], glad of the present truce [meaning that which is\nbrought about by a compromise], not perceiving that for this brief\ncessation of trouble, a manifold war will follow [that is, the \"horrid\ninternecine war\" which will come here, as it has been elsewhere, if\njustice be too long delayed]!\n\nIt is a great question before us, concerning the existence of millions\nof men. To many men in politics, it is merely a question of party\nrivalry; a question of in and out, and nothing more. To many men in\ncities, it is a question of commerce, like the establishment of a bank,\nor the building of one railroad more or less. But to serious men, who\nlove man and love their God, this is a question of morals, a question of\nreligion, to be settled with no regard to party rivalry, none to\nfleeting interests of to-day, but to be settled under the awful eye of\nconscience, and by the just law of God.\n\nShall we shut up slavery or extend it? It is for us to answer. Will you\ndeal with the question now, or leave it to your children, when the evil\nis ten times greater? In 1749, there was not a slave in Georgia; now,\ntwo hundred and eighty thousand. In 1750, in all the United States, but\ntwo hundred thousand; now, three millions. In 1950, let Mr. Webster's\ncounsels be followed, there will be thirty millions. Thirty millions!\nWill it then be easier for your children to set limits to this crime\nagainst human nature, than now for you? Our fathers made a political,\nand a commercial, and a moral error--shall we repeat it? They did a\nwrong; shall we extend and multiply the wrong? Was it an error in our\nfathers; not barely a wrong--was it a sin? No, not in them; they knew it\nnot. But what in them to establish was only an error, in us to extend or\nto foster is a sin!\n\nPerpetuate Slavery, we cannot do it. Nothing will save it. It is girt\nabout by a ring of fire which daily grows narrower, and sends terrible\nsparkles into the very centre of the shameful thing. \"Joint\nresolutions\" cannot save it; annexations cannot save it--not if we\nre-annex all the West Indies; delinquent representatives cannot save it;\nuninstructed senators, refusing instructions, cannot save it, no, not\nwith all their logic, all their eloquence, which smites as an earthquake\nsmites the sea. No, slavery cannot be saved; by no compromise, no\nnon-intervention, no Mason's Bill in the Senate. It cannot be saved in\nthis age of the world until you nullify every ordinance of nature, until\nyou repeal the will of God, and dissolve the union He has made between\nrighteousness and the welfare of a people. Then, when you displace God\nfrom the throne of the world, and instead of his eternal justice,\nreenact the will of the Devil, then you may keep Slavery; keep it\nforever, keep it in peace. Not till then.\n\nThe question is, not if slavery is to cease, and soon to cease, but\nshall it end as it ended in Massachusetts, in New Hampshire, in\nPennsylvania, in New York; or shall it end as in St. Domingo? Follow the\ncounsel of Mr. Webster--it will end in fire and blood. God forgive us\nfor our cowardice, if we let it come to this, that three millions or\nthirty millions of degraded human beings, degraded by us, must wade\nthrough slaughter to their unalienable rights.\n\nMr. Webster has spoken noble words--at Plymouth, standing on the\naltar-stone of New England; at Bunker Hill, the spot so early reddened\nwith the blood of our fathers. But at this hour, when we looked for\ngreat counsel, when we forgot the paltry things which he has often done,\nand said, \"Now he will rouse his noble soul, and be the man his early\nspeeches once bespoke,\" who dared to fear that Olympian head would bow\nso low, so deeply kiss the ground? Try it morally, try it\nintellectually, try it by the statesman's test, world-wide justice; nay,\ntry it by the politician's basest test, the personal expediency of\nto-day--it is a speech \"not fit to be made,\" and when made, not fit to\nbe confirmed.\n\n    \"We see dimly in the distance what is small and what is great,\n    Slow of faith how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate;\n    But the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din,\n    List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within--\n    'They enslave their children's children, who make compromise with sin.'\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Mr. John Quincy Adams.\n\n[2] Alas, a single year taught me the folly of this confidence in\nBoston! See No. VI. of this volume.\n\n[3] Motto of Mr. Webster's speech.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nSPEECH AT THE NEW ENGLAND ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION IN BOSTON, MAY 29,\n1850.\n\n\nMr. President,--If we look hastily at the present aspect of American\naffairs, there is much to discourage a man who believes in the progress\nof his race. In this republic, with the Declaration of Independence for\nits political creed, neither of the great political parties is hostile\nto the existence of slavery. That institution has the continual support\nof both the whig and democratic parties. There are now four eminent men\nin the Senate of the United States, all of them friends of slavery. Two\nof these are from the North, both natives of New England; but they\nsurpass their southern rivals in the zeal with which they defend that\ninstitution, and in the concessions which they demand of the friends of\njustice at the North. These four men are all competitors for the\nPresidency. Not one of them is the friend of freedom; he that is\napparently least its foe, is Mr. Benton, the Senator from Missouri. Mr.\nClay, of Kentucky, is less effectually the advocate of slavery than Mr.\nWebster, of Massachusetts. Mr. Webster himself has said, \"There is no\nNorth,\" and, to prove it experimentally, stands there as one mighty\ninstance of his own rule.\n\nIn the Senate of the United States, only Seward and Chase and Hale can\nbe relied on as hostile to slavery. In the House, there are Root and\nGiddings, and Wilmot and Mann, and a few others. \"But what are these\namong so many?\"\n\nSee \"how it strikes a stranger.\" Here is an extract from the letter of a\ndistinguished and learned man,[4] sent out here by the King of Sweden to\nexamine our public schools: \"I have just returned from Washington, where\nI have been witnessing the singular spectacle of this free and\nenlightened nation being buried in sorrow, on account of the death of\nthat great advocate of slavery, Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Webster's speech seems\nto have made a very strong impression upon the people of the South, as I\nhave heard it repeated almost as a lesson of the catechism by every\nperson I have met within the slave territory. It seems now to be an\nestablished belief, that slavery is not a _malum necessarium_, still\nless an evil difficult to get rid of, but desirable soon to get rid of.\nNo, far from that; it seems to be considered as quite a natural, most\nhappy, and essentially Christian institution!\"\n\nNot satisfied with keeping an institution which the more Christian\nreligion of the Mohammedan Bey of Tunis has rejected as a \"sin against\nGod,\" we seek to extend it, to perpetuate it, even on soil which the\nhalf-civilized Mexicans made clear from its pollutions. The great organs\nof the party politics of the land are in favor of the extension; the\ngreat political men of the land seek to extend it; the leading men in\nthe large mercantile towns of the North--in Boston, New York, and\nPhiladelphia--are also in favor of extending slavery. All this is plain.\n\nBut, Sir, as I come up here to this Convention year after year, I find\nsome signs of encouragement. Even in the present state of things, the\nstar of hope appears, and we may safely and reasonably say, \"Now is our\nsalvation nearer than when we first believed\" in anti-slavery. Let us\nlook a little at the condition of America at this moment, to see what\nthere is to help or what to hinder us.\n\nFirst, I will speak of the present crisis in our affairs; then of the\npolitical parties amongst us; then of the manner in which this crisis is\nmet; next of the foes of freedom; and last, of its friends. I will speak\nwith all coolness, and try to speak short. By the middle of anniversary\nweek, men get a little heated; I am sure I shall be cool, and I think I\nmay also be dull.\n\nThere must be unity of action in a nation, as well as in a man, or there\ncannot be harmony and welfare. As a man \"cannot serve two masters\"\nantagonistic and diametrically opposed to one another, as God and\nMammon, no more can a nation serve two opposite principles at the same\ntime.\n\nNow, there are two opposite and conflicting principles recognized in the\npolitical action of America: at this moment, they contend for the\nmastery, each striving to destroy the other.\n\nThere is what I call the American idea. I so name it, because it seems\nto me to lie at the basis of all our truly original, distinctive and\nAmerican institutions. It is itself a complex idea, composed of three\nsubordinate and more simple ideas, namely: The idea that all men have\nunalienable rights; that in respect thereof, all men are created equal;\nand that government is to be established and sustained for the purpose\nof giving every man an opportunity for the enjoyment and development of\nall these unalienable rights. This idea demands, as the proximate\norganization thereof, a democracy, that is, a government of all the\npeople, by all the people, for all the people; of course, a government\nafter the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging law of God; for\nshortness' sake, I will call it the idea of Freedom.\n\nThat is one idea; and the other is, that one man has a right to hold\nanother man in thraldom, not for the slave's good, but for the master's\nconvenience; not on account of any wrong the slave has done or\nintended, but solely for the benefit of the master. This idea is not\npeculiarly American. For shortness' sake, I will call this the idea of\nSlavery. It demands for its proximate organization, an aristocracy, that\nis, a government of all the people by a part of the people--the masters;\nfor a part of the people--the masters; against a part of the people--the\nslaves; a government contrary to the principles of eternal justice,\ncontrary to the unchanging law of God. These two ideas are hostile,\nirreconcilably hostile, and can no more be compromised and made to\ncoalesce in the life of this nation, than the worship of the real God\nand the worship of the imaginary Devil can be combined and made to\ncoalesce in the life of a single man. An attempt has been made to\nreconcile and unite the two. The slavery clauses of the Constitution of\nthe United States is one monument of this attempt; the results of this\nattempt--you see what they are, not order, but confusion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe cannot have any settled and lasting harmony until one or the other of\nthese ideas is cast out of the councils of the nation: so there must be\nwar between them before there can be peace. Hitherto, the nation has not\nbeen clearly aware of the existence of these two adverse principles; or,\nif aware of their existence, has thought little of their irreconcilable\ndiversity. At the present time, this fact is brought home to our\nconsciousness with great clearness. On the one hand, the friends of\nfreedom set forth the idea of freedom, clearly and distinctly, demanding\nliberty for each man. This has been done as never before. Even in the\nSenate of the United States it has been done, and repeatedly during the\npresent session of Congress. On the other hand, the enemies of freedom\nset forth the idea of slavery as this has not been done in other\ncountries for a long time. Slavery has not been so lauded in any\nlegislative body for many a year, as in the American Senate in 1850.\nSome of the discussions remind one of the spirit which prevailed in the\nRoman Senate, A. D. 62, when about four hundred slaves were crucified,\nbecause their master, Pedanius Secundus, a man of consular dignity, was\nfound murdered in his bed. I mean to say, the same disregard of the\nwelfare of the slaves, the same willingness to sacrifice them--if not\ntheir lives, which are not now in peril, at least their welfare, to the\nconvenience of their masters. Anybody can read the story in Tacitus,[5]\nand it is worth reading, and instructive, too, at these times.\n\nHere are some of the statements relative to slavery made in the\nthirty-first Congress of the United States. Hearken to the testimony of\nthe Hon. Mr. Badger, of North Carolina:\n\n     \"It is clear that this institution [slavery] not only was\n     not disapproved of, but was expressly recognized, approved,\n     and its continuance sanctioned by the divine lawgiver of the\n     Jews.\"\n\n     \"Whether an evil or not, it is not a sin; it is not a\n     violation of the divine law.\n\n     \"What treatment did it receive from the founder of the\n     gospel dispensation? It was approved, first negatively,\n     because, in the whole New Testament, there is not to be\n     found one single word, either spoken by the Saviour, or by\n     any of the evangelists or apostles, in which that\n     institution is either directly or indirectly condemned; and\n     also affirmatively.\" This he endeavors to show, by quoting\n     the passages from St. Paul, usually quoted for that purpose.\n     Nothing would be easier than for St. Paul to have\n     said--'Slaves, be obedient to your heathen masters; but I\n     say to you, feeling masters, emancipate your slaves; the law\n     of Christ is against that relation, and you are bound,\n     therefore, to set them at liberty.' No such word is spoken.\n\nThus far goes the Hon. Senator Badger, of North Carolina.\n\nMr. Brown, of Mississippi, goes further yet. He knows what some men\nthink of slavery, and tells them, \"Very well, think so; but keep your\nthoughts to yourselves.\" He is not content with bidding the \"Freest and\nmost enlightened nation in the world,\" be silent on this matter: he is\nnot content, with Mr. Badger, to declare that if an evil, it is not a\nsin, and to find it upheld in the Old Testament, and allowed in the New\nTestament; he tells us that he \"regards slavery as a great moral,\nsocial, political and religious blessing--a blessing to the slave, and a\nblessing to the master.\"\n\nThus, the issue is fairly made between the two principles. The\ncontradiction is plain. The battle between the two is open, and in sight\nof the world.\n\nBut this is not the first time there has been a quarrel between the idea\nof slavery and the idea of freedom in America. The quarrel has lasted,\nwith an occasional truce, for more than sixty years. In six battles,\nslavery has been victorious over freedom.\n\n1. In the adoption of the Constitution supporting slavery.\n\n2. In the acquisition of Louisiana, as slave territory.\n\n3. In the acquisition of Florida as slave territory.\n\n4. In making the Missouri Compromise.\n\n5. In the annexation of Texas as a slave State.\n\n6. In the Mexican war--a war, mean and wicked, even amongst wars.\n\nSince the Revolution, there have been three instances of great national\nimportance, in which freedom has overcome slavery; there have been three\nvictories:\n\n1. In prohibiting slavery from the Northwest Territory, before the\nadoption of the Constitution.\n\n2. In prohibiting the slave-trade in 1808. I mean, in prohibiting the\nAfrican slave-trade; the American slave-trade is still carried on in the\ncapital of the United States.\n\n3. The prohibition of slavery in Oregon may be regarded as a third\nvictory, though not apparently of so much consequence as the others.\n\nNow comes another battle, and it remains to be decided whether the idea\nof slavery or the idea of freedom is to prevail in the territory we have\nconquered and stolen from Mexico. The present strife is to settle that\nquestion. Now, as before, it is a battle between freedom and slavery;\none on which the material and spiritual welfare of millions of men\ndepends; but now the difference between freedom and slavery is more\nclearly seen than in 1787; the consequences of each are better\nunderstood, and the sin of slavery is felt and acknowledged by a class\nof persons who had few representatives sixty years ago. It is a much\ngreater triumph for slavery to prevail now, and carry its institutions\ninto New Mexico in 1850, than it was to pass the pro-slavery provisions\nof the Constitution in 1787. It will be a greater sin now to extend\nslavery, than it was to establish it in 1620, when slaves were first\nbrought to Virginia.\n\nEver since the adoption of the Constitution, protected by that shield,\nmastering the energies of the nation, and fighting with that weapon,\nslavery has been continually aggressive. The slave-driver has coveted\nnew soil; has claimed it; has had his claim allowed. Louisiana, Florida,\nTexas, California and New Mexico are the results of Southern aggression.\nNow the slave-driver reaches out his hand towards Cuba, trying to clutch\nthat emerald gem set in the tropic sea. How easy it was to surrender to\nGreat Britain portions of the Oregon Territory in a high northern\nlatitude! Had it been south of 36 deg. 30', it would not have been so easy\nto settle the Oregon question by a compromise. So when we make a\ncompromise there, \"the reciprocity must be all on one side.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us next look at the position of the political parties with respect\nto the present crisis. There are now four political parties in the land.\n\n1. There is the Government party, represented by the President, and\nportions of his Cabinet, if not the whole of it. This party does not\nattempt to meet the question which comes up, but to dodge and avoid it.\nShall Freedom or Slavery prevail in the new territory? is the question.\nThe government has no opinion; it will leave the matter to be settled by\nthe people of the territory. This party wishes California to come into\nthe Union without slavery, for it is her own desire so to come; and does\nnot wish a territorial government to be formed by Congress in New\nMexico, but to leave the people there to form a State, excluding or\nestablishing slavery as they see fit. The motto of this party is\ninaction, not intervention. King James I. once proposed a question to\nthe Judges of England. They declined to answer it, and the King said,\n\"If ye give no counsel, then why be ye counsellors?\" The people of the\nUnited States might ask the government, \"If ye give us no leading, then\nwhy be ye leaders?\" This party is not hostile to slavery; not opposed to\nits extension.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n2. Then there is the Whig Party. This party has one distinctive idea;\nthe idea of a Tariff for Protection; whether for the protection of\nAmerican labor, or merely American capital, I will not now stop to\ninquire. The Whig Party is no more opposed to slavery, or its extension,\nthan the Government party itself.\n\nHowever there are two divisions of the whigs, the Whig Party South, and\nthe Whig Party North. The two agree in their ideas of protection, and\ntheir pro-slavery character. But the Whig Party South advocates Slavery\nand Protection; the Whig Party North, Protection and Slavery.\n\nIn the North there are many whigs who are opposed to slavery, especially\nto the extension of slavery; there are also many other persons, not of\nthe whig party, opposed to the extension of slavery; therefore in the\nlate electioneering campaign, to secure the votes of these persons, it\nwas necessary for the whig party North to make profession of\nanti-slavery. This was done accordingly, in a general form, and in\nspecial an attempt was made to show that the whig party was opposed to\nthe extension of slavery.\n\nHear what Senator Chase says on this point. I read from his speech in\nthe Senate, on March 26, 1850:--\n\n     \"On the whig side it was urged, that the candidate of the\n     Philadelphia Convention was, if not positively favorable to\n     the Proviso, at least pledged to leave the matter to\n     Congress free from Executive influence, and ready to approve\n     it when enacted by that body.\"\n\nGeneral Cass had written the celebrated \"Nicholson Letter,\" in which he\ndeclared that Congress had no constitutional power to enact the Proviso.\nBut so anxious were the Democrats of the North to assume an anti-slavery\naspect,--continues Mr. Chase,--that\n\n     \"Notwithstanding this letter, many of his friends in the\n     free States persisted in asserting that he would not, if\n     elected, veto the Proviso; many also insisted that he\n     regarded slavery as excluded from the territories by the\n     Mexican laws still in force; while others maintained that he\n     regarded slavery as an institution of positive law, and\n     Congress as constitutionally incompetent to enact such law,\n     and that therefore it was impossible for slavery to get into\n     the territories, whether Mexican law was in force or not.\"\n\nThis, says Mr. Chase, was the whig argument:--\n\n     \"Prohibition is essential to the certain exclusion of\n     slavery from the territories. If the democratic candidate\n     shall be elected, prohibition is impossible, for the veto\n     will be used: if the whig candidate shall be elected,\n     prohibition is certain, provided you elect a Congress who\n     will carry out your will. Vote, therefore, for the whigs.\"\n\nSuch was the general argument of the whig party. Let us see what it was\nin Massachusetts in special. Here I have documentary evidence. This is\nthe statement of the Whig Convention at Worcester in 1848, published\nshortly before the election:--\n\n     \"We understand the whig party to be committed in favor of\n     the principles contained in the ordinance of 1787, the\n     prohibition of slavery in territory now free, and of its\n     abolition wherever it can be constitutionally effected.\"\n\nThey professed to aim at the same thing which the free soil party aimed\nat, only the work must be done by the old whig organization. Free soil\ncloth must be manufactured, but it must be woven in the old whig mill,\nwith the old whig machinery, and by the old whig weavers. See what the\nConvention says of the democratic party:--\n\n     \"We understand the democratic party to be pledged to decline\n     any legislation upon the subject of slavery, with a view\n     either to its prohibition or restriction in places where it\n     does not exist, or to its abolition in any of the\n     territories of the United States.\"\n\nThere is no ambiguity in that language. Men can talk very plain when\nthey will. Still there were some that doubted; so the great and famous\nmen of the party came out to convince the doubters that the whigs were\nthe men to save the country from the disgrace of slavery.\n\nHere let me introduce the testimony of Mr. Choate. This which follows is\nfrom his speech at Salem. He tells us the great work is, \"The passage of\na law to-day that California and New Mexico shall remain forever free.\nThat is ... an object of great and transcendent importance:... we should\ngo up to the very limits of the Constitution itself ... to defeat the\nalways detested, and forever-to-be detested object of the dark ambition\nof that candidate of the Baltimore Convention, who has consented to\npledge himself in advance, that he will veto the future law of freedom!\"\n\"Is there a whig upon this floor who doubts that the strength of the\nwhig party next March will extend freedom to California and New Mexico,\nif by the Constitution they are entitled to freedom at all? Is there a\nmember of Congress that would not vote for freedom?\" [_Sancta\nsimplicitas! Ora pro nobis!_] \"Is there a single whig constituency, in\nany free State in this country, that would return any man that would not\nvote for freedom? Do you believe that Daniel Webster himself could be\nreturned, if there was the least doubt upon this question?\"\n\nThat is plain speech. But, to pass from the special to the particular,\nhear Mr. Webster himself. What follows is from his famous speech at\nMarshfield, September, 1848.\n\n     \"General Cass (he says) will have the Senate; and with the\n     patronage of the government, with the interest that he, as a\n     Northern man, can bring to bear, cooeperating with every\n     interest that the South can bring to bear, we cry _safety_\n     before we are out of the woods, if we feel that there is no\n     danger as to these new territories!\" \"In my judgment, the\n     interests of the country and the feelings of a vast majority\n     of the people require that a President of these United\n     States shall be elected, who will neither use his official\n     influence to promote, nor who feels any disposition in his\n     heart to promote, the further extension of slavery in this\n     country, and the further influence of it in the public\n     councils.\"\n\nSpeaking of the free soil party and the Buffalo platform, he says--\"I\nhold myself to be as good a free soil man as any of the Buffalo\nConvention.\" Of the platform he says--\"I can stand upon it pretty well.\"\n\"I beg to know who is to inspire into my breast a more resolute and\nfixed determination to resist, unyieldingly, the encroachments and\nadvances of the slave power in this country, than has inspired it, ever\nsince the day that I first opened my mouth in the councils of the\ncountry.\"\n\nIf such language as this would not \"deceive the very elect,\" what was\nmore to the point, it was quite enough to deceive the electors. But now\nthis language is forgotten; forgotten in general by the whig party\nNorth; forgotten in special by those who seemed to be the exponents of\nthe whig party in Massachusetts; forgotten at any rate by the nine\nhundred and eighty-seven men who signed the letter to Mr. Webster; and\nin particular it is forgotten by Mr. Webster himself, who now says that\nit would disgrace his own understanding to vote for the extension of the\nWilmot Proviso over the new territory!\n\nThere were some men in New England who did not believe the statements of\nthe whig party North in 1848, because they knew the men that uttered the\nsentiments of the whig party South. The leaders put their thumbs in the\neyes of the people, and then said, \"Do you see any dough in our faces?\"\n\"No!\" said the people, \"not a speck.\" \"Then vote our ticket, and never\nsay we are not hostile to slavery so long as you live.\"\n\nAt the South, the whig party used language somewhat different. Here is a\nsample from the New Orleans Bee:--\n\n     \"General Taylor is from birth, association, and conviction,\n     identified with the South and her institutions; being one of\n     the most extensive slaveholders in Louisiana--and supported\n     by the slaveholding interest, as opposed to the Wilmot\n     Proviso, and in favor of securing the privilege to the\n     owners of slaves to remove with them to newly acquired\n     territory.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n3. Then there is the Democratic party. The distinctive idea of the\ndemocrats is represented by the word anti-protection, or revenue tariff.\nThis party, as such, is still less opposed to slavery than the whigs;\nhowever, there are connected with it, at the North, many men who oppose\nthe extension of slavery. This party is divided into two divisions, the\ndemocratic party South, and the democratic party North. They agree in\ntheir idea of anti-protection and slavery, differing only in the\nemphasis which they give to the two words. The democrats of the South\nsay Slavery and Anti-protection; the democrats North, Anti-protection\nand Slavery. Thus you see, that while there is a specific difference\nbetween democrats and whigs, there is also a generic agreement in the\nmatter of slavery. According to the doctrine of elective affinities,\nboth drop what they have a feeble affinity for, and hold on with what\ntheir stronger affinity demands. The whigs and democrats of the South\nare united in their attachment to slavery, not only mechanically, but by\na sort of chemical union.\n\nMr. Cass's Nicholson letter is well known. He says Congress has no\nconstitutional right to restrict slavery in the territories. Here is the\ndifference between him and General Taylor. General Taylor does not\ninterfere at all in the matter. If Congress puts slavery in, he says,\nVery well! If Congress puts slavery out, he says the same, Very well!\nBut if Congress puts slavery out, General Cass would say, No. You shall\nnot put it out. One has the policy of King Log, the other that of King\nSerpent. So far as that goes, Log is the better king.\n\nSo much for the democratic party.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n4. The Free Soil party opposes slavery so far as it is possible to do,\nand yet comply with the Constitution of the United States. Its idea is\ndeclared by its words,--No more slave territory. It does not profess to\nbe an anti-slavery party in general, only an anti-slavery party subject\nto the Constitution. In the present crisis in the Congress of the United\nStates, it seems to me the men who represent this idea, though not\nalways professing allegiance to the party, have yet done the nation good\nand substantial service. I refer more particularly to Messrs. Chase,\nSeward and Hale in the Senate, to Messrs. Root, Giddings and Mann in the\nHouse. Those gentlemen swear to keep the Constitution; in what sense and\nwith what limitations, I know not. It is for them to settle that matter\nwith their own consciences. I do know this, that these men have spoken\nvery noble words against slavery; heroic words in behalf of freedom. It\nis not to be supposed that the free soil party, as such, has attained\nthe same convictions as to the sin of slavery, which the anti-slavery\nparty has long arrived at. Still they may be as faithful to their\nconvictions as any of the men about this platform. If they have less\nlight to walk by, they have less to be accountable for. For my own part,\nspite of their short-comings, and of some things which to me seem wrong\nin the late elections in New England, I cannot help thinking they have\ndone good as individuals, and as a party; it seems to me they have done\ngood both ways. I will honor all manly opposition to slavery, whether it\ncome up to my mark, or does not come near it. I will ask every man to be\ntrue to his conscience, and his reason, not to mine.\n\nIn speaking of the parties, I ought not to omit to say a word or two\nrespecting some of the most prominent men, and their position in\nreference to this slavery question. It is a little curious, that of all\nthe candidates for the Presidency, Mr. Benton, of Missouri, should be\nthe least inclined to support the pretensions of the Slave Power. But so\nit is.\n\nOf Mr. Cass, nothing more need be said at present; his position is\ndefined and well known. But a word must be said of Mr. Clay. He comes\nforward, as usual, with a \"Compromise.\" Here it is, in the famous\n\"Omnibus Bill.\" In one point it is not so good as the Government scheme.\nGeneral Taylor, as the organ of the party, recommends the admission of\nCalifornia, as an independent measure. He does not huddle and lump it\ntogether with any other matters; and in this respect, his scheme is more\nfavorable to freedom than the other; for Mr. Clay couples the admission\nof California with other things. But in two points Mr. Clay's bill has\nthe superiority over the General's scheme.\n\n1. It limits the Western and Northern boundaries of Texas, and so\nreduces the territory of that State, where slavery is now established by\nlaw. Yet, as I understand it, he takes off from New Mexico about seventy\nthousand square miles, enough to make eight or ten States like\nMassachusetts, and delivers it over to Texas to be slave soil; as Mr.\nWebster says, out of the power of Congress to redeem from that scourge.\n\n2. It does not maintain that Congress has no power to exclude slavery in\nadmitting a new State; whereas, if I understand the President in his\nMessage, he considers such an act \"An invasion of their rights.\"[6]\n\nLet us pass by Mr. Clay, and come to the other aspirant for the\nPresidency.\n\nAt the Philadelphia Convention, Mr. Webster, at the most, could only get\none half the votes of New England; several of these not given in\nearnest, but only as a compliment to the great man from the North. Now,\nfinding his presidential wares not likely to be bought by New England,\nhe takes them to a wider market; with what success we shall one day see.\n\nSomething has already been said in the newspapers and elsewhere, about\nMr. Webster's speech. No speech ever delivered in America has excited\nsuch deep and righteous indignation. I know there are influential men in\nBoston, and in all large towns, who must always have somebody to sustain\nand applaud. They some time since applauded Mr. Webster, for reasons\nvery well known, and now continue their applause of him. His late speech\npleases them; its worst parts please them most. All that is as was to\nbe expected; men like what they must like. But, in the country, among\nthe sober men of Massachusetts and New England, who prize Right above\nthe political expediency of to-day, I think Mr. Webster's speech is read\nwith indignation. I believe no one political act in America, since the\ntreachery of Benedict Arnold, has excited so much moral indignation, as\nthe conduct of Daniel Webster.\n\nBut I pass by his speech, to speak of other things connected with that\nfamous man. One of the most influential pro-slavery newspapers of\nBoston, calls the gentlemen who signed the letter to him, the\n\"Retainers\" of Mr. Webster. The word is well chosen and quite\ndescriptive. This word is used in a common, a feudal, and a legal sense.\nIn the common sense, it means one who has complete possession of the\nthing retained; in the feudal sense, it means a dependent or vassal, who\nis bound to support his liege lord; in the legal sense, it means the\nperson who hires an attorney to do his business; and the sum given to\nsecure his services, or prevent him from acting for the opposite party,\nis called a retaining fee. I take it the word \"Retainers,\" is used in\nthe legal sense; certainly it is not in the feudal sense, for these\ngentlemen do not owe allegiance to Mr. Webster. Nor is it in its common\nsense, for events have shown that they have not a \"complete possession\"\nof Mr. Webster.\n\nNow, a word about this letter to him. Mr. Webster's retainers--nine\nhundred and eighty-seven in number--tell him, \"You have pointed out to a\nwhole people the path of duty, have convinced the understanding, and\ntouched the conscience of a nation.\" \"We desire, therefore, to express\nto you our entire concurrence in the sentiments of your speech, and our\nheartfelt thanks for the inestimable aid it has afforded towards the\npreservation and perpetuation of the Union.\"\n\nThey express their entire concurrence in the sentiments of his speech.\nIn the speech, as published in the edition \"revised and corrected by\nhimself,\" Mr. Webster declares his intention to support the famous\nfugitive slave bill, and the amendments thereto, \"with all its\nprovisions, to the fullest extent.\" When the retainers express their\n\"entire concurrence in the sentiments of the speech,\" they express their\nentire concurrence in that intention. There is no ambiguity in the\nlanguage; they make a universal affirmation--(_affirmatio de omni_). Now\nMr. Webster comes out, by two agents, and recants this declaration. Let\nme do him no injustice. He shall be heard by his next friend, who wishes\nto amend the record, a correspondent of the Boston Courier, of May\n6th:--\n\n     \"The speech now reads thus:--'My friend at the head of the\n     Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject, now before\n     the Senate, with some amendments to it, which I propose to\n     support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.'\n     Changing the position of the word _which_, and the sentence\n     would read thus:--'My friend at the head of the Judiciary\n     Committee has a bill on the subject, now before the Senate,\n     which, with some amendments to it, I propose to support,\n     with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.'\"\n\n\"Call you that backing your friends?\" Really, it is too bad, after his\nretainers have expressed their \"entire concurrence in the sentiments of\nthe speech,\" for him to back out, to deny that he entertained one of the\nsentiments already approved of and concurred in! Can it be possible, we\nask, that Mr. Webster can resort to this device to defend himself,\nleaving his retainers in the lurch? It does not look like him to do such\na thing. But the correspondent of the Courier goes on as follows:--\n\n     \"We are authorized to state, first--That Mr. Webster did not\n     revise this portion of his speech, with any view to examine\n     its exact accuracy of phrase; and second--That Mr. Webster,\n     at the time of the delivery of the speech, had in his desk\n     three amendatory sections,... and one of which provides\n     expressly for the right of trial by jury.\"\n\nBut who is the person \"authorized to state\" such a thing? Professor\nStuart informs the public that it \"comes from the hand of a man who\nmight claim a near place to Mr. Webster, in respect to talent,\nintegrity, and patriotism.\"\n\nStill, this recantation is so unlike Mr. Webster, that one would almost\ndoubt the testimony of so great an unknown as is the writer in the\nCourier. But Mr. Stuart removes all doubt, and says--\"I merely add, that\nMr. Webster himself has personally assured me that his speech was in\naccordance with the correction here made, and that he has now in his\ndesk the amendments to which the corrector refers.\" So the retainers\nmust bear the honor, or the shame, whichsoever it may be, of\nvolunteering the advocacy of that remarkable bill.\n\nWhen Paul was persecuted for righteousness' sake, how easily might \"the\noffence of the cross\" have been made to cease, by a mere transposition!\nHad he pursued that plan, he need not have been let down from the wall\nin a basket: he might have had a dinner given him by forty scribes, at\nthe first hotel in Jerusalem, and a doctor of the law to defend him in a\npamphlet.\n\nBut, alas! in Mr. Webster's case, admitting the transposition is real,\nthe transubstantiation is not thereby effected; the transfer of the\n_which_ does not alter the character of the sentence to the requisite\ndegree. The bill, which he volunteers to advocate, contains provisions\nto this effect: That the owner of a fugitive slave may seize his\nfugitive, and, on the warrant of any \"judge, commissioner, clerk,\nmarshal, postmaster, or collector,\" \"residing or being\" within the State\nwhere the seizure is made, the fugitive, without any trial by jury,\nshall be delivered up to his master, and carried out of the State. Now,\nthis is the bill which Mr. Webster proposes \"to support, with all its\nprovisions, to the fullest extent.\" Let him transfer his _which_, it\ndoes not transubstantiate his statement so that he can consistently\nintroduce a section which \"provides expressly for the right of trial by\njury.\" This attempt to evade the plain meaning of a plain statement, is\ntoo small a thing for a great man.\n\nI make no doubt that Mr. Webster had in his desk, at the time alleged, a\nbill designed to secure the trial by jury to fugitive slaves, prepared\nas it is set forth. But how do you think it came there, and for what\npurpose? Last February Mr. Webster was intending to make a very\ndifferent speech; and then, I make no doubt, it was that this bill was\nprepared, with the design of introducing it! But I see no reason for\nsupposing, that when he made his celebrated speech, he intended to\nintroduce it as an amendment to Mr. Mason's or Butler's bill. It is said\nthat he will present it to the Senate. Let us wait and see.[7]\n\nBut, since the speech at Washington, Mr. Webster has said things at\nBoston, almost as bad. Here they are; extracts from his speech at the\nRevere House. I quote from the report in the Daily Advertiser. \"Neither\nyou nor I shall see the legislation of the country proceed in the old\nharmonious way, until the discussions in Congress and out of Congress\nupon the subject, to which you have alluded [the subject of slavery],\nshall be, in some way, suppressed. Take that truth home with you--and\ntake it as truth.\" A very pretty truth that is to take home with us,\nthat \"discussion\" must be \"suppressed!\"\n\nAgain, he says:--\n\n     \"Sir, the question is, whether Massachusetts will stand to\n     the truth against temptation [that is the question]! whether\n     she will be just against temptation! whether she will defend\n     herself against her own prejudices! She has conquered every\n     thing else in her time; she has conquered this ocean which\n     washes her shore; she has conquered her own sterile soil;\n     she has conquered her stern and inflexible climate; she has\n     fought her way to the universal respect of the world; she\n     has conquered every one's prejudices but her own. The\n     question now is, whether she will conquer her own\n     prejudices!\"\n\nThe trumpet gives no uncertain sound; but before we prepare ourselves\nfor battle, let us see who is the foe. What are the \"prejudices\"\nMassachusetts is to conquer? The prejudice in favor of the American\nidea; the prejudice in favor of what our fathers called self-evident\ntruths; that all men \"are endowed with certain unalienable rights;\" that\n\"all men are created equal,\" and that \"to secure these rights,\ngovernments are instituted amongst men.\" These are the prejudices\nMassachusetts is called on to conquer. There are some men who will do\nthis \"with alacrity;\" but will Massachusetts conquer her prejudices in\nfavor of the \"unalienable rights of man?\" I think, Mr. President, she\nwill first have to forget two hundred years of history. She must efface\nLexington and Bunker Hill from her memory, and tear the old rock of\nPlymouth out from her bosom. These are prejudices which Massachusetts\nwill not conquer, till the ocean ceases to wash her shore, and granite\nto harden her hills. Massachusetts has conquered a good many things, as\nMr. Webster tells us. I think there are several other things we shall\ntry our hand upon, before we conquer our prejudice in favor of the\nunalienable rights of man.\n\nThere is one pleasant thing about this position of Mr. Webster. He is\nalarmed at the fire which has been kindled in his rear. He finds\n\"considerable differences of opinion prevail ... on the subject of that\nspeech,\" and is \"grateful to receive ... opinions so decidedly\nconcurring with\" his own,--so he tells the citizens of Newburyport. He\nfeels obliged to do something to escape the obloquy which naturally\ncomes upon him. So he revises his speech; now supplying an omission, now\naltering a little; authorizes another great man to transpose his\nrelative pronoun, and anchor it fast to another antecedent; appeals to\namendments in the senatorial desk, designed to secure a jury trial for\nfugitive slaves; derides his opponents, and compares them with the\npatriots of ancient times. Here is his letter to the citizens of\nNewburyport--a very remarkable document. It contains some surprising\nlegal doctrines, which I leave others to pass upon. But in it he\nexplains the fugitive slave law of 1793, which does not \"provide for the\ntrial of any question whatever by jury, in the State in which the arrest\nis made.\" \"At that time,\" nobody regarded any of the provisions of that\nbill as \"repugnant to religion, liberty, the Constitution, or humanity;\"\nand he has \"no more objections to the provisions of this law, than was\nseen to them\" by the framers of the law itself. If he sees therein\nnothing \"repugnant to religion, liberty, the Constitution, or humanity,\"\nthen why transpose that relative pronoun, and have an amendment \"which\nprovides expressly for the right of trial by jury?\"\n\n     \"In order to allay excitement,\" he answers, \"and remove\n     objections.\" \"There are many difficulties, however,\n     attending any such provision [of a jury trial]; and a main\n     one, and perhaps the only insuperable one, has been created\n     by the States themselves, by making it a penal offence in\n     their own officers, to render any aid in apprehending or\n     securing such fugitives, and absolutely refusing the use of\n     their jails for keeping them in custody, till a jury could\n     be impanelled, witnesses summoned, and a regular trial be\n     had.\"\n\nThink of that! It is Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York,\nwhich prohibit the fugitive from getting a trial for his freedom, before\na jury of twelve good men and true! But Mr. Webster goes on: \"It is not\ntoo much to say, that to these State laws is to be attributed the actual\nand practical denial of trial by jury in these cases.\" Generally, the\ncause is thought to precede the effect, but here is a case in which,\naccording to Mr. Webster, the effect has got the start of the cause, by\nmore than fifty years. The fugitive slave law of Congress, which allowed\nthe master to capture the runaway, was passed in 1793; but the State\nlaws he refers to, to which \"is to be attributed the actual and\npractical denial of trial by jury in these cases,\" were not passed till\nafter 1840. \"To what base uses may we come at last!\" Mr. Webster would\nnever have made such a defence of his pro-slavery conduct, had he not\nbeen afraid of the fire in his rear, and thought his retainers not able\nto put it out. He seems to think this fire is set in the name of\nreligion: so, to help us \"Conquer our prejudices,\" he cautions us\nagainst the use of religion, and quotes from the private letter of \"One\nof the most distinguished men in England,\" dated as late as the 29th of\nJanuary--\"Religion is an excellent thing in every matter except in\npolitics: there it seems to make men mad.\" In this respect, it seems\nreligion is inferior to money, for the Proverbs tell us that money\n\"answereth all things;\" religion, it seems, \"answereth all things,\"\nexcept politics. Poor Mr. Webster! If religion is not good in politics,\nI suppose irreligion is good there; and, really, it is often enough\nintroduced there. So, if religion \"seems to make men mad\" in politics, I\nsuppose irreligion makes them sober in politics. But Mr. Webster, fresh\nfrom his transposition of his own relative, explains this: His friend\nascribes the evils not to \"true and genuine religion,\" but to \"that\nfantastic notion of religion.\" So, making the transposition, it would\nread thus: \"That fantastical notion of religion,\" \"is an excellent thing\nin any matter except politics.\" Alas! Mr. Webster does not expound his\nfriend's letter, nor his own language, so well as he used to expound the\nConstitution. But he says, \"The religion of the New Testament is as sure\na guide to duty in politics, as in any other concern of life.\" So, in\nthe name of \"Conscience and the Constitution,\" Professor Stuart comes\nforward to defend Mr. Webster, \"by the religion of the New Testament;\nthat religion which is founded on the teachings of Jesus and his\napostles.\" How are the mighty fallen!\n\nMr. Webster makes a \"great speech,\" lending his mighty influence to the\nsupport and extension of slavery, with all its attendant consequences,\nwhich paralyze the hand of industry, enfeeble the thinking mind, and\nbrutify the conscience which should discern between right and wrong;\nnine hundred and eighty-seven of his retainers in Boston, thank him for\nreminding them of their duty. But still the fire in his rear is so hot,\nthat he must come on to Boston, talk about having discussion suppressed,\nand ask Massachusetts to conquer her prejudices. That is not enough. He\nmust go up to Andover, and get a minister to defend him, in the name of\n\"Conscience and the Constitution,\" supporting slavery out of the Old\nTestament and New Testament. \"To what mean uses may we not descend!\"\n\nThere is a \"short and easy method\" with Professor Stuart, and all other\nmen who defend slavery out of the Bible. If the Bible defends slavery,\nit is not so much the better for slavery, but so much the worse for the\nBible. If Mr. Stuart and Mr. Webster do not see that, there are plenty\nof obscurer men that do. Of all the attacks ever made on the Bible, by\n\"deists\" and \"infidels,\" none would do so much to bring it into\ndisrepute, as to show that it sanctioned American slavery.\n\nIt is rather a remarkable fact, that an orthodox minister should be on\nMr. Webster's paper, endorsing for the Christianity of slavery.\n\nLet me say a word respecting the position of the Representative from\nBoston. I speak only of his position, not of his personal character. Let\nhim, and all men, have the benefit of the distinction between their\npersonal character, and official conduct. Mr. Winthrop is a consistent\nwhig; a representative of the idea of the whig party North, Protection\nand Slavery. When he first went into Congress, it was distinctly\nunderstood that he was not going to meddle with the matter of slavery;\nthe tariff was the thing. All this was consistent. It is to be supposed\nthat a Northern whig will put the mills of the North before the black\nmen of the South: and \"Property before persons,\" might safely be writ on\nthe banner of the whig party, North or South.\n\nMr. Winthrop seems a little uneasy in his position. Some time ago he\ncomplained of a \"Nest of vipers\" in Boston, who had broken their own\nteeth in gnawing a file; meaning the \"vipers\" in the free soil party, I\nsuppose, whose teeth, however, have a little edge still left on them. He\nfinds it necessary to define his position, and show that he has kept up\nhis communication with the base-line of operations from which he\nstarted. This circumstance is a little suspicious.\n\nUnlike Mr. Webster, Mr. Winthrop seems to think religion is a good thing\nin politics, for in his speech of May 7th, he says--\"I acknowledge my\nallegiance to the whole Constitution of the United States.... And\nwhenever I perceive a plain conflict of jurisdiction and authority\nbetween the Constitution of my country and the laws of my God, my course\nis clear. I shall resign my office, whatever it may be, and renounce all\nconnection with public service of any sort.\" That is fair and manly. He\nwill not hold a position under the Constitution of the United States\nwhich is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Universe. But he\nsays--\"There are provisions in the Constitution [of the United States,\nhe means, not of the universe], which involve us in painful obligations,\nand from which some of us would rejoice to be relieved; and this [the\nrestoration of fugitive slaves], is one of them. But there is none,\nnone, in my judgment, which involves any conscientious or religious\ndifficulty.\" So he has no \"conscientious or religious\" objection to\nreturn a fugitive slave. He thinks the Constitution of the United States\n\"avoids the idea that there can be property in man,\" but recognizes\n\"that there may be property in the service or labor of man.\" But when it\nis property in the service of man without value received by the servant,\nand a claim which continues to attach to a man and his children forever,\nit looks very like the idea of property in man. At any rate, there is\nonly a distinction in the words, no difference in the things. To claim\nthe sum of the accidents, all and several of a thing, is practically to\nclaim the thing.\n\nMr. Winthrop once voted for the Wilmot Proviso, in its application to\nthe Oregon Territory. Some persons have honored him for it, and even\ncontended that he also was a free soiler. He wipes off that calumny by\ndeclaring, that he attached that proviso to the Oregon bill for the\npurpose of defeating the bill itself. \"This proviso was one of the means\nupon which I mainly relied for the purpose.\" \"There can be little\ndoubt,\" he says, \"that this clause had its influence in arresting the\nbill in the other end of the capitol,\" where it was \"finally lost.\" That\nis his apology for appearing to desire to prevent the extension of\nslavery. It is worth while to remember this.\n\nUnlike Mr. Webster, he thinks slavery may go into New Mexico. \"We may\nhesitate to admit that nature has everywhere [in the new territory]\nsettled the question against slavery.\" Still he would not now pass the\nproviso to exclude slavery. It \"would ... unite the South as one man,\nand if it did not actually rend the Union asunder, would create an\nalienation and irritation in that quarter of the country, which would\nrender the Union hardly worth preserving.\" \"Is there not ample reason\nfor an abatement of the northern tone, for a forbearance of northern\nurgency upon this subject, without the imputation of tergiversation and\ntreachery?\"\n\nHere I am reminded of a remarkable sentence in Mr. Webster's speech at\nMarshfield, in relation to the northern men who helped to annex Texas.\nHere it is:--\n\n     \"For my part, I think that Dough-faces is an epithet not\n     sufficiently reproachful. Now, I think such persons are\n     dough-faces, dough-heads, and dough-souls, that they are all\n     dough; that the coarsest potter may mould them at pleasure\n     to vessels of honor or dishonor, but most readily to vessels\n     of dishonor.\"\n\nThe Representative from Boston, in the year 1850, has small objection to\nthe extension of slave soil. Hearken to his words:--\n\n     \"I can never put the question of extending slave soil on the\n     same footing with one of directly increasing slavery and\n     multiplying slaves. If a positive issue could ever again be\n     made up for our decision, whether human beings, few or many,\n     of whatever race, complexion or condition, should be freshly\n     subjected to a system of hereditary bondage, and be changed\n     from free men into slaves, I can conceive that no bonds of\n     union, no ties of interest, no cords of sympathy, no\n     consideration of past glory, present welfare, or future\n     grandeur, should be suffered to interfere, for an instant,\n     with our resolute and unceasing resistance to a measure so\n     iniquitous and abominable. There would be a clear,\n     unquestionable moral element in such an issue, which would\n     admit of no compromise, no concession, no forbearance\n     whatever.... A million of swords would leap from their\n     scabbards to assert it, and the Union itself would be\n     shivered like a Prince Rupert's dress in the shock.\n\n     \"But, Sir, the question whether the institution of slavery,\n     as it already exists, shall be permitted to extend itself\n     over a hundred or a hundred thousand more square miles than\n     it now occupies, is a different question.... It is not, in\n     my judgment, such an issue that conscientious and religious\n     men may not be free to acquiesce in whatever decision may be\n     arrived at by the constituted authorities of the country....\n     It is not with a view of cooping up slavery ... within\n     limits too narrow for its natural growth;... it is not for\n     the purpose of girding it round with lines of fire, till its\n     sting, like that of the scorpion, shall be turned upon\n     itself,... that I have ever advocated the principles of the\n     Ordinance of 1787.\"\n\nMr. Mann, I think, is still called a whig, but no member of the free\nsoil party has more readily or more ably stood up against the extension\nof slavery. His noble words stand in marvellous contrast to the\ndiscourse of the representative from Boston. Mr. Mann represents the\ncountry, and not the \"metropolis.\" His speech last February, and his\nrecent letter to his constituents, are too well known, and too justly\nprized, to require any commendation here. But I cannot fail to make a\nremark on a passage in the letter. He says, if we allow Mr. Clay's\ncompromise to be accepted, \"Were it not for the horrible consequences\nwhich it would involve, a roar of laughter, like a _feu de joie_, would\nrun down the course of the ages.\" He afterwards says--\"Should the South\nsucceed in their present attempt upon the territories, they will\nimpatiently await the retirement of General Taylor from the executive\nchair to add the 'State of Cuba' ... to this noble triumph.\" One is a\nlittle inclined to start such a laugh himself at the idea of the South\nwaiting for that event before they undertake that plan!\n\nMr. Mann says: \"If no moral or religious obligation existed against\nholding slaves, would not many of those opulent and respectable\ngentlemen who signed the letter of thanks to Mr. Webster, and hundreds\nof others, indeed, instead of applying to intelligence offices for\ndomestics, go at once to the auction room, and buy a man or a woman with\nas little hesitancy or compunction as they now send to Brighton for\nbeeves?\" This remark has drawn on him some censures not at all merited.\nThere are men enough in Boston, who have no objection to slavery. I know\nsuch men, who would have been glad if slavery had been continued here.\nAre Boston merchants unwilling to take mortgages on plantations and\nnegroes? Do northern men not acquire negroes by marrying wealthy women\nat the South, and keep the negroes as slaves? If the truth could be\nknown, I think it would appear that Dr. Palfrey had lost more reputation\nin Boston than he gained, by emancipating the human beings which fell to\nhis lot. But here is a story which I take from the Boston Republican. It\nis worth preserving as a monument of the morals of Boston in 1850, and\nmay be worth preserving at the end of the century:--\n\n     \"A year or two since, a bright-looking mulatto youth, about\n     twenty years of age, and whose complexion was not much, if\n     any, darker than that of the great 'Expounder of the\n     Constitution,' entered the counting-room, on some errand\n     for his master, a Kentuckian, who was making a visit here. A\n     merchant on one of our principal wharves, who came in and\n     spoke to him, remarked to the writer that he once owned this\n     'boy' and his mother, and sold them for several hundred\n     dollars. Upon my expressing astonishment to him that he\n     could thus deal in human flesh, he remarked that 'When you\n     are among the Romans, you must do as the Romans do.' I know\n     of others of my northern acquaintances, and good whigs too,\n     who have owned slaves at the South, and who, if public\n     opinion warranted it, would be as likely, I presume, to buy\n     and sell them at the North.\"\n\nI have yet to learn that the controlling men of this city have any\nconsiderable aversion to domestic slavery.[8]\n\nMr. Mann's zeal in behalf of freedom, and against the extension of\nslavery, has drawn upon him the indignation of Mr. Webster, who is\ngrieved to see him so ignorant of American law. But Mr. Mann is able to\ndo his own fighting.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo much for the political parties and their relation to the matters at\nissue at this moment. Still, there is some reason to hope that the\nattempt to extend slavery, made in the face of the world, and supported\nby such talent, will yet fail; that it will bring only shame on the men\nwho aim to extend and perpetuate so foul a blight. The fact that Mr.\nWebster's retainers must come to the rescue of their attorney; that\nhimself must write letters to defend himself, and must even obtain the\nservices of a clergyman to help him--this shows the fear that is felt\nfrom the anti-slavery spirit of the North. Depend upon it, a politician\nis pretty far gone when he sends for the minister, and he thinks his\ncredit failing when he gets a clergyman on his paper to indorse for the\nChristian character of American slavery.\n\nHere I ought to speak of the party not politicians, who contend against\nslavery not only beyond the limits of the Constitution, but within those\nlimits; who are opposed not only to the extension, but to the\ncontinuance of slavery; who declare that they will keep no compromises\nwhich conflict with the eternal laws of God,--of the Anti-slavery party.\nMr. President, if I were speaking to whigs, to democrats, or to free\nsoil men, perhaps I might say what I think of this party, of their\nconduct, and their motives; but, Sir, I pass it by, with the single\nremark, that I think the future will find this party where they have\nalways been found. I have before now attempted to point out the faults\nof this party, and before these men; that work I will not now attempt a\nsecond time, and this is not the audience before which I choose to chant\nits praises.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere are several forces which oppose the anti-slavery movement at this\nday. Here are some of the most important.\n\nThe Demagogues of the Parties are all or nearly all against it. By\ndemagogue I mean the man who undertakes to lead the people for his own\nadvantage, to the harm and loss of the people themselves. All of this\nclass of men, or most of them, now support slavery--not, as I suppose,\nbecause they have any special friendship for it, but because they think\nit will serve their turn. Some noble men in politics are still friends\nof the slave.\n\nThe Demagogues of the Churches must come next. I am not inclined to\nattribute so much original power to the churches as some men do. I look\non them as indications of public opinion, and not sources thereof--not\nthe wind, but only the vane which shows which way it blows. Once the\nclergy were the masters of the people, and the authors of public opinion\nto a great degree; now they are chiefly the servants of the people, and\nfollow public opinion, and but seldom aspire to lead it, except in\nmatters of their own craft, such as the technicalities of a sect, or the\nform of a ritual. They may lead public opinion in regard to the \"posture\nin prayer,\" to the \"form of baptism,\" and the like. In important matters\nwhich concern the welfare of the nation, the clergy have none or very\nlittle weight. Still, as representatives of public opinion, we really\nfind most of the clergy, of all denominations, arrayed against the\ncause of Eternal Justice. I pass over this matter briefly, because it is\nhardly necessary for me to give any opinion on the subject. But I am\nglad to add, that in all denominations here in New England, and perhaps\nin all the North, there are noble men, who apply the principles of\njustice to this question of the nation, and bear a manly testimony in\nthe midst of bad examples. Some of the theological newspapers have shown\na hostility to slavery and an attachment to the cause of liberty which\nfew men expected; which were quite unknown in those quarters before. To\ndo full justice to men in the sects who speak against this great and\npopular sin of the nation, we ought to remember that it is harder for a\nminister than for almost any other man to become a reformer. It is very\nplain that it is not thought to belong to the calling of a minister,\nespecially in a large town, to oppose the actual and popular sins of his\ntime. So when I see a minister yielding to the public opinion which\nfavors unrighteousness, and passing by, in silence and on the other\nside, causes which need and deserve his labors and his prayers, I\nremember what he is hired for, and paid for,--to represent the popular\nform of religion; if that be idolatry, to represent that. But when I see\na minister oppose a real sin which is popular, I cannot but feel a great\nadmiration for the man. We have lately seen some examples of this.\n\nYet, on the other side, there are some very sad examples of the\nopposite. Here comes forward a man of high standing in the New England\nchurches, a man who has done real service in promoting a liberal study\nof matters connected with religion, and defends slavery out of what he\ndeems the \"Infallible word of God,\"--the Old Testament and New\nTestament. Well, if Christianity supports American slavery, so much the\nworse for Christianity, that is all. Perhaps I ought not to say, _if_\nChristianity supports slavery. We all know it does not, never did, and\nnever can. But if Paul was an apologist for slavery, so much the worse\nfor Paul. If Calvinism or Catholicism supports slavery, so much the\nworse for them, not so much the better for Slavery! I can easily\nunderstand the conduct of the leaders of the New York mob: considering\nthe character of the men, their ignorance and general position, I can\neasily suppose they may have thought they were doing right in disturbing\nthe meetings there. Considering the apathy of the public authorities,\nand the attempt, openly made by some men,--unluckily of influence in\nthat city,--to excite others to violence, I have a good deal of charity\nfor Rynders and his gang. But it is not so easy to excuse the\nconspicuous ecclesiastical defenders of slavery. They cannot plead their\nignorance. Let them alone, to make the best defence they can.\n\nThe Toryism of America is also against us. I call that man a Tory, who\nprefers the accidents of man to the substance of manhood. I mean one\nwho prefers the possessions and property of mankind to man himself, to\nreason and to justice. Of this Toryism we have much in America, much in\nNew England, much in Boston. In this town, I cannot but think the\nprevailing influence is still a Tory influence. It is this which is the\nsupport of the demagogues of the State and the Church.\n\nToryism exists in all lands. In some, there is a good deal of excuse to\nbe made for it. I can understand the Toryism of the Duke of Medina\nSidonia, and of such men. If a man has been born to great wealth and\npower, derived from ancestors for many centuries held in admiration and\nin awe; if he has been bred to account himself a superior being, and to\nbe treated accordingly, I can easily understand the Toryism of such a\nman, and find some excuse for it. I can understand the Tory literature\nof other nations. The Toryism of the \"London Quarterly,\" of \"Blackwood,\"\nis easily accounted for, and forgiven. It is, besides, sometimes adorned\nwith wit, and often set off by much learning. It is respectable Toryism.\nBut the Toryism of men who only know they had a grandfather by\ninference, not by positive testimony; who inherited nothing but their\nbare limbs; who began their career as tradesmen or mechanics,--mechanics\nin divinity or law as well as in trade,--and get their bread by any of\nthe useful and honorable callings of life--that such men, getting rich,\nor lifting their heads out of the obscurity they were once in, should\nbecome Tories, in a land, too, where institutions are founded on the\nidea of freedom and equity and natural justice--that is another thing.\nThe Toryism of American journals, with little scholarship, with no wit,\nand wisdom in homoeopathic doses; the Toryism of a man who started\nfrom nothing, the architect of his own fortune; the Toryism of a\nRepublican, of a Yankee, the Toryism of a Snob,--it is Toryism reduced\nto its lowest denomination, made vulgar and contemptible; it is the\nlittle end of the tail of Toryism. Let us loathe the unclean thing in\nthe depth of our soul, but let us pity the poor Tory; for he, also, in\ncommon with the negro slave, is \"A man and a brother.\"\n\nThen the Spirit of Trade is often against us. Mr. Mann, in his letter,\nspeaks of the opposition made to Wilberforce by the \"Guinea merchants\"\nof Liverpool, in his attempts to put an end to the slave-trade. The\nCorporation of Liverpool spent over ten thousand pounds in defence of a\ntraffic, \"the worst the sun ever shone upon.\" This would seem to be a\nreflection upon some of the merchants of Boston. It seems, from a\nstatement in the Atlas, that Mr. Mann did not intend his remarks to\napply to Boston, but to New York and Philadelphia, where mass meetings\nof merchants had been held, to sustain Mr. Clay's compromise\nresolutions. Although Mr. Mann did not apply his remarks to Boston, I\nfear they will apply here as well as to our sister cities. I have yet to\nlearn that the letter of Mr. Webster's retainers was any less well\nadapted to continue and extend slavery, than the resolutions passed at\nNew York and Philadelphia. I wish the insinuations of Mr. Mann did not\napply here.\n\nOne of the signers of the letter to Mr. Webster incautiously betrayed, I\nthink, the open secret of the retainers when he said--\"I don't care a\ndamn how many slave States they annex!\" This is a secret, because not\navowed; open, because generally known, or at least believed, to be the\nsentiment of a strong party in Massachusetts. I am glad to have it also\nexpressed; now the issue is joined, and we do not fight in the dark.\n\nIt has long been suspected that some inhabitants of Boston were engaged\nin the slave-trade. Not long since, the brig \"Lucy Anne,\" of Boston, was\ncaptured on the coast of Africa, with five hundred and forty-seven\nslaves on board. This vessel was built at Thomaston in 1839; repaired at\nBoston in 1848, and now hails from this port. She was commanded by one\n\"Captain Otis,\" and is owned by one \"Salem Charles.\" This, I suppose, is\na fictitious name, for certainly it would not be respectable in Boston\nto extend slavery in this way. Even Mr. Winthrop is opposed to that, and\nthinks \"a million swords would leap from their scabbards to oppose it.\"\nBut it may be that there are men in Boston who do not think it any worse\nto steal men who were born free, and have grown up free in Africa, and\nmake slaves of them, than to steal such as are born free in America,\nbefore they are grown up. If we have the Old Testament decidedly\nsustaining slavery, and the New Testament never forbidding it; if, as we\nare often told, neither Jesus nor his early followers ever said a word\nagainst slavery; if scarcely a Christian minister in Boston ever\npreaches against this national sin; if the Representative from Boston\nhas no religious scruples against returning a fugitive slave, or\nextending slavery over a \"hundred or a hundred thousand square miles\" of\nnew territory; if the great Senator from Massachusetts refuses to vote\nfor the Wilmot Proviso, or reaffirm an ordinance of nature, and reenact\nthe will of God; if he calls on us to return fugitive slaves \"with\nalacrity,\" and demands of Massachusetts that she shall conquer her\nprejudices; if nine hundred and eighty-seven men in this vicinity, of\nlawful age,[9] are thankful to him for enlightening them as to their\nduty, and a professor of theology comes forward to sanction American\nslavery in the name of religion--why, I think Mr. \"Salem Charles,\" with\nhis \"Captain Otis,\" may not be the worst man in the world, after all!\nLet us pity him also, as \"A man and a brother.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch is the crisis in our affairs; such the special issue in the general\nquestion between freedom and slavery; such the position of parties and\nof great men in relation to this question; such the foes to freedom in\nAmerica.\n\nOn our side, there are great and powerful allies. The American idea is\nwith us; the spirit of the majority of men in the North, when they are\nnot blindfolded and muzzled by the demagogues of State and Church. The\nreligion of the land, also, is on our side; the irreligion, the\nidolatry, the infidelity thereof, all of that is opposed to us. Religion\nis love of God and love of man: surely, all of that, under any form,\nCatholic or Quaker, is in favor of the unalienable rights of man. We\nknow that we are right; we are sure to prevail. But in times present and\nfuture, as in times past, we need heroism, self-denial, a continual\nwatchfulness, and an industry which never tires.\n\nLet us not be deceived about the real question at issue. It is not\nmerely whether we shall return fugitive slaves without trial by jury. We\nwill not return them with trial by jury! neither \"with alacrity,\" nor\n\"with the solemnity of judicial proceedings!\" It is not merely whether\nslavery shall be extended or not. By and by there will be a political\nparty with a wider basis than the free soil party, who will declare\nthat the nation itself must put an end to slavery in the nation; and if\nthe Constitution of the United States will not allow it, there is\nanother Constitution that will. Then the title, Defender and expounder\nof the Constitution of the United States, will give way to\nthis,--\"Defender and expounder of the Constitution of the Universe,\" and\nwe shall reaffirm the ordinance of nature, and reenact the will of God.\nYou may not live to see it, Mr. President, nor I live to see it; but it\nis written on the iron leaf that it must come; come, too, before long.\nThen the speech of Mr. Webster, and the defence thereof by Mr. Stuart,\nthe letter of the retainers and the letters of the retained, will be a\ncuriosity; the conduct of the whigs and democrats an amazement, and the\npeculiar institution a proverb amongst all the nations of the earth. In\nthe turmoil of party politics, and of personal controversy, let us not\nforget continually to move the previous question, whether Freedom or\nSlavery is to prevail in America. There is no attribute of God which is\nnot on our side; because, in this matter, we are on the side of God.\n\nMr. President: I began by congratulating you on the favorable signs of\nthe times. One of the most favorable is the determination of the South\nto use the powers of government to extend slavery. At this day, we\nexhibit a fact worse than Christendom has elsewhere to disclose; the\nfact that one sixth part of our population are mere property; not men,\nbut things. England has a proletary population, the lowest in Europe; we\nhave three million of proletaries lower than the \"pauper laborers\" of\nEngland, which the whig protectionists hold up to us in terror. The\nSouth wishes to increase the number of slaves, to spread this blot, this\nblight and baneful scourge of civilization over new territory.\nHot-headed men of the South declare that, unless it is done, they will\ndivide the Union; famous men of the North \"cave in,\" and verify their\nown statements about \"dough-faces\" and \"dough-souls.\" All this is\npreaching anti-slavery to the thinking men of the North; to the sober\nmen of all parties, who prefer Conscience to cotton. The present session\nof Congress has done much to overturn slavery. \"Whom the gods destroy\nthey first make mad.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[4] Mr. Silgestroem.\n\n[5] Annal. Lib. XIV. cap. 42, _et seq._\n\n[6] Executive Documents: House of Representatives, No. 17, p. 3.\n\n[7] Since the delivery of the above, Mr. Webster has introduced his\nbill, providing a trial by jury for fugitive slaves. If I understand it,\nMr. Webster does not offer it as a substitute for the Judiciary Bill on\nthe subject, does not introduce it as an amendment to that or to any\nthing else. Nay, he does not formally introduce it--only lays it before\nthe Senate, with the desire that it may be printed! The effect it is\ndesigned to produce, it is very easy to see. The retainers can now\nsay--See! Mr. Webster himself wishes to provide a trial by jury for\nfugitives! Some of the provisions of the bill are remarkable, but they\nneed not be dwelt on here.\n\n[8] While this is passing through the press, I learn that several\nwealthy citizens of Boston are at this moment owners of several hundreds\nof slaves. I think they would lose reputation among their fellows if\nthey should set them free.\n\n[9] It has since appeared that several of those persons were at the\ntime, and still are, holders of slaves. Their conduct need excite no\nsurprise.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nA DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE DEATH OF THE LATE PRESIDENT\nTAYLOR.--PREACHED AT THE MELODEON, JULY 14, 1850.\n\n\nLast Sunday, on a day near the national anniversary, something was said\nof the relation which the American citizen bears to the State, and of\nthe duties and rights which belong to that relation. Since then an event\nhas occurred which suggests another topic of a public nature, and so I\ninvite your attention to a discourse of the general position and duties\nof an American ruler, and in special of the late President Taylor. It is\nno pleasant task to rise to speak so often on such themes as this, but\nlet us see what warning or guidance we can gather from this occasion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn order that a man should be competent to become a complete political\nruler and head of the American people, he ought to be distinguished\nabove other men in three particulars.\n\nFirst, he ought to have just political ideas in advance of the people,\nideas not yet organized into institutions in the State. Then he will be\na leader in ideas.\n\nNext, he ought to have a superior power of organizing those ideas, of\nputting them into institutions in the State. Then he will be a leader in\nthe matter of organizing ideas.\n\nThen he ought to have a superior power of administering the institutions\nafter they are made. Then he will be a leader in the matter of\nadministering institutions.\n\nAn eminent degree of these three qualities constitutes genius for\nstatesmanship, genius, too, of a very high order. A man who really and\nefficiently leads in politics must possess some or all of these\nqualities; without them, or any of them, he can only seem to lead. He\nand the people both may think he is the leader, and call him so; but he\nthat shall lead others aright, must himself be on the right road and in\nadvance of them. To perform the functions of a leader of men, the man\nmust be eminently just also, true to the Everlasting Right, the Law of\nGod; otherwise he can never possess in the highest degree, or in a\ncompetent degree, the power of ideas, of organization, of\nadministration. A man eminently just, and possessing these three\nqualities is a leader by nature; if he is also put into the conventional\nposition of leader, then he bears the same relation to the people,\nwhich the captain of a ship, skilful and competent, would bear to the\nship's company who were joint owners with him, and had elected him to\nhis office, expecting that he would serve them as captain while he held\nthe office of captain.\n\nThe complete and perfect leader must be able to originate just political\nideas, to organize them justly, to administer the organization with\njustice. But these three powers are seldom united in the same man; so,\npractically, the business of leading, and therefore of ruling, is\ncommonly distributed amongst many persons; not concentrated in one man's\nhands. I think we have as yet had no statesman in America who has\nenjoyed each and all of these three talents in an eminent degree. No man\nis so rich as mankind. Any one of them is a great gift, entitling the\nman to distinction; but the talent for administration is not very rare.\nIt is not difficult to find a man of good administrative ability with no\npower to invent, none to organize the inventions of other men. How many\nmen can work all day with oxen yoked to a plough; how few could invent a\nplough or tame wild cattle. It is not hard to find men capable of\nmanaging political machinery, of holding the national plough and\nconducting the national team, when both are in the field, and there is\nthe old furrow to serve as guide. That is all we commonly look for in an\nAmerican politician. He is to follow the old constitutional furrow, and\nhold the old plough, and scatter a little democratic or whig seed,\nfurnished by his party, not forgetting to give them the handsel of the\ncrop. That is all we commonly look for in an American politician,\nleaving it for some bright but obscure man in the mass of the people to\ndiscover a new idea, and to devise the mode of its organization. Then\nthe politician, perched aloft on his high place and conspicuous, holds\nthe string of the kite which some unknown men have thought out, made up,\nand hoisted with great labor; he appears to be the great man because he\nsits and holds the string, administering the kite, and men look up and\nsay, \"See there, what a great man he is! Is not this the foremost man of\nthe age?\"\n\nIn this way the business of ruling the nation is made a matter of mere\nroutine, not of invention or construction. The ruler is to tend the\npublic mill; not to make it, or to mend it; not to devise new and better\nmills, not even to improve the old one. We may be thankful if he does\nnot abuse and leave it worse than he found it. He is not to gather the\ndam, only to shut the gate at the right time, and at the right time open\nit; to take sufficient toll of all comers, and now and then make a\nreport of the grinding, or of what he sees fit to communicate to the\nowners of the mill. As it is a part of the written Constitution of the\nland that all money bills shall originate with the House of\nRepresentatives, so it is a part of the unwritten custom that political\nideas in advance of the people shall not originate with the nominal\nrulers of the nation, but elsewhere. One good thing results from this:\nwe are not much governed, but much let alone. The American form of\ngovernment has some great merits; this I esteem the greatest; that it\nlets the people alone so much. In forming ourselves into a State, we\nagreed with one another not to meddle and make politically with\nindividuals so much as other nations had done.\n\nIt is a long time since we have had a man of large genius for politics\nat the head of affairs in America. I think we could not mention more\nthan one who had any genius for just political ideas in advance of the\npeople. Skilful administrators we have had in great abundance in\npolitics as in other matters. Nature herself seems democratic in her\naction here, and all our great movements appear to be brought about by\nnatural power diffused amongst many men of talent, not by natural power\ncondensed into a single man of genius. So long as this is the case, the\npresent method of letting alone is the best one. The American nation has\nmarched on without much pioneering on the part of its official rulers,\nno one of them for a long time being much in advance of the million; and\nwhile it is so it is certainly best that the million are very much left\nto themselves. But if we could have a man as much in advance of the\npeople in all these three qualities, and especially in the chief\nquality--as the skilful projector of a cotton mill is in advance of the\ngirls who tend the looms, in all that relates to the projection of a\ncotton mill,--then we should know what it was to have a real leader, a\nruler who could be the schoolmaster of the nation, not ruling over our\nbodies by fear, but in the spirit of love, setting us lessons which we\ncould not have devised, nor even understand without his help; one who\npreserves all the good of the old, and adds thereto much new good not\nseen before, and so instructs and helps forward the people. But as the\ngood God has not sent such a man, and he is not to be made by men, only\nfound, nor in the least helped in any of those three qualities by all\nthe praise we can pour on him; so it comes to pass that an ordinary\nruler is a person of no very great consequence. His importance is\nofficial and not personal, and as only the person dies, not the office,\nthe death of such an one is not commonly an affair of much significance.\nSuppose after Mr. Tyler or Mr. Polk had taken the oath of office, he had\nappointed a common clerk, a man of routine and experience, as his\nfactotum, with power to affix the presidential name to necessary\ndocuments, and then had quietly and in silence departed from this life,\nhow much would the nation have lost? A new and just political idea; an\norganization thereof? No such thing. If the public press had kept the\nsecret, we should not have found out their death till this time. The\nobscure clerk could tend the mill as well as his famous master who would\nnot be missed.\n\nLouis XIV. said, \"The State! That is I.\" He was the State. So when the\nruler dies, the State is in peril. If the King of Prussia, the Emperor\nof Russia or Austria, or the Pope of Rome were to die, there would be a\nrevolution, and nobody knows what would come of it; for there the ruler\nis master of the people, who are subjects, not citizens, and the old\nmaster dying, it is not easy to yoke the people to the chariot of a new\none. Here the people are the State; and though the power of General\nTaylor was practically greater than that of any monarch in Europe, save\nNicholas, William, and Ferdinand, yet at his death all the power passes\ninto the hands of his successor, with no noise, no tumult, not even the\nappearance of a street constable. I think that was a sublime sight--the\nrule over twenty millions of people, jealous of their rights, silently,\nby due course of law, passes into the hands of another man at dead of\nnight, and the next morning the nation is just as safe, just as quiet\nand secure as before, no fear of change perplexing them. That was a\nsublime sight--one of the fair things which comes of a democracy. Here\nthe ruler is servant, and the people master; so the death of a\nPresident, like Mr. Van Buren, or any of his successors, Harrison or\nTyler or Polk, would really have been a very unimportant event; not so\nmomentous as the death of one of the ablest doctors in Boston, for\nshould the physician die, your chance of life is diminished by that\nfact. If Dr. Channing had died at the age of forty, before he wrote his\nbest works, his death would have been a greater calamity than that of\nany or all of the four Presidents just named, as soon as their inaugural\naddress was delivered; for Dr. Channing had some truths to tell, which\nthere was nobody else to deliver at that time. No President since\nJefferson, I think, has done the nation so much good as the opening of\nthe Erie Canal in New York, or the chief railroads in Massachusetts, or\nthe building up of any one of the half dozen large manufacturing towns\nin New England. Mr. Cunard, in establishing his line of Atlantic\nsteamers, did more for America than any President for five-and-twenty\nyears. The discovery of the properties of sulphuric ether, the devising\nof the magnetic telegraph, was of more advantage to this nation, than\nthe service of any President for a long time. I think I could mention a\nfew men in Boston, any one of whom has been of more service than four or\nfive Presidents; and, accordingly, the death of any one of those would\nbe a greater calamity than the demise of all those Presidents the day\nafter election. With us the President is only one spoke in the wheel,\nand if that is broken we always have a spare spoke on hand, and the\nwheel is so made that without stopping the mill, the new spoke drops\ninto the place of the old one and no one knows the change till told\nthereof. If Mr. Polk had really been the ablest man in the land, a\ncreator and an organizer, his death would have been a public calamity,\nand the whole nation would have felt it, as Boston or New York would\nfeel the loss of one of its ablest manufacturers or merchants, lawyers\nor doctors. That would deprive us of the services of a man which could\nnot be supplied. We have always spare men of routine, but not spare men\nof genius. Dr. Channing has been missed ever since his death, and the\nchurches of Boston, poor enough before, are the poorer for his absence.\nSo has John Quincy Adams, old as he was, been missed in the House of\nRepresentatives. The enemy of freedom may well rejoice that his voice is\nstill. But who misses General Harrison or Mr. Polk? What interest\nlanguishes in consequence of their departure? What idea, what right,\nlost thereby a defender? If Sir Robert Peel were to die, the British\nnation would feel the loss.\n\nWe attach a false importance to the death of a President. Great\ncalamities were apprehended at the death of General Harrison. But what\ncame? Whigs went out of office and democrats went into office. Had\nJefferson died before the Declaration of Independence, or Washington any\ntime after it, or before the termination of his official service, or\nJohn Adams before the end of the war, that would have been a great\ncalamity; for I know not where we should have found another Jefferson,\nto see so distinctly, and write down so plain the great American idea,\nor another Washington to command an army without money, without\nprovisions, without hats and shoes, as that man did. The death of Samuel\nAdams, in 1760, would have been a terrible misfortune to America. But\nthe death of General Harrison only made a change in the Cabinet, not in\nthe country; it affected the politicians more than the people.\n\nWe are surrounded in the world with nations ruled by kings, who are the\nmasters of the people; hard masters too! When they die the people mourn,\nnot always very wisely, not always sincerely, but always with ceremony.\nThe mourning for George IV. and William IV. in England, I doubt not, was\nmore splendid and imposing than that for Edward the Confessor and Oliver\nCromwell; and that for Louis XV. outdid that for Henry IV. In a\nmonarchy, men always officially mourn their king, whether it be King\nLog, or King Snake, or King Christian; we follow the example of those\nStates. If some of the men, whose death would be the greatest calamity,\nshould die, the newspapers would not go into mourning; we should not\nhave a day of fasting set apart; no minister would think it \"An\ninscrutable providence;\" only a few plain country people would come\ntogether and take up the dust, disenchanted of the genius which gave it\npower over other and animated clay, to lay it down in the ground. There\nwould be no Catafalques in the street; but the upper mountain-tops would\nmiss that early sun which kissed their foreheads, while all below the\nworld was wrapped in drowsy mist, and the whole race of man would be\nlosers by the fading out of so much poetry, or truth, or justice, love\nand faith.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe office of President of the United States is undeniably one of great\nimportance. If you put in it a great man, one with ability to invent, to\norganize and to administer, he has a better opportunity to serve mankind\nthan most kings of Europe. I know of no position in the world more\ndesirable for a really great man, a man with a genius for statesmanship,\na million-minded man, than to take this young, daring, hopeful nation,\nso full of promise, so ready for work, and lead them forward in the way\nof political righteousness, giving us ideas, persuading us to build\ninstitutions thereof, and make the high thought of a man of genius the\ncommon life of a mighty nation, young as yet and capable of taking any\nlesson of national nobility which the most gifted man can devise; to be\nthe ruler, not over Russian serfs, but American freemen, citizens, not\nsubjects; to be the schoolmaster for twenty millions, and they such\npromising pupils, loving hard lessons; and the men that set them, the\nmost enterprising race of persons in the world, who have already\nlearned something of Christianity and the idea of personal freedom,--why\nthat is a noble ambition. I do not wonder that a man of great powers\nshould covet this great position, and feel a noble dissatisfaction and\nunrest until he found himself there, gravitating towards it as naturally\nas the Mississippi to the ocean. Put in it such men as I point to, one\nwith the intellect of a Webster, the conscience of a Channing, the\nphilanthropy of much humbler men; let him aim at the welfare of the\nnation and mankind; let him have just political ideas in advance of the\nnation, and, in virtue thereof, ability to solve the terrible social and\npolitical questions of this age; careless of his popularity and\nreputation, but careful of his conscience and his character, let him\ndevote himself to the work of leading this people, and what an office is\nthat of President of the United States in the middle of the nineteenth\ncentury! He would make this nation a society for mutual improvement\ntwenty millions strong; not King Log, not King Stork, but King Good-man,\nKing Christian if you will, he would do us a service, dignifying an\noffice which was itself a dignity.\n\nBut if it be so noble for such a man, working with such an aim, for such\nan end; when a little man is in that office, with no ideas in advance of\nthe people, and incapable of understanding such as have them; with no\nability to organize the political ideas not yet organized, and applied\nto life; a man of routine; not ruling for the nation, but the ruler of a\nparty and for a party, his ambition only to serve the party; an ordinary\nman, surrounding himself with other ordinary men; with ordinary habits,\nordinary aims, ordinary means, and aiming at the ordinary ends of an\nadventurer; careless of his conscience and character, but careful of his\nparty-popularity and temporary reputation,--why the office becomes\npainful to think of; and the officer, his state is not kingly, it is\nvulgar and mean, and low! So the lighthouse on the rocks of Boston\nharbor, is a pleasant thing to see and to imagine, with its great lamp\nlooking far out to sea, and shining all night long, a star of special\nprovidence; seen afar off, when stormy skies shut other stars from\nsight, it assures the mariner of his whereabouts, guides the whaler and\nthe Indiaman safe into port and peace, bringing wealth to the merchant,\nand a husband to the lingering wife, almost a widow in the cheating\nsea's delay and her own heart-sickness from hope so long deferred. But\ntake away the great lamp, leaving all else; put in its place a little\ntallow candle of twenty to the pound, whose thin glitter could not be\nseen a mile off, spite of the burnished reflectors at its side, and\nwhich requires constant picking and trimming to keep the flame alive,\nand at its best estate flickers with every flutter of the summer\nwind,--what would the lighthouse be to look upon or to imagine? What a\ncandlestick for what a candle! Praise it as much as you will; flatter\nit in the newspapers; vote it \"adequate\" and the \"tallest beacon in the\nworld;\" call it the \"Pharos of America;\" it is all in vain; at the best,\nit can only attract moths and mosquitoes on a serene night; and when the\nstorm thunders on that sepulchral rock, it is no light at all; and the\nwhaler may be split asunder, and the Indiaman go to the grave, and the\nwealth of the merchant be scattered as playthings for the sea, and the\nbones of the mariner may blanch the bottom of the deep, for all the aid\nwhich that thin dazzle can furnish, spite of its lofty tower and loftier\npraise!\n\nTo rule a bank, a factory, or a railroad, when the officer is chosen for\nbusiness and not charity, to command a packet-ship or a steamboat, you\nwill get a man of real talent in his line of work; one that has some\nhistory, who has made his proof-shot, and shown that he has some mettle\nin him. But to such a pass has the business of ruling a nation arrived,\nthat, of all the sovereigns of Christian Europe, it is said not more\nthan two, Nicholas of Russia, and Oscar of Sweden, would have been\ndistinguished if born in private stations. The most practical and\ncommercial nation in the world, possessing at this moment a power more\neminently great than that of the Roman empire in its palmy time, has for\na ruler a quite ordinary woman, who contributes neither ideas nor\norganizations, and probably could not administer wisely the affairs of a\nsingle shire in the island. In this respect, the highest stations of\npolitical life seem to have become as barren as the Dead Sea. In\nselecting our rulers in America, it is long since we have had a man of\nlarge powers, even of the sort which the majority of men appreciate in a\ncontemporary. I have sometimes thought men were selected who were\nthought not strong enough to hurt us much, forgetting that a weak man\nmay sometimes hurt us as much more than a strong one would.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAfter all this preliminary, let me now say something of the late\nPresident Taylor, only further premising that I am here to tell the\ntruth about him, so far as I know it, and nothing more or less. I am not\nresponsible for the facts of the case, only for the correct statement\nthereof. There have been men who were not disposed to do him justice;\nthere were men enough to flatter and overpraise him while alive, and\nthere will probably be enough of such now that he is dead. Much official\npanegyric has there been already, and much more is in prospect. I think\nI need not be called on for any contribution of that sort. I wish to\nweigh him in an even balance, neither praising nor blaming without\ncause. To eulogize is one thing; to deal justly, another and quite\ndifferent.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nZACHARY TAYLOR was born on the 24th of November, 1784, in Orange county,\nVirginia. His father, Richard Taylor, was a soldier during a part of\nthe Revolutionary War, had a colonel's commission in 1779, and appears\nto have been a valuable officer and a worthy man. In 1785 he removed to\nKentucky, where he resided until his death. He was a farmer, a man of\nproperty and influence in Kentucky, then a new country. He was one of\nthe framers of the Constitution of that State; several times in the\nLegislature, and the first collector of the port of Louisville, then a\nport of entry.\n\nZachary, the third son, followed the business of farming until he was\nmore than twenty-three years of age. During his childhood he received\nsuch an education as you can imagine in a new and wild country like\nKentucky sixty years ago. However, it is said his father took great\npains with his education, and he enjoyed the instruction of a\nschoolmaster from Connecticut, who is still living. Hence it is plain\nthe best part of his education must have come, not from the\nschoolmaster, but from the farm, the woods, and the connection with his\nparents and their associates. What a man learns at school, even in\nBoston, is but a small part of his education. In General Taylor's case,\nit is probable that things had much more to do with his culture than\nwords. Men nursed on Greek and Latin would probably have called him an\nuneducated man; with equal justice he might call many a scholar an\nuneducated man. To speak and write with grammatical accuracy is by no\nmeans the best test of education.\n\nFondness for a military life is natural in a man born and bred as he\nwas, living in a country where the vicinity of the Indians made every\nman a Quaker or a soldier.\n\nAbout 1808, volunteers were raised in the West to oppose the expected\nmovements of Aaron Burr, a traitor to his country, a bold, bad man, who\nhad been the candidate of the federalists for the Presidency; perhaps\nthe worst man we had had in politics up to that time. Mr. Taylor joined\none of the companies of volunteers. In 1808 he was appointed Lieutenant\nin the army of the United States, joined the forces, was soon sent to\nNew Orleans, was seized with the yellow fever, and returned home.\n\nIn 1810 he was married to Miss Margaret Smith, of Maryland.\n\nIn 1811 he was employed in expeditions against the Indians in the\nNorthwest of the United States. Here he was under the command of General\nHarrison.\n\nIn 1812 he was made Captain, and had the command of a block-house and\nstockade called Fort Harrison, on the Wabash river, soon after the\ndeclaration of war against England. This place was attacked by a strong\nbody of Indians. Captain Taylor with less than fifty men, defended it\nwith vigor and success. In consequence of his services on that occasion,\nhe was promoted to the rank of Brevet Major. During the rest of the war,\nhe continued in service on the frontiers, and seems to have done his\nduty faithfully as a soldier.\n\nAfter the war was over, in 1815, the army was diminished to a peace\nestablishment, and Major Taylor reduced to the rank of Captain. In\nconsequence of this, he withdrew from the army, but, after a few months,\nreturned, and was then, or subsequently, restored to his former rank as\nMajor. For several years he was employed in such various military\nservices, in the west and south-west, as must be performed in a time of\npeace. In 1819 he was made Lieutenant-Colonel. In 1832 he became\nColonel, and in that year, with a command of four hundred men, he served\nunder General Atkinson, in the expedition against the Sacs and other\nIndians led by the celebrated Black Hawk. Afterwards he was intrusted\nwith the command of Fort Crawford, where he remained till 1836, when he\nwas ordered to Florida, to fight against the Seminole Indians.\n\nIt was here that he made use of the bloodhounds to hunt the poor savages\nfrom their hiding-places in the woods. You know what Mr. Pitt once said\nof the Spanish use of this weapon in the sixteenth century, but the\nanimals imported from Cuba, where they had been trained to hunt runaway\nslaves, were of no value when put upon the track of red men. I do not\nknow who originated the scheme of employing the bloodhounds. It has\noften been ascribed to General Taylor, and with good reason, I believe,\nhas it been denied that he was the author of that plan. It was of no\ngreat honor to the nation, let who would invent it; and few men will be\nsorry that it did not turn out well.\n\nIt was thought Colonel Taylor displayed a good deal of skill, in\ncontending with the Indians in Florida, and, accordingly, he was made\nBrevet Brigadier-General, in 1838. After finishing the conquest of the\nIndians, he left Florida, in 1840. It is said that fighting against the\nIndians is a good school for a soldier. General Taylor served long at\nthis work, and served faithfully. In the Florida war, his conduct as\nGeneral is said to have been noble.\n\nIn 1840, he was made Commander of that portion of the American army in\nthe south-west of the United States, and in 1841, removed his family\nfrom Kentucky to Baton Rouge, in Louisiana, which has since been his\nhome. In 1845 he was ordered to Texas, and had command of the \"Army of\nOccupation,\" and subsequently of the \"Army of Invasion.\" In the war\nagainst Mexico, it is thought by competent judges that he displayed a\ngood deal of military skill. He was beloved by his soldiers, and seems\nto have won their confidence, partly by success, partly by military\ntalent, but also in part by his character, which was frank, honest, just\nand unpretending. I have heard of no instance in the whole war, in which\ncruelty is chargeable upon him. Several anecdotes are related of his\nkindliness, generosity, and openness of heart. No doubt they are true.\nWar is a bloody trade; it makes one shudder to think of it in its\nterrible details; but the soldier is not necessarily a malignant or a\ncruel man; that bloody and profane command, so well known, uttered in\nthe heat of conflict, when the battle seemed to waver, does not imply\nany peculiar cruelty or ill-will. It is only one of the accidents of\nwar, which shows more clearly what its substance is.\n\nI am no judge of warlike operations and of military skill, and therefore\nshall not pretend to pass judgment on matters which I know I do not\nunderstand; I shall not inquire as to the military value of the laurels\nhe won at Resaca de la Palma, at Monterey, and at Buena Vista. But, in\nour judgment, we ought to remember one circumstance: that is, the\ninferiority of the Mexicans. They were beaten, I think, in every\nconsiderable battle throughout the whole war; no matter who commanded.\nGeneral Scott landed at Vera Cruz, captured the city, and the far-famed\nCastle of St. Juan d'Ulloa, garrisoned by four thousand three hundred\nand ninety soldiers, and the American loss amounted to thirteen men\nkilled, and sixty-three hurt! General Scott took possession of the great\nport of the nation, with less than twenty thousand soldiers, with only\nabout fifteen thousand troops; marched nearly two hundred miles into the\ninterior, fighting his way, and garrisoning the road behind him,\nsometimes even subsisting his army in the country which he conquered as\nhe went on; and finally took the capital, a city with nearly two hundred\nthousand inhabitants, with less than six thousand soldiers. Suppose an\narmy of that size were to land at Newburyport, with the intention of\nmarching to Worcester, not two hundred miles, but only fifty or sixty,\nhow many do you think would ever reach the spot? Why, suppose the\nAmerican men did nothing, there are women enough in Massachusetts to\nthrow every soldier into the Merrimac!\n\nI do not believe that this inferiority of the Mexican arises so much\nfrom the superior bravery of the Americans; almost any male animal will\nfight on small provocation; your Mexican male, as well as your American,\non as small provocation, and as desperately. But the American soldier\nwas always well armed, furnished with every thing that modern science\nmakes terrible in war; well clad, well fed, well paid, he went\nvoluntarily to the work. The Mexicans were ill armed, ill clad, ill fed,\noften not paid at all, and sometimes brought to fight against their\nwill.\n\nThe difference does not end here: the main reliance of the Mexican\ngovernment, the regular soldiers, the Presidiales, were men who seemed\nto have most of the vices of old garrison soldiers, with most of the\nfaults of new recruits; or, as another has said, himself a soldier in\nthe war, \"All the vices engendered in a garrison life; all the\ncowardice which their constant defeats by the Indians had created; all\nthe laziness contracted in an idle monotonous existence, and very little\nmilitary skill.\" The new levies came unwillingly, and were often only\n\"food for powder.\" On the American side was a small body of veteran\nsoldiers, low and coarse men--it is the policy of America to have the\nrank and file of our army in peace composed usually of such--but full of\nbrute courage; accustomed to all sorts of hardships and exposure; under\na discipline rigorous and almost perfect; wonted to danger, and weaned\nfrom fear; careless of life almost to desperation; full of confidence in\ntheir commander, and of contempt for their foe. The volunteers brought\nwith them the characteristic ardor of Americans, their confidence of\nsuccess, their contempt of toil and of danger; familiar with fire-arms\nfrom their youth, they soon learned the discipline of the camp.\n\nYou see what a difference this makes between the two armies; but the\nchief superiority of the American soldiers was this--they came from a\ncountry where there is a complete national unity of action. So the\ngovernment could trust the army, and the army the government; the\nsoldiers had confidence in their commander, confidence in their country,\nconfidence in their cause; while the Mexicans had no national unity of\naction, the people little confidence in the government, the government\nas little in the people; the nation but little trust in the army, and\nthe army little in the nation; the soldiers had great fear of the enemy,\nlittle faith in their officers, and the officers little in their men.\nDid you ever see a swarm of bees when the queen bee was dead, and moths\nhad invaded the hive? The Mexicans were much in the same state. The\nresult was what had readily been foreseen: at the battle of Buena Vista,\non the one side, there were twenty-one thousand five hundred and\nfifty-three Mexicans; on the other, four thousand seven hundred and\nfifty-nine American soldiers, of which only four hundred and seventy-six\nwere regulars. Yet the American loss, in killed, wounded and missing,\nwas but seven hundred and forty-six, while that of the Mexican army was\nnearly two thousand men lost. If the Mexicans had done the same\nproportionate execution, every American would have been killed long\nbefore night.\n\nAll these things ought to be taken into account, in making up our mind\nabout the difficulty of the enterprise. Still, after this allowance is\nmade, it must be confessed the American invasion of Mexico was a\nremarkable undertaking, distinguished for its boldness, not to say its\nrashness, and almost unparalleled in the history of modern wars. It\ncertainly did require great coolness, courage, and prudence, on the part\nof General Taylor, to conduct his part of the expedition. He had those\nqualities, but it has not yet been proved or shown to be probable, that\nhe had the nobler qualities which make a great General. The kind of\nwarfare he was engaged in, does not bring to light the high qualities of\na man like Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick the Great, or Napoleon. Perhaps\nGeneral Taylor had them, but they did not appear.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Mexican war was unfortunate for the administration which carried it\non, for the political party which caused the war. The success of General\nTaylor attracted the attention of the people, and the obscure soldier\ntook popular rank before the President of the United States.\nUnconsciously the vicarious suitor, courting public favor for his\nmaster, won good graces for himself. The political party which began the\nwar, was eclipsed by the triumph of its own soldier; and the slave-power\nwhich projected the war seems likely to be ruined by the success of the\nenterprise.\n\nIt has been said, that he was averse to the Mexican war which he fought\nin; I know not whether this be true or false. But if true, it deserves\nto be remembered in his defence, that the soldier is only an active\ntool, as much the instrument of his employer as the spade of the workman\nwhose foot crowds it into the ground. The soldier, high or low, must\nobey the men who have the official right to command him, his free-will\nmerging in that of his superior. If General Taylor had thought the\nMexican war unjust and wicked, and in consequence had resigned his\ncommission, he would have been covered with obloquy and contempt in the\neyes of military men, and the officials of government. Most of the\nnewspapers of the land would have attacked him, called him a coward, a\ntraitor and a fanatic; their condemnation would have been worth as much\nas their praise is now. In estimating his character we ought to remember\nthis fact, for few men do more than their office demands of them, or\nmore than public opinion can approve.\n\nSuch was the success of General Taylor in war, at the head of a few\nthousand men, that public attention was turned towards him, and in a few\nmonths the obscure frontier soldier was the most prominent man in the\nnation. In 1848 he received the nomination of the Whig Convention at\nPhiladelphia, for President, and in due time was elected.\n\nHis election was certainly one of the most remarkable that ever took\nplace in America. It is worth while to look at it for a moment. There\nwas nothing very remarkable in the man to entitle him to that eminent\ndistinction; if there were, the nation was very slow in finding it out.\nHe was a farmer till about twenty-four years old; then a common\nLieutenant four years more. In the next twenty years he got no higher\nthan to the rank of a \"Frontier Colonel;\" he attained that dignity in\nfact, at the age of forty-eight. He was not made General till the\nfifty-fifth year of his age. But for the Mexican war, I suppose he\nwould, at this day, be as obscure as any other General in the United\nStates' army; nobody would think he was the \"Second Washington,\" \"first\nin war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,\" as\nhis creatures have declared. Other military men have been chosen to the\npresidency. But Washington was much more than a soldier; in \"a time that\ntried men's souls\" to the utmost, he had carried the nation through\neight years of most perilous warfare, more by his character than any\neminent military skill, and so had become endeared to the hearts of the\npeople as no American had ever been before. General Jackson, at first\neducated as a lawyer, was a man of large talents, distinguished as a\nGovernor, as a Senator, and as a Judge of the Supreme Court of\nTennessee, before he was elected President, or nominated for that\noffice. General Harrison, a man of small abilities, surely not more than\na third-rate politician in Ohio, was yet familiar with the routine of\npolitical affairs. He had been a member of the Legislature of Ohio, of\nboth branches of the Congress of the United States, and Minister to\nColombia. General Taylor, with an education very imperfect, had passed\nhis life, from twenty-four to sixty-four, on the frontiers and in the\narmy; had never held any civil office; had seldom voted, and though an\nexcellent officer in the sphere of duty he had occupied, did not appear\nto be the most promising man in the nation to select for its highest\nand most difficult office. The defence of a log-house in 1812 against a\ntroop of Indians, the conquest of Black Hawk, the rout of the Seminoles,\nthe gaining of half-a-dozen battles in Mexico, at the head of a few\nthousand soldiers, does not seem exactly an adequate schooling to\nprepare a common man to lead and rule twenty million Americans with the\nmost complicated government in the world. It certainly was surprising,\nthat he should be nominated for that office; and more so, that the\nnomination should be confirmed by the people. It is not surprising, that\nthe distinguished Senator of Massachusetts should call this \"A\nnomination not fit to be made;\" the wonder is, he deemed it fit to be\nconfirmed. In selecting him for our chief, the nation went hap-hazard,\nand made a leap in the dark. No prudent man in Boston would hire a cook\nor a coachman with such inadequate recommendations as General Taylor had\nto prove his fitness for his place. Had a sensible man on election day\nasked the nation, \"What do you know about the man you vote for?\" the\npeople would have been sadly puzzled to seek for an answer. The reasons\nwhich led to his selection were partly special, and partly of a general\nand popular character. It is instructive for us to look at them, now\nthat we can do it coolly.\n\nI suppose this was the special cause of his nomination: The leaders of\nthe whig party thought they could not elect either of their most\nprominent men. If they went before the people with nothing but their\nidea,--The protection of property by a tariff, and a Representative of\nthat idea, however able and well trained, they feared defeat; such as\nthey had met with in the last campaign, when the democratic party, with\na man almost unknown to the people, a tricky lawyer from Tennessee, had\nyet carried the day against one of the oldest and ablest politicians in\nthe country. So the whig leaders availed themselves of the temporary\npopularity of a successful General to give an accidental triumph to\ntheir party, and apparently to their idea. That I think was the specific\nreason which led the politicians to nominate him. Doubtless there were\nother private reasons, weighty to certain individuals, that need not be\ntouched upon.\n\nBut the general reasons, which gave him weight with the mass of the\npeople and secured his election, ought to be stated for our serious\nreflection.\n\n1. There was no one of the great leaders of either party whom the people\nhad much confidence in. I am sorry to say so, but I do not think there\nis much in any of them to command the respect of a nation, and make us\nswear fealty to those men. There were two candidates of the whig party;\nfrom one of them you might expect a compromise; from the other you were\nnot certain even of that. The democratic candidate had not a name to\nconjure with. The free soil candidate--was he a man to trust in such\ntimes as these? Did you see your king and chief in any one of those four\nmen? Was any one of them fit to be the political schoolmaster of this\nnation? What \"ground and lofty tumbling\" have we had from all four of\nthem?\n\n2. General Taylor was not mixed up with the grand or petty intrigues of\nthe parties, their quarrels and struggles for office. Men knew little\nabout him; if little good, certainly little not good; little evil in\ncomparison with any of the others. Sometimes you take a man whom you do\nnot know, in preference to an old acquaintance whom you have known too\nlong and too well to trust.\n\n3. Then General Taylor had shown himself a rough, honest, plain,\nstraight-forward man, and withal mild and good-natured. Apparently,\nthere was much in him to attract and deserve the good-will of the\nnation. His likeness went abroad through the country like a\nproclamation; it was the rude, manly, firm, honest, good-natured, homely\nface of a backwoodsman. His plain habits, plain talk, and modest\ndemeanor reminded men of the old English ballad of \"The King and the\nMiller\" and the like, and won the affections of honest men. I doubt not\nthe fact that General Harrison had once lived in a log cabin, and, other\nthings failing, did drink \"hard cider,\" gave him thousands of votes. The\ncandidate was called \"Old Rough and Ready,\" and there was not a clown\nin field or city but could understand all that was meant by those terms.\nEven his celebrated horse contributed to his master's election, and drew\nvotes for the President by the thousand.\n\n4. Then he was a successful soldier. The dullest man in the Alleghany\nmountains, or in the low lanes of New York and Boston, or the silliest\nbehind the counters of a city shop, can understand fighting, and\nremember who won a battle. It is wholly needless for such to inquire\nwhat the battle was fought for. Hence military success is always popular\nwith the multitude, and will be, I suppose, for some ages in America as\neverywhere else. Our churches know no God but the \"Lord of hosts,\" \"A\nman of war!\"\n\n5. Then he was a southern man, and all our masters must be from the\nSouth, or of it, devoted to its peculiar institution. If he had been\nborn in Barnstable county, and owned a little patch of yellow sand at\nCape Cod, and had the freeman's hatred of slavery, even Churubusco and\nBuena Vista would not have given him the votes of the Convention, and\nhis war-horse might have lived till this day, he would not have carried\nhis master to the presidency. He was a slaveholder, as seven Presidents\nhad been before him, holding office for eight-and-forty years. There are\nsome men at the North, chiefly in the country towns, who think it is not\naltogether right for a man to steal his brother; such men were to be\npropitiated. So it was diligently rumored abroad in the North, that the\ncandidate was \"opposed to slavery,\" that he would \"probably emancipate\nhis slaves as soon as he was elected.\" I am told that some persons who\nheard such a story, actually believed it; I think nobody who told it\nbelieved any such thing. The fact that he was a slaveholder, that he had\nlately purchased one hundred and fourteen men, women, and children, and\nkept them at hard work for his advantage, showed the value of such a\nstory; and the opposite statement, publicly and industriously circulated\nat the South, that he loved slavery, desired its extension, and hated\nthe Wilmot Proviso, shows the honesty of some of the men at the North,\nwho, knowing these facts, sought to keep them secret.\n\nThese seem to have been the chief reasons which procured his nomination\nand election. It is easy to see that such a man, though as honest as\nWashington, must be eminently unfit for the high office of President of\nthe United States. He knew little or nothing of the political history of\nthe country, or of the political questions then up for solution; little\nor nothing of the political men. He had the honesty to confess it. He\ndeclared that he was not fit for the office, not acquainted with the\npolitical measures of the day, and only consented to be brought from his\nobscurity, when great men told him he was the only man that could \"save\nthe Union.\" He was no statesman, and knew nothing of politics, less\nthan the majority of the more cultivated mechanics, merchants and\nfarmers. He was a soldier, and knew something of fighting, at least of\nfighting Indians and Mexicans. If you should take a man of the common\nabilities, intellectual and moral, the common education, a farmer from\nNorthfield, a skipper from Provincetown, a jobber from Boston, a\nbucket-maker from Hingham, and appoint him Chief Justice of the Supreme\nCourt of Massachusetts, with the duty of selecting all his associate\nJudges, I think he would be about as competent for the office as General\nTaylor for the post he was elected to. In such a case as I have\nsupposed, the new \"Judge\" must depend on other men, who will tell him\nwhat to do; his only safety would be in relying on their advice. Then\nthey would be the Chief Justice, not he.\n\nUnder such circumstances, the leaders of one party nominated him. I must\nconfess such an act, committed by such men, seems exceedingly rash. It\nwas done by the very men who ought, above all others, to have known\nbetter. This is one of the many things we have had, which show thinking\nmen how little we can rely on our political chiefs. The nomination once\nmade, the election followed. The wise men told the multitude: \"You must\nvote for him,\" and the multitude voted. You know how angry men were if\nyou did not believe in his fitness for the office; how it became a test\nof \"patriotism\" to believe in him. Now the good man is cold in death,\nhow base all that seems!\n\nWhen such a man under such circumstances comes into such an office, you\ndo not know whether the deeds which receive his official sanction, the\npapers published under his name, the speeches he delivers, and the\nmessages he sends, are his or not his. It is probable that he has little\nto do with them; they are his officially, not personally; he writes\nState papers by their signature. Some of his speeches were undoubtedly\nmade for him. You know it once happened that a speech, alleged to have\nbeen made by him at a public meeting, was sent on by telegraph, and\npublished by the party organ, in one of our great cities, and he was\ntaken sick before the meeting was held, and could not speak at all. That\nspeech betrayed the trick of the administration: it was a speech he had\nnever heard of. From this one act judge of many more. In his arduous\noffice, he must choose advisers, but he wants advisers to advise him to\nchoose advisers. Much will depend on his first step; that must needs be\nin the dark.\n\nSince this is so, I shall pass over his brief administration with very\nfew words. I do not know how much it was the administration of General\nTaylor, or how far it was that of his Cabinet. I do not know who made\nthe Cabinet. The messages, in his official term, were as good as usual;\nbut who made the messages? One thing is clear: he promised to be the\nPresident of the country, not of a party; to remove no man from office\nexcept for reasons not political. Neither promise was kept. It was plain\nthat other elements interfered and counteracted the honest intentions of\nthat honest man. General Jackson rewarded his \"friends\" and punished his\n\"enemies,\" men who voted against him. Mr. Jefferson had done the same.\nBut I doubt if the administration of either of these men was so\ncompletely a party administration as that of General Taylor. Men were\ncontinually removed from office purely for political reasons. The\ngeneral character of his appointments to office, you can judge of better\nthan I. It seems to me the removal of subordinate officers from their\nstation on account of their vote is one great evil in the management of\nour institutions. Of what consequence is it whether the postmaster at\nEastham or West-Newton, the keeper of the lighthouse at Cape Anne, or\nthe Clay Pounds of Truro, or the district attorney in Boston, or the\ntide-waiters at Nantucket are \"good whigs,\" or not good whigs?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat shall I say of the character of the man who has left this high\noffice; of him on the whole? Some men can be as eloquent on a ribbon as\non a Raphael. They find no difficulty in calling General Taylor \"The\nsecond Washington.\" I like the first Washington too much to call any\none by that name lightly. General Harrison was the \"Second Washington\"\nten years ago. General Jackson ten years before that. I think there is\nanother \"Second Washington\" getting ready, and before the century ends\nwe shall perhaps have five or six of this family. But the world does not\nbreed great men every day. I must confess it, I have not seen any thing\nvery great in General Taylor, though I have diligently put my eye to the\nmagnifying glasses of his political partisans; neither have I seen any\nthing uncommonly mean and little in him, though I have also looked\nthrough the minifying glasses of his foes. To be a frontier soldier for\nforty years, to attain the rank of Colonel at the age of forty-eight,\nafter twenty-four years of service, to become a Brigadier-General at\nfifty-four, is no great thing. To defend a log-house, to capture Black\nHawk, to use bloodhounds in war, and to extirpate the Seminole Indians\nfrom the everglades of Florida, to conquer the Mexicans at Churubusco\nand Monterey, does not require very high qualities of mind and heart.\nBut in all the offices he ever held, he appears to have done his\nofficial duty openly and honestly. He was a good officer, a plain,\nblunt, frank, open, modest man. No doubt he was \"rough and ready;\" his\ncourage was never questioned. His integrity is above suspicion. All this\nis well known. But is all this enough to make a great man in the middle\nof this century; a great man in America, and for such an office? Judge\nfor yourselves.\n\nI sincerely believe that he was more of a man than his political\nsupporters thought him; that he had more natural sagacity, more common\nsense, more firmness of purpose, and very much more honesty than they\nexpected or desired. Rumors reach me that he was not found quite so\nmanageable as his \"friends\" and admirers had hoped; that he had some\nconscience and a will of his own. It seems to me that he honestly\nintended to be an honest and impartial ruler, the President of his\ncountry; that he took Washington for his general model; that he never\nsought the office, and at first did not desire it, but when he came to\nit endeavored to deserve well of his country and do well by mankind. But\nwith the best intentions, what could such a man do, especially with such\nfoes, and more especially with such friends.\n\nIt is said he was a religious man: sometimes that means that a man loves\nGod and loves men; sometimes that he is superstitious, formal,\nhypocritical, that he does not love men, and is afraid of God, or of a\ndevil. I do not know in which sense the word is used in reference to\nhim. But it appears to me that he was a man of veracity, honest,\nupright, and downright too; a good father, a good husband, a good\nfriend, faithful to his idea of duty; very plain, very unpretending,\nmild and yet firm, good-natured, free and easy. There were many that\nloved him; a rare circumstance among politicians. He was a temperate\nman, also, remarkably temperate, and such temperance as his is not a\nvery common virtue in high political and social stations in America, as\nwe all know too well.\n\nThese are all the good qualities I can make out his title to. I suppose\nthere are some ten thousand men in Massachusetts that are his equals in\nall these qualities, as honest, as able, and as patriotic as he. It is\nhardly worth while to worship those qualities in a President which are\nnot rare in farmers, and traders, and butchers and mechanics.\n\nThere are two things which seem to me decidedly wrong in his public\ncareer. His partisans at the North claimed that he was hostile to\nslavery. I never could find any reason for that opinion: at the South\nhis friends insisted that he was the decided friend of slavery. When his\nopinion was asked on this matter, he remained steadily and\npertinaciously silent. To me this does not seem honest or manly.\n\nThen he was a slaveholder, not by compulsion, as some pretend they hold\nmen in bondage, not by inheritance. He was a slaveholder from choice,\nand only three years ago bought one hundred and fourteen human beings\nand kept them as his slaves. This fact must be considered in estimating\nthe character and value of the man. I know that Money is the popular god\nof America; that slaveholding is one of the canonical forms of\nworshipping that god, sanctioned by the Constitution and the laws and\nthe legislature of the land, by its literature and by its churches. I\nknow men in Boston, who would have no more scruple in buying and selling\na black man as a slave, or a white man if they could catch and keep him,\nthan they would have of buying a cow at Brighton. There are men in\nMassachusetts that have grown rich by the slave-trade. It does not hurt\ntheir reputation; it is no impeachment of their religious character. Now\nI do not expect a frontier colonel, busy in fighting Indians half his\nlife, dogging them with Cuban bloodhounds, to be more enlightened on\nsuch a matter than merchants, manufacturers, lawyers, ministers and\nprofessors of theology in New England. It may be that he had the same\nopinion as Professor Stuart, that slavery was allowed in the New\nTestament and sanctioned in the Old Testament; such a good thing that\nPaul and James said never a word against it. We should not judge such a\nman as you would judge a Unitarian Minister in Boston or Doctors of\nDivinity at Andover. Born as he was, bred as he had been, living in a\ncamp, sustained by the public opinion of the Press, the State and the\nChurch, it would not be surprising if it had never occurred to him that\nit was wrong to steal men. But the fact is to be taken into the account\nin determining the elevation of his character.\n\nIt is now plain that he found the office of President a heavy burden;\nthat it cost him his life. It seems to me the conduct of some of our\npublic men towards him was ungenerous, not to say unjust and shameful.\nAn honest man, he looked for honest foes and honest friends; but his\nhardest battles were fought after he had ceased to be a soldier.\n\nWell, he has gone to his rest and his recompense. To his family the\naffliction is sudden, painful and terrible. What vicissitudes in their\nlife--from the obscurity of their former home to the glaring publicity\nof that high station; then in so brief a time the honored and\nwell-beloved head is silent and cold forever! The nation may well drop\nits tears of sympathy for those whom its election has robbed of a father\nand a husband; the ghastly honors of the office are poor recompense for\nthe desolation it has brought into a quiet and once happy home.\n\nHe has gone to his reward. He leaves the government in the hands of an\nobscure man, whom the nation knows very little of, whom no one would\never have thought of making President; a man selected certainly for no\neminence of faculty, intellectual or moral. There is some cause to fear,\nperhaps some little for hope.[10] Two very important questions are now\nbefore the nation: Shall we extend over the territory conquered from\nMexico the awful blight which now mildews the material welfare of the\nSouth, and curses with a threefold ban the intellect, the conscience and\nthe religion of the land? Shall Congress pass that infamous fugitive\nslave measure, known as Mr. Mason's bill, with Mr. Webster's indorsement\non it? I know not how his death will affect these things. Who knows the\nintentions of the late President? or those of his successor? He has\npower to bless, he may use it only to curse the land. Let us wait and\nsee. The fact that the \"Great Compromiser\" now represents the\nAdministration in the Senate, the rumor of the appointment of the\nSenator of Boston to the highest place in the Cabinet, are things of ill\nomen for freedom, and bid us fear the worst. However, it may be that\nthis event will affect the politicians more than the people.\n\nLast Tuesday night General Taylor ceased to be mortal. His soul went\nhome to God. He that fought against the Mexican and the Indian has gone\nto meet the God of the red man as well as the white. He who claimed to\nown the body and the soul of more than a hundred of his fellow\ncreatures, enriched by the unrequited toil, which they unwillingly gave\nhim when stung by the lash of his hireling overseers, has gone home to\nthe Father of negro slaves, who is no respecter of persons; gone where\nthe servant is free from his master. Black and white, conqueror and\nvanquished, the bond and the free, alike come up before the Infinite\nFather, whose perfect justice is perfect love; and there the question\nis, \"What hast thou done with the talent committed unto thee?\" The same\nquestion is asked of the President; the same of the slave; yea, it will\none day be asked of you and me!\n\n\"An old man, wearied with the storms of State,\" now only asks a little\nearth for charity. Costly heathen pageants there will be in these\nstreets to his memory, and politicians will, I suppose, hold their\ndrunken and profane debauch over his grave, as over the tomb of that\nfar-famed friend of freedom who died two years ago. But he has ceased to\nbe mortal. The memory of his battle-fields faded from before his dying\nsight. Power rests no longer in his hands; victory perches on another\nbanner. His ear is still, and his heart is cold. How hollow sounds the\nvoice of former flattery! His riches go to other men; his slaves will be\ncalled by his name no more; the scourge that goads them to unpaid toil\nis now owned by another man. His fame goes back to such as gave; the\naccident of an accident succeeds him in the presidential chair; only the\nman, not the officer, goes home to God, with what of goodness and piety\nhe had won. His manhood is all that he can carry out of the world;\nelected or rejected, a conqueror or conquered, it is now the same to\nhim; and it may be the humblest female slave who only earned the bread\nwhich her master only ate, and got an enforced concubinage for pay,\ntakes rank in heaven far before the man whom the nation honored with its\nhighest trust, and for whom the official Senate and low-browed Church\nsend out their hollow groans.\n\n    \"The glories of our birth and State\n      Are shadows, not substantial things.\n    There is no armor against fate:\n      Death lays his icy hand on kings.\n        Sceptre and crown\n        Must tumble down,\n    And in the dust be equal made,\n    With the poor crooked scythe and spade.\n\n    \"Some men with swords may reap the field,\n      And plant fresh laurels where they kill;\n    But their strong arms at last must yield,\n      They tame but one another still.\n        Early or late\n        They stoop to fate,\n    And must give up their murmuring breath,\n    When they, pale captives, creep to death.\n\n    \"The garlands wither on his brow:\n      Then boast no more his mighty deeds,\n    Upon death's purple altar now,\n      See where the victor victim bleeds.\n        All heads must come\n        To the cold tomb,\n    Only the actions of the just\n    Smell sweet and blossom in the dust.\"\n\nIf he could speak to us from his present position, methinks he would\nsay: Countrymen and friends! You see how little it availed you to\nagitate the land and put a little man in a great place. It is not the\nhurrah of parties that will \"save the Union,\" it is not \"great men.\" It\nis only Justice. Remember that Atheism is not the first principle of a\nRepublic; remember there is a law of God, the higher law of the\nuniverse, the Everlasting Right; I thought so once, and now I know it.\nRemember that you are accountable to God for all things; that you owe\njustice to all men, the black not less than the white; that God will\ndemand it of you, proud, wicked nation, careful only of your gold,\nforgetful of God's high law! Before long each of you shall also come up\nbefore the Eternal. Then and there it will not avail you to have\ncompromised truth, justice, love, but to have kept them. Righteousness\nonly is the salvation of a State; that only of a man.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[10] The above was written in July, 1851. Since then the ground of hope\nhas wholly vanished; the ground for fear remains alone. The following\nstatement may suggest a thought the other side of the ocean, if no shame\non this side among politicians and their priests:\n\nElisha Brazealle, a planter of Jefferson county in the State of\nMississippi, was taken sick, and as he lay oppressed with a loathsome\ndisease, a slave of his, a bright mulatto or quadroon, nursed him, and,\nas was believed, through her nursing, saved him from death. He was a man\nof feeling and did not forget her kindness, but took her to Ohio and\nthere educated her. She made rapid progress, and soon became his wife.\nHe made or caused to be made a legal and sound deed of emancipation, and\nhad it legally and formally recorded in Ohio and Mississippi. Lawyers,\nin both States, said she was free, safe, and that no power in the South,\nor elsewhere, could legally deprive her or her children of freedom.\n\nMr. Brazealle returned to Mississippi with his wife; they had a son, and\nnamed him John Munroe Brazealle. After some years Mr. Brazealle sickened\nand died, leaving a will in which he recited the deed of emancipation,\ndeclared his intention to ratify it, and devised all his property to his\nson, acknowledging him in the will to be such.\n\nSome poor and distant relations of his in North Carolina, whom he did\nnot know, and for whom he did not care, hearing of his death, went on to\nMississippi and claimed the property devised by Mr. Brazealle to his\nson. They instituted a suit for the recovery of the property. The case\ncame before William L. Sharkey, \"Chief Justice of the High Court of\nErrors and Appeals\" for that State. It is reported in Howard's\nMississippi Reports, Vol. II. p. 837, _et seq._ Judge Sharkey declared\nthe act of emancipation \"An offence against morality, pernicious and\ndetestable as an example,\" set aside the will, gave to those distant\nrelations the property which Mr. Brazealle had devised to his son, and\nin addition declared that son and his mother to be slaves. Here is his\nown language:--\n\n\"The state of the case shows conclusively that the contract had its\norigin in an offence against morality, pernicious and detestable as an\nexample.\"... \"The consequence [of the decision] is, that the negroes\nJohn Munroe and his mother, are still slaves, and a part of the estate\nof Elisha Brazealle.\" \"John Munroe being a slave cannot take the\nproperty as devised; and I apprehend it is equally clear that it cannot\nbe held in trust for him.\"\n\nWhile these volumes are in the press, I learn that Mr. Fillmore has\nappointed Judge Sharkey to the honorable and lucrative post of Consul to\nHavana.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nTHE FUNCTION AND PLACE OF CONSCIENCE, IN RELATION TO THE LAWS OF MEN: A\nSERMON FOR THE TIMES.--PREACHED AT THE MELODEON, ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER\n22, 1850.\n\nACTS 24: 16.\n\n\"Herein do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offence\ntoward God and toward men.\"\n\n\nThere are some things which are true, independent of all human opinions.\nSuch things we call facts. Thus it is true that one and one are equal to\ntwo, that the earth moves round the sun, that all men have certain\nnatural unalienable rights, rights which a man can alienate only for\nhimself, and not for another. No man made these things true; no man can\nmake them false. If all the men in Jerusalem and ever so many more, if\nall the men in the world, were to pass a unanimous vote that one and one\nwere not equal to two, that the earth did not move round the sun, that\nall men had not natural and unalienable rights, the opinion would not\nalter the fact, nor make truth false and falsehood true.\n\nSo there are likewise some things which are right, independent of all\nhuman opinions. Thus it is right to love a man and not to hate him, to\ndo him justice and not injustice, to allow him the natural rights which\nhe has not alienated. No man made these things right; no man can make\nthem wrong. If all the men in Jerusalem and ever so many more, if all\nthe men in the world, were to pass a unanimous vote that it was right to\nhate a man and not love him, right to do him injustice and not justice,\nright to deprive him of his natural rights not alienated by himself, the\nopinion would not alter the fact, nor make right wrong and wrong right.\n\nThere are certain constant and general facts which occur in the material\nworld, the world of external perception, which represent what are called\nthe laws of matter, in virtue of which things take place so and not\notherwise. These laws are the same everywhere and always; they never\nchange. They are not made by men, but only discovered by men, are\ninherent in the constitution of matter, and seem designed to secure the\nwelfare of the material world. These natural laws of matter, inherent in\nits constitution, are never violated, nor can be, for material nature is\npassive, or at least contains no element or will that is adverse to the\nwill of God, the ultimate Cause of these laws as of matter itself. The\nobservance of these laws is a constant fact of the universe; \"the most\nancient heavens thereby are fresh and strong.\" These laws represent the\ninfinity of God in the world of matter, His infinite power, wisdom,\njustice, love and holiness.\n\nSo there are likewise certain constant and general facts which occur in\nwhat may be called the spiritual world, the world of internal\nconsciousness. They represent the laws of spirit--that is of the human\nspirit--in virtue of which things are designed to take place so and not\notherwise. These laws are the same everywhere and always; they never\nchange. They are not made by men, but only discovered by men. They are\ninherent in the constitution of man, and as you cannot conceive of a\nparticle of matter without extension, impenetrability, figure and so on,\nno more can you conceive of man without these laws inhering in him. They\nseem designed to secure the welfare of the spiritual world. They\nrepresent the infinity of God in the world of man, His infinite power,\nwisdom, justice, love and holiness. But while matter is stationary,\nbound by necessity, and man is progressive and partially free, to the\nextent of a certain tether, so it is plain that there may be a will in\nthe world of man adverse to the will of God, and thus the laws of man's\nspirit may be violated to a certain extent. The laws of matter depend\nfor their execution only on the infinite will of God, and so cannot be\nviolated. The laws of man depend for their execution also on the finite\nwill of man, and so may be broken.[11]\n\nLet us select a portion of these laws of the human spirit; such as\nrelate to a man's conduct in dealing with his fellow men, a portion of\nwhat are commonly called moral laws, and examine them. They partake of\nthe general characteristics mentioned above; they are universal and\nunchangeable, are only discovered and not made by man, are inherent in\nman, designed to secure his welfare, and represent the infinity of God.\nThese laws are absolutely right; to obey them is to be and do absolutely\nright. So being and doing, a man answers the moral purpose of his\nexistence, and attains moral manhood. If I and all men keep all the laws\nof man's spirit, I have peace in my own heart, peace with my brother,\npeace with my God; I have my delight in myself, in my brother, in my\nGod, they theirs and God His in me.\n\nWhat is absolutely right is commonly called justice. It is the point in\nmorals common to me and all mankind, common to me and God, to mankind\nand God; the point where all duties unite--to myself, my brethren, and\nmy God; the point where all interests meet and balance--my interests,\nthose of mankind, and the interests of God. When justice is done, all is\nharmony and peaceful progress in the world of man; but when justice is\nnot done, the reverse follows, discord and confusion; for injustice is\nnot the point where all duties and all interests meet and balance, not\nthe point of morals common to mankind and me, or to us and God.\n\nWe may observe and study the constant facts of the material world, thus\nlearn the laws they represent, and so get at a theory of the world which\nis founded on the facts thereof. Such a theory is true; it represents\nthe thought of God, the infinity of God. Then for every point of theory\nwe have a point of fact. Instead of pursuing this course we may neglect\nthese constant facts, with the laws they represent, and forge a theory\nwhich shall not rest on these facts. Such a theory will be false and\nwill represent the imperfection of men, and not the facts of the\nuniverse and the infinity of God.\n\nIn like manner we may study the constant facts of the spiritual world,\nand, in special, of man's moral nature, and thereby obtain a rule to\nregulate our conduct. If this rule is founded on the constant facts of\nman's moral nature, then it will be absolutely right, and represent\nJustice, the thought of God, the infinity of God, and for every point of\nmoral theory we shall have a moral fact. Instead of pursuing that\ncourse, we may forge a rule for our conduct, and so get a theory which\nshall not rest on those facts. Such a rule will be wrong, representing\nonly the imperfection of men.\n\nIn striving to learn the laws of the universe, the wisest men often go\nastray, propound theories which do not rest upon facts, and lay down\nhuman rules for the conduct of the universe, which do not agree with its\nnature. But the universe is not responsible for that; material nature\ntakes no notice thereof. The opinion of an astronomer, of the American\nacademy, does not alter a law of the material universe, or a fact\ntherein. The philosophers once thought that the sun went round the\nearth, and framed laws on that assumption; but that did not make it a\nfact; the sun did not go out of his way to verify the theory, but kept\nto the law of God, and swung the earth round him once a year, say the\nphilosophers what they might say, leaving them to learn the fact and\nthereby correct their theory.\n\nIn the same way, before men attain a knowledge of the absolute right,\nthey often make theories which do not rest upon the facts of man's moral\nnature, and enact human rules for the conduct of men which do not agree\nwith the moral nature of man. These are rules which men make and do not\nfind made. They are not a part of man's moral nature, writ therein, and\nso obligatory thereon, no more than the false rules for the conduct of\nmatter are writ therein, and so obligatory thereon. You and I are no\nmore morally bound to keep such rules of conduct, because King Pharaoh\nor King People say we shall, than the sun is materially bound to go\nround the earth every day, because Hipparchus and Ptolemy say it does.\nThe opinion or command of a king, or a people, can no more change a fact\nand alter a law of man's nature, than the opinion of a philosopher can\ndo this in material nature.\n\nWe learn the laws of matter slowly, by observation, experiment, and\ninduction, and only get an outside knowledge thereof, as objects of\nthought. In the same way we might study the facts of man's moral nature,\nand arrive at rules of conduct, and get a merely outside acquaintance\nwith the moral law as something wholly external. The law might appear\ncurious, useful, even beautiful, moral gravitation as wonderful as\nmaterial attraction. But no sense of duty would attach us to it. In\naddition to the purely intellectual powers, we have a faculty whose\nspecial function it is to discover the rules for a man's moral conduct.\nThis is Conscience, called also by many names. As the mind has for its\nobject absolute truth, so conscience has for its object absolute\njustice. Conscience enables us not merely to learn the right by\nexperiment and induction, but intuitively, and in advance of experiment;\nso, in addition to the experimental way, whereby we learn justice from\nthe facts of human history, we have a transcendental way, and learn it\nfrom the facts of human nature, from immediate consciousness.\n\nIt is the function of conscience to discover to men the moral law of\nGod. It will not do this with infallible certainty, for, at its best\nestate, neither conscience nor any other faculty of man is absolutely\nperfect, so as never to mistake. Absolute perfection belongs only to the\nfaculties of God. But conscience, like each other faculty, is relatively\nperfect,--is adequate to the purpose God meant it for. It is often\nimmature in the young, who have not had time for the growth and ripening\nof the faculty, and in the old, who have checked and hindered its\ndevelopment. Here it is feeble from neglect, there from abuse. It may\ngive an imperfect answer to the question, What is absolutely right?\n\nNow, though the conscience of a man lacks the absolute perfection of\nthat of God, in all that relates to my dealing with men, it is still the\nlast standard of appeal. I will hear what my friends have to say, what\npublic opinion has to offer, what the best men can advise me to, then I\nam to ask my own conscience, and follow its decision; not that of my\nnext friend, the public, or the best of men. I will not say that my\nconscience will always disclose to me the absolutely right, according to\nthe conscience of God, but it will disclose the relatively right, what\nis my conviction of right to-day, with all the light I can get on the\nmatter; and as all I can know of the absolute right, is my conviction\nthereof, so I must be true to that conviction. Then I am faithful to my\nown conscience, and faithful to my God. If I do the best thing I can\nknow to-day, and to-morrow find a better one and do that, I am not to be\nblamed, nor to be called a sinner against God, because not so just\nto-day as I shall be to-morrow. I am to do God's will soon as I know it,\nnot before, and to take all possible pains to find it out; but am not to\nblame for acting childish when a child, nor to be ashamed of it when\ngrown up to be a man. Such is the function of conscience.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHaving determined what is absolutely right, by the conscience of God, or\nat least relatively right, according to my conscience to-day, then it\nbecomes my duty to keep it. I owe it to God to obey His law, or what I\ndeem his law; that is my duty. It may be uncomfortable to keep it,\nunpopular, contrary to my present desires, to my passions, to my\nimmediate interests; it may conflict with my plans in life; that makes\nno difference. I owe entire allegiance to my God. It is a duty to keep\nHis law, a personal duty, my duty as a man. I owe it to myself, for I am\nto keep the integrity of my own consciousness; I owe it to my brother,\nand to my God. Nothing can absolve me from this duty, neither the fact\nthat it is uncomfortable or unpopular, nor that it conflicts with my\ndesires, my passions, my immediate interests, and my plans in life. Such\nis the place of conscience amongst other faculties of my nature.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI believe all this is perfectly plain, but now see what it leads to. In\nthe complicated relations of human life, various rules for the moral\nconduct of men have been devised, some of them in the form of statute\nlaws, some in the form of customs, and, in virtue of these rules,\ncertain artificial demands are made of men, which have no foundation in\nthe moral nature of man; these demands are thought to represent duties.\nWe have the same word to describe what I ought to do as subject to the\nlaw of God, and what is demanded of me by custom, or the statute. We\ncall each a duty. Hence comes no small confusion: the conventional and\nofficial obligation is thought to rest on the same foundation as the\nnatural and personal duty. As the natural duty is at first sight a\nlittle vague, and not written out in the law-book, or defined by custom,\nwhile the conventional obligation is well understood, men think that in\ncase of any collision between the two, the natural duty must give way to\nthe official obligation.\n\nFor clearness' sake, the natural and personal obligation to keep the law\nof God as my conscience declares it, I will call Duty; the conventional\nand official obligation to comply with some custom, keep some statute,\nor serve some special interest, I will call Business. Here then are two\nthings--my natural and personal duty, my conventional and official\nbusiness. Which of the two shall give way to the other,--personal duty\nor official business? Let it be remembered that I am a man first of all,\nand all else that I am is but a modification of my manhood, which makes\nme a clergyman, a fisherman, or a statesman; but the clergy, the fish,\nand the State, are not to strip me of my manhood. They are valuable in\nso far as they serve my manhood, not as it serves them. My official\nbusiness as clergyman, fisherman, or statesman, is always beneath my\npersonal duty as man. In case of any conflict between the two, the\nnatural duty ought to prevail and carry the day before the official\nbusiness; for the natural duty represents the permanent law of God, the\nabsolute right, justice, the balance-point of all interests; while the\nofficial business represents only the transient conventions of men, some\npartial interest; and besides the man who owes the personal duty, is\nimmortal, while the officer who performs the official business, is but\nfor a time. At death, the man is to be tried by the justice of God, for\nthe deeds done, and character attained, for his natural duty, but he\ndoes not enter the next life as a clergyman, with his surplice and\nprayer-book, or a fisherman, with his angles and net, nor yet as a\nstatesman, with his franking privilege, and title of honorable and\nmember of Congress. The officer dies, of a vote or a fever. The man\nlives forever. From the relation between a man and his occupation, it is\nplain, in general, that all conventional and official business is to be\noverruled by natural personal duty. This is the great circle, drawn by\nGod, and discovered by conscience, which girdles my sphere, including\nall the smaller circles, and itself included by none of them. The law of\nGod has eminent domain everywhere, over the private passions of Oliver\nand Charles, the special interests of Carthage and of Rome, over all\ncustoms, all official business, all precedents, all human statutes, all\ntreaties between Judas and Pilate, or England and France, over all the\nconventional affairs of one man or of mankind. My own conscience is to\ndeclare that law for me, yours for you, and is before all private\npassions, or public interests, the decision of majorities, and a world\nfull of precedents. You may resign your office, and escape its\nobligations, forsake your country, and owe it no allegiance, but you\ncannot move out of the dominions of God, nor escape where conscience has\nnot eminent domain.\n\nSee some examples of a conflict between the personal duty and the\nofficial business. A man may be a clergyman, and it may be his official\nbusiness to expound and defend the creed which is set up for him by his\nemployers, his bishop, his association, or his parish, to defend and\nhold it good against all comers; it may be, also, in a certain solemn\nsort, to please the audience, who come to be soothed, caressed, and\ncomforted,--to represent the average of religion in his society, and so\nto bless popular virtues and ban unpopular vices, but never to shake off\nor even jostle with one of his fingers the load of sin, beloved and\npopular, which crushes his hearers down till they are bowed together and\ncan in nowise lift themselves up; unpopular excellence he is to call\nfanaticism, if not infidelity. But his natural duty as a man, standing\nin this position, overrides his official business, and commands him to\ntell men of the false things in their creed, of great truths not in it;\ncommands him to inform his audience with new virtue, to represent all of\nreligion he can attain, to undo the heavy burdens of popular sin,\nprivate or national, and let the men oppressed therewith go free.\nExcellence, popular or odious, he is to commend by its own name, to\nstimulate men to all nobleness of character and life, whether it please\nor offend. This is his duty, however uncomfortable, unpopular, against\nhis desires, and conflicting with his immediate interests and plans of\nlife. Which shall he do? His official business, and pimp and pander to\nthe public lust, with base compliance serving the popular idols, which\nhere are Money and Respectability, or shall he serve his God? That is\nthe question. If the man considers himself substantially a man, and\naccidentally a clergyman, he will perform his natural duty; if he counts\nthe priesthood his substance, and manhood an accident of that, he will\ndo only his official business.\n\nI may be a merchant, and my official business may be to buy, and sell,\nand get gain; I may see that the traffic in ardent spirits is the\nreadiest way to accomplish this. So it becomes my official business to\nmake rum, sell rum, and by all means to induce men to drink it. But\npresently I see that the common use of it makes the thriving unthrifty,\nthe rich less wealthy, the poor miserable, the sound sick, and the sane\nmad; that it brings hundreds to the jail, thousands to the almshouse,\nand millions to poverty and shame, producing an amount of suffering,\nwretchedness, and sin, beyond the power of man to picture or conceive.\nThen my natural duty as man is very clear, very imperative. Shall I\nsacrifice my manhood to money?--the integrity of my consciousness to my\ngains by rum-selling? That is the question. And my answer will depend on\nthe fact, whether I am more a man or more a rum-seller. Suppose I\ncompromise the matter, and draw a line somewhere between my natural duty\nas man, and my official business as rum-seller, and for every three\ncents that I make by iniquity, give one cent to the American Tract\nSociety, or the Board for Foreign Missions, or the Unitarian\nAssociation, or the excellent Society for promoting the Gospel among the\nIndians (and others) in North America. That does not help the matter;\nbusiness is not satisfied, though I draw the line never so near to\nmoney; nor conscience, unless the line comes up to my duty.\n\nI am a citizen, and the State says, \"You must obey all the statutes made\nby the proper authorities; that is your official business!\" Suppose\nthere is a statute adverse to the natural law of God, and the\nconvictions of my own conscience, and I plead that fact in abatement of\nmy obligation to keep the statute, the State says, \"Obey it, none the\nless, or we will hang you. Religion is an excellent thing in every\nmatter except politics; there it seems to make men mad.\" Shall I keep\nthe commandment of men, or the law of my God?\n\nA statute was once enacted by King Pharaoh for the destruction of the\nIsraelites in Egypt; it was made the official business of all citizens\nto aid in their destruction: \"Pharaoh charged all his people saying,\nEvery son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter\nye shall save alive.\" It was the official business of every Egyptian who\nfound a Hebrew boy to throw him into the Nile,--if he refused, he\noffended against the peace and dignity of the kingdom of Egypt, and the\nform of law in such case made and provided. But if he obeyed, he\nmurdered a man. Which should he obey, the Lord Pharaoh, or the Lord God?\nThat was the question. I make no doubt that the priests of Osiris, Orus,\nApis, Isis, and the judges, and the justices of the peace and quorum,\nand the members of Congress of that time said, \"Keep the king's\ncommandment, oh ye that worship the crocodile and fear the cat, or ye\nshall not sleep in a whole skin any longer!\" So said every thing that\nloveth and maketh a lie.\n\nKing Charles II. made a statute some one hundred and ninety years ago,\nto punish with death the remnant of the nine-and-fifty judges who had\nbrought his father's head to the block, teaching kings \"that they also\nhad a joint in their necks.\" He called on all his subjects to aid in the\ncapture of these judges. It was made their official business as citizens\nto do so; a reward was offered for the apprehension of some of them\n\"alive or dead;\" punishment hung over the head of any who should harbor\nor conceal them. Three of these regicides, who had adjudged a king for\nhis felony, came to New England. Many Americans knew where they were,\nand thought the condemnation of Charles I. was the best thing these\njudges ever did. With that conviction ought they to have delivered up\nthese fugitives, or afforded them shelter? In time of peril, when\nofficers of the English government were on the lookout for some of these\nmen, a clergyman in the town where one of them was concealed, preached,\nit is said, on the text \"Bewray not him that wandereth,\" an occasional\nsermon, and put the duty of a man far before the business of a citizen.\nWhen Sir Edmund Andros was at New Haven looking after one of the judges,\nand attended public worship in the same meeting-house with the\nfugitive, the congregation sung an awful hymn in his very ears.[12]\n\nWould the men of Connecticut have done right, bewraying him that\nwandered, and exposing the outcast, to give up the man who had defended\nthe liberties of the world and the rights of mankind against a\ntyrant,--give him up because a wanton king, and his loose men and loose\nwomen, made such a commandment? One of the regicides dwelt in peace\neight-and-twenty years in New England, a monument of the virtue of the\npeople.\n\nOf old time the Roman statute commanded the Christians to sacrifice to\nJupiter; they deemed it the highest sin to do so, but it was their\nofficial business as Roman citizens. Some of them were true to their\nnatural duty as men, and took the same cross Jesus had borne before\nthem; Peter and John had said at their outset to the\nauthorities--\"Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto\nyou more than unto God, judge ye.\" The Emperor once made it the official\nbusiness of every citizen to deliver up the Christians. But God made it\nno man's duty. Nay, it was each man's duty to help them. In such cases\nwhat shall a man do? You know what we think of men who comply basely,\nand save their life with the loss of their soul. You know how the\nChristian world honors the saints and martyrs, who laid down their lives\nfor the sake of truth and right; a handful of their dust, which was\nquieted of its trouble by the headsman's axe seventeen hundred years\nago, and is now gathered from the catacombs of Saint Agnes at Rome--why\nit is enough to consecrate half of the Catholic churches in New England.\nAs I have stood among their graves, have handled the instruments with\nwhich they tasted of bitter death, and crumbled their bones in my\nhands,--I keep their relics still with reverend awe--I have thought\nthere was a little difference between their religion, and the pale\ndecency that haunts the churches of our time, and is afraid lest it lose\nits dividends, or its respectability, or hurt its usefulness, which is\nin no danger.\n\nDo I speak of martyrs for conscience' sake? To-day is St. Maurice's day,\nconsecrated to him and the \"Thebaean legion.\" Maurice appears to have\nbeen a military tribune in the Christian legion, levied in the Thebais,\na part of Egypt. In the latter part of the third century this legion was\nat Octodurum, near the little village of Martigni, in Valais, a Swiss\nCanton, under the command of Maximian, the associate emperor, just then\nnamed Herculeus, going to fight the Bagaudae. The legion was ordered to\nsacrifice to the Gods after the heathen fashion. The soldiers refused;\nevery tenth man was hewn down by Maximian's command. They would not\nsubmit, and so the whole legion, as the Catholic story tells us,\nperished there on the 22d of September, fifteen hundred and fifty-three\nyears ago this day. Perhaps the account is not true; it is probable that\nthe number of martyrs is much exaggerated, for six thousand soldiers\nwould not stand still and be slaughtered without striking a blow. But\nthe fact that the Catholic church sets apart one day in the calendar to\nhonor this alleged heroism, shows the value men put on fidelity to\nconscience in such cases.\n\nLast winter a bill for the capture of fugitive slaves was introduced\ninto the Senate of the United States of America; the Senator who so ably\nrepresented the opinions and wishes of the controlling men of this city,\nproposed to support that bill, \"with all its provisions to the fullest\nextent;\" that bill, with various alterations, some for the better,\nothers for the worse, has become a law--it received the vote of the\nRepresentative from Boston, who was not sent there, I hope, for the\npurpose of voting for it. That statute allows the slaveholder, or his\nagent, to come here, and by summary process seize a fugitive slave, and,\nwithout the formality of a trial by jury, to carry him back to eternal\nbondage. The statute makes it the official business of certain\nmagistrates to aid in enslaving a man; it empowers them to call out\nforce enough to overcome any resistance which may be offered, to summon\nthe bystanders to aid in that work. It provides a punishment for any one\nwho shall aid and abet, directly or indirectly, and harbor or conceal\nthe man who is seeking to maintain his natural and unalienable right to\nlife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He may be fined a thousand\ndollars, imprisoned six months, and be liable to a civil action for a\nthousand dollars more!\n\nThis statute is not to be laid to the charge of the slaveholders of the\nSouth alone; its most effective supporters are northern men; Boston is\nmore to be blamed for it than Charleston or Savannah, for nearly a\nthousand persons of this city and neighborhood, most of them men of\ninfluence through money if by no other means, addressed a letter of\nthanks to the distinguished man who had volunteered to support that\ninfamous bill, telling him that he had \"convinced the understanding and\ntouched the conscience of the nation.\" A man falls low when he consents\nto be a slave, and is spurned for his lack of manhood; to consent to be\na catcher of fugitive slaves is to fall lower yet; but to consent to be\nthe defender of a slave-catcher--it is seldom that human nature is base\nenough for that. But such examples are found in this city! This is now\nthe law of the land. It is the official business of judges,\ncommissioners and marshals, as magistrates, to execute the statute and\ndeliver a fugitive up to slavery; it is your official business and mine,\nas citizens, when legally summoned, to aid in capturing the man. Does\nthe command make it any man's duty? The natural duty to keep the law of\nGod overrides the obligation to observe any human statute, and\ncontinually commands us to love a man and not hate him, to do him\njustice, and not injustice, to allow him his natural rights not\nalienated by himself; yes, to defend him in them, not only by all means\nlegal, but by all means moral.\n\nLet us look a little at our duty under this statute. If a man falls into\nthe water and is in danger of drowning, it is the natural duty of the\nbystanders to aid in pulling him out, even at the risk of wetting their\ngarments. We should think a man a coward who could swim, and would not\nsave a drowning girl for fear of spoiling his coat. He would be\nindictable at common law. If a troop of wolves or tigers were about to\nseize a man, and devour him, and you and I could help him, it would be\nour duty to do so, even to peril our own limbs and life for that\npurpose. If a man undertakes to murder or steal a man, it is the duty of\nthe bystanders to help their brother, who is in peril, against wrong\nfrom the two-legged man, as much as against the four-legged beast. But\nsuppose the invader who seizes the man is an officer of the United\nStates, has a commission in his pocket, a warrant for his deed in his\nhand, and seizes as a slave a man who has done nothing to alienate his\nnatural rights--does that give him any more natural right to enslave a\nman than he had before? Can any piece of parchment make right wrong, and\nwrong right?\n\nThe fugitive has been a slave before: does the wrong you committed\nyesterday, give you a natural right to commit wrong afresh and\ncontinually? Because you enslaved this man's father, have you a natural\nright to enslave his child? The same right you would have to murder a\nman because you butchered his father first. The right to murder is as\nmuch transmissible by inheritance as the right to enslave! It is plain\nto me that it is the natural duty of citizens to rescue every fugitive\nslave from the hands of the marshal who essays to return him to bondage;\nto do it peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must, but by all means\nto do it. Will you stand by and see your countrymen, your\nfellow-citizens of Boston, sent off to slavery by some commissioner?\nShall I see my own parishioners taken from under my eyes and carried\nback to bondage, by a man whose constitutional business it is to work\nwickedness by statute? Shall I never lift an arm to protect him? When I\nconsent to that, you may call me a hireling shepherd, an infidel, a wolf\nin sheep's clothing, even a defender of slave-catching if you will; and\nI will confess I was a poor dumb dog, barking always at the moon, but\nsilent as the moon when the murderer came near.\n\nI am not a man who loves violence. I respect the sacredness of human\nlife. But this I say, solemnly, that I will do all in my power to rescue\nany fugitive slave from the hands of any officer who attempts to return\nhim to bondage. I will resist him as gently as I know how, but with such\nstrength as I can command; I will ring the bells, and alarm the town; I\nwill serve as head, as foot, or as hand to any body of serious and\nearnest men, who will go with me, with no weapons but their hands, in\nthis work. I will do it as readily as I would lift a man out of the\nwater, or pluck him from the teeth of a wolf, or snatch him from the\nhands of a murderer. What is a fine of a thousand dollars, and jailing\nfor six months, to the liberty of a man? My money perish with me, if it\nstand between me and the eternal law of God. I trust there are manly men\nenough in this house to secure the freedom of every fugitive slave in\nBoston, without breaking a limb or rending a garment.\n\nOne thing more I think is very plain, that the fugitive has the same\nnatural right to defend himself against the slave-catcher, or his\nconstitutional tool, that he has against a murderer or a wolf. The man\nwho attacks me to reduce me to slavery, in that moment of attack\nalienates his right to life, and if I were the fugitive, and could\nescape in no other way, I would kill him with as little compunction as I\nwould drive a mosquito from my face. It is high time this was said. What\ngrasshoppers we are before the statute of men! what Goliaths against\nthe law of God! What capitalist heeds your statute of usury when he can\nget illegal interest? How many banks are content with six _per cent._\nwhen money is scarce? Did you never hear of a merchant evading the\nduties of the custom-house? When a man's liberty is concerned, we must\nkeep the law, must we? betray the wanderer, and expose the outcast?[13]\n\nIn the same manner the natural duty of a man overrides all the special\nobligations which a man takes on himself as a magistrate by his\nofficial oath. Our theory of office is this: The man is sunk in the\nmagistrate; he is _un homme couvert_; his individual manhood is covered\nup and extinguished by his official cap; he is no longer a man, but a\nmere president, general, governor, representative, sheriff, juror, or\nconstable; he is absolved from all allegiance to God's law of the\nuniverse when it conflicts with man's law of the land; his official\nbusiness as a magistrate supersedes his natural duty as a man. In\nvirtue of this theory, President Polk, and his coadjutors in Congress\nand out of it, with malice aforethought and intent to rob and to kill,\ndid officially invade Mexico, and therein \"slay, kill, and murder\" some\nthousands of men, as well Americans as Mexicans. This is thought right\nbecause he did it officially. But the fact that he and they were\nmagistrates, doing official business, did not make the killing any the\nless a wrong than if he and they had been private men, with General\nLopez and not General Taylor to head or back them. The official killing\nof a man who has not alienated his right to life, is just as much a\nviolation of the law of God, and the natural duty of a man, as the\nunofficial killing of such a person. Because you and I and some other\nfoolish people put a man in a high office, and get him to take an oath,\ndoes that, all at once, invest him with a natural right to kill anybody\nhe sees fit; to kill an innocent Mexican? All his natural rights he had\nbefore, and it would be difficult to ascertain where the people could\nfind the right to authorize him to do a wrong. A man does not escape\nfrom the jurisdiction of natural law and the dominion of God by\nenlisting in the army, or by taking the oath of the President; for\njustice, the law paramount of the universe, extends over armies and\nnations.\n\nA little while ago a murderer was hanged in Boston, by the Sheriff of\nSuffolk county, at the command of the Governor and Council of\nMassachusetts, by the aid of certain persons called grand and petit\njurors, all of them acting in their official capacity, and doing the\nofficial business they had sworn to do. If it be a wrong thing to hang a\nman, or to take his life except in self-defence, and while in imminent\nperil, then it is not any less a wrong because men do it in their\nofficial character, in compliance with their oath. I am speaking of\nabsolute wrong, not merely what is wrong relatively to the man's own\njudgment, for I doubt not that all those officers were entirely\nconscientious in what they did, and therefore no blame rests on them.\nBut if a man believes it wrong to take human life deliberately, except\nin the cases named, then I do not see how, with a good conscience, he\ncan be partaker in the death of any man, notwithstanding his official\noath.\n\nLet me suppose a case which may happen here, and before long. A woman\nflies from South Carolina to Massachusetts to escape from bondage. Mr.\nGreatheart aids her in her escape, harbors and conceals her, and is\nbrought to trial for it. The punishment is a fine of one thousand\ndollars and imprisonment for six months. I am drawn to serve as a juror,\nand pass upon this offence. I may refuse to serve, and be punished for\nthat, leaving men with no scruples to take my place, or I may take the\njuror's oath to give a verdict according to the law and the testimony.\nThe law is plain, let us suppose, and the testimony conclusive.\nGreatheart himself confesses that he did the deed alleged, saving one\nready to perish. The judge charges, that if the jurors are satisfied of\nthat fact, then they must return that he is guilty. This is a nice\nmatter. Here are two questions. The one, put to me in my official\ncapacity as juror, is this: \"Did Greatheart aid the woman?\" The other,\nput to me in my natural character as man, is this: \"Will you help punish\nGreatheart with fine and imprisonment for helping a woman obtain her\nunalienable rights?\" I am to answer both. If I have extinguished my\nmanhood by my juror's oath, then I shall do my official business and\nfind Greatheart guilty, and I shall seem to be a true man; but if I\nvalue my manhood, I shall answer after my natural duty to love a man and\nnot hate him, to do him justice, not injustice, to allow him the natural\nrights he has not alienated, and shall say \"Not guilty.\" Then foolish\nmen, blinded by the dust of courts, may call me forsworn and a liar;\nbut I think human nature will justify the verdict.[14]\n\n In cases of this kind, when justice is on one side and the court on\nthe other, it seems to me a conscientious man must either refuse to\nserve as a juror, or else return a verdict at variance with the facts\nand what courts declare to be his official business as juror; but the\neyes of some men have been so long blinded by what the court declares\nis the law, and by its notion of the juror's function, that they will\nhelp inflict such a punishment on their brother, and the judge decree\nthe sentence, in a case where the arrest, the verdict and the sentence\nare the only wrong in which the prisoner is concerned. It seems to me it\nis time this matter should be understood, and that it should be known\nthat no official oath can take a man out of the jurisdiction of God's\nnatural law of the universe.\n\nA case may be brought before a commissioner or judge of the United\nStates, to determine whether Daniel is a slave, and therefore to be\nsurrendered up. His official business, sanctioned by his oath, enforced\nby the law of the land, demands the surrender; his natural duty,\nsanctioned by his conscience, enforced by absolute justice, forbids the\nsurrender. What shall he do? There is no serving of God and Mammon both.\nHe may abandon his commission and refuse to remain thus halting between\ntwo opposites. But if he keeps his office, I see not how he can renounce\nhis nature and send back a fugitive slave, and do as great a wrong as to\nmake a free man a slave!\n\nSuppose the Constitution had been altered, and Congress had made a law,\nmaking it the business of the United States' commissioners to enslave\nand sell at public outcry all the red-haired men in the nation, and\nforbid us to aid and abet their escape, to harbor and conceal them under\nthe same penalties just now mentioned; do you think any commissioner\nwould be justified before God by his oath in kidnapping the red-haired\nmen, or any person in punishing such as harbored or concealed them, such\nas forcibly took the victims out of the hand of officials who would work\nmischief by statute? Will the color of a hair make right wrong, and\nwrong right?\n\nSuppose a man has sworn to keep the Constitution of the United States,\nand the Constitution is found to be wrong in certain particulars: then\nhis oath is not morally binding, for before his oath, by his very\nexistence, he is morally bound to keep the law of God as fast as he\nlearns it. No oath can absolve him from his natural allegiance to God.\nYet I see not how a man can knowingly, and with a good conscience, swear\nto keep what he deems wrong to keep, and will not keep, and does not\nintend to keep.\n\nIt seems to me very strange that men so misunderstand the rights of\nconscience and their obligations to obey their country. Not long ago, an\neminent man taunted one of his opponents, telling him he had better\nadhere to the \"higher law.\" The newspapers echoed the sneer, as if there\nwere no law higher than the Constitution. Latterly, the democratic\nparty, even more completely than the whig party, seems to have forgotten\nthat there is any law higher than the Constitution, any rights above\nvested rights.[15]\n\nAn eminent theologian of New England, who has hitherto done good and\ngreat service in his profession, grinding off the barb of Calvinism,\nwrote a book in defence of slave-catching, on \"Conscience and the\nConstitution,\" a book which not only sins against the sense of the\nrighteous in being wicked, but against the worldliness of the world in\nbeing weak,--and he puts the official business of keeping \"a compact\"\nfar before the natural duty of keeping a conscience void of offence, and\nserving God. But suppose forty thieves assemble on Fire Island, and make\na compact to rob every vessel wrecked on their coast, and reduce the\nsurvivors to bondage. Suppose I am born amongst that brotherhood of\npirates, am I morally bound to keep that compact, or to perform any\nfunction which grows out of it? Nay, I am morally bound to violate the\ncompact, to keep the pirates from their plunder and their prey. Instead\nof forty thieves on Fire Island, suppose twenty millions of men in the\nUnited States make a compact to enslave every sixth man--the dark\nmen--am I morally bound to heed that compact, or to perform any function\nwhich grows out of it? Nay, I am morally bound to violate the compact,\nin every way that is just and wise. The very men who make such a compact\nare morally discharged from it as soon as they see it is wrong. The\nforty Jews who bound themselves by wicked oath to kill Paul before they\nbroke their fast,--were they morally bound to keep their word? Nay,\nmorally bound to break it.\n\nI will tell you a portion of the story of a fugitive slave whom I have\nknown. I will call his name Joseph, though he was in worse than Egyptian\nbondage. He was \"owned\" by a notorious gambler, and once ran away, but\nwas retaken. His master proceeded to punish him for that crime, took him\nto a chamber, locked the door, and lighted a fire; he then beat the\nslave severely. After that he put the branding-iron in the fire, took a\nknife,--I am not telling of what took place in Algiers, but in\nAlabama,--and proceeded to cut off the ears of his victim! The owner's\nwife, alarmed at the shrieks of the sufferer, beat down the door with a\nsledge-hammer, and prevented that catastrophe. Afterwards, two slaves of\nthis gambler, for stealing their master's sheep, were beaten so that\nthey died of the stripes. The \"Minister\" came to the funeral, told the\nothers that those were wicked slaves, who deserved their fate; that they\nwould never \"rise\" in the general resurrection, and were not fit to be\nburied! Accordingly their bodies were thrown into a hole and left there.\nJoseph ran away again; he came to Boston; was sheltered by a man whose\ncharity never fails; he has been in my house, and often has worshipped\nhere with us. Shall I take that man and deliver him up?--do it \"with\nalacrity?\" Shall I suffer that gambler to carry his prey from this city?\nWill you allow it--though all the laws and constitutions of men give the\ncommandment? God do so unto us if we suffer it.[16]\n\nThis we need continually to remember: that nothing in the world without\nis so sacred as the Eternal Law of God; of the world within nothing is\nmore venerable than our own conscience, the permanent, everlasting\noracle of God. The Urim and Thummim were but Jewish or Egyptian toys on\nthe breast-plate of the Hebrew priest; the Delphic oracle was only a\nsubtle cheat, but this is the true Shekinah and presence of God in your\nheart: as this\n\n      ----\"pronounces lastly on each deed,\n    Of so much fame in heaven expect your meed.\"\n\nIf I am consciously and continually false to this, it is of no avail\nthat I seem loyal to all besides; I make the light that is in me\ndarkness, and how great is that darkness! The centre of my manhood is\ngone, and I am rotten at my heart. Men may respect me, honor me, but I\nam not respectable, I am a base, dishonorable man, and like a tree,\nbroad-branched, and leafed with green, but all its heart gnawed out by\nsecret worms, at some slight touch one day, my rotten trunk will fall\nwith horrid squelch, bringing my leafy honors to dishonored dust, and\nmen will wonder that bark could hide such rottenness and ruin.\n\nBut if I am true to this Legate of God, holding his court within my\nsoul, then my power to discover the just and right will enlarge\ncontinually; the axis of my little life will coincide with the life of\nthe infinite God, His Conscience and my own be one. Then my character\nand my work will lie in the plane of his Almighty action; no other will\nin me, His infinite wisdom, justice, holiness, and love, will flow into\nme, a ceaseless tide, filling with life divine and new the little\ncreeklets of my humble soul. I shall be one with God, feel His delight\nin me and mine in Him, and all my mortal life run o'er with life divine\nand bless mankind. Let men abhor me, yea, scourge and crucify, angels\nare at hand; yes, the Father is with me!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow we mistake. Men think if they can but get wickedness dignified into\na statute, enrolled in the capitol, signed by the magistrates, and\npopular with the people, that all is secure. Then they rejoice, and at\ntheir \"Thanksgiving dinner,\" say with the short-lived tyrant in the\nplay, after he had slain the rightful heirs of England's throne, and set\nhis murderous hoof on justice at every step to power,--\n\n    \"Now is the winter of our discontent\n    Made glorious summer\" ...\n\nand think that Sin sits fast and rides secure.[17] But no statute of men\nis ever fixed on man till it be first the absolute, the right, the law\nof God. All else lasts but its day, forever this, forever still the\nsame. By \"previous questions,\" men may stop debate, vote down minorities\nwith hideous grin, but the still small voice of Justice will whisper in\nthe human heart, will be trumpet-tongued in history to teach you that\nyou cannot vote down God.\n\n In your private character, if you would build securely, you must build\non the natural law of God, inherent in your nature and in his; if the\nnation would build securely, it must build so. Out of their caprice,\ntheir selfishness, and their sin, may men make statutes, to last for a\nday, built up with joyous huzzas, and the chiming of a hundred guns, to\ncome down with the curses of the multitude, and smitten by the thunder\nof God; but to build secure, you must build on the Justice of the\nAlmighty. The beatitudes of Jesus will outlast the codes of all the\ntyrants of the old world and the new. So I have seen gamblers hurry and\nhuddle up their booths at a country muster, on the unsmoothed surface of\na stubble-field, foundation good enough for such a structure, not a post\nplumb, to endure a single day of riot, drunkenness, and sin; but to\nbuild a pyramid which shall outlast empires, men lay bare the bosom of\nthe primeval rock, and out of primeval rock they build thereon their\nwell-joined work, outlasting Syria, Greece, Carthage, Rome, venerable to\nTime, and underneath its steadfast foot the earthquakes pass all\nharmlessly away.\n\nAll things conspire to overturn a wrong. Every advance of man is hostile\nto it. Reason is hostile; religion is its deadly foe; the new-born\ngeneration will assail it, and it must fall. Of old it was written,\n\"Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not prosper,\" and the\nworld's wide walls, from the remotest bounds of peopled space, laugh\nout their loud and long \"Amen!\" Let Iniquity be never so old and\nrespectable, get all the most eminent votes, have the newspapers on her\nside, guns fired at her success, it all avails nothing; for this is\nGod's world, not a devil's, and His eternal word has gone forth that\nRight alone shall last forever and forever.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOh, young man, now in the period of the passions, reverence your\nConscience. Defer that to no appetite, to no passion, to no foolish\ncompliance with other men's ways, to no ungodly custom, even if become a\nlaw. Ask always \"Is it right for me?\" Be brave and self-denying for\nconscience' sake. Fear not to differ from men; keeping your modesty,\nkeep your integrity also. Let not even your discretion consume your\nvalor. Fear not to be scrupulously upright and pure; be afraid neither\nof men's hate, nor even of their laugh and haughty scorn, but shudder at\nthe thought of tampering with your sense of right, even in the smallest\nmatters. The Flesh will come up with deceitful counsels--the Spirit\nteaching the commandments of God; give both their due. Be not the\nsenses' slave, but the soul's free man.\n\nOh brother man, who once wert young, in the period of ambition, or\nbeyond it, if such a time there be, can you trust the selfishness, the\ncaprice, the passions, and the sin of men, before your own conscience,\nrenounce the law of God for the customs of men? When your volcanic\nmountain has been capped with snow, Interest, subtler than all the\npassions of the flesh, comes up to give her insidious counsel. \"On our\nside,\" says she, \"is the applause of men; feasting is with us; the wise\nand prudent are here also, yea, the ancient and honorable, men much\nolder than thy father; and with gray hairs mottling thy once auburn\nhead, wilt thou forsake official business, its solid praise, and certain\ngain, for the phantom of natural duty, renounce allegiance to warm human\nlies for the cold truth of God remote and far!\" Say, \"Get thee behind\nme,\" to such counsellors; \"I will not stain my age by listening to your\nsubterranean talk.\"\n\nOh, brother man, or old or young, how will you dare come up before your\nGod and say: \"Oh Lord, I heard, I heard thy voice in my soul, at times\nstill and small, at times a trumpet talking with me of the Right, the\nEternal Right, but I preferred the low counsels of the flesh; the\ncommands of Interest I kept; I feared the rich man's decorous rage; I\ntrembled at the public roar, and I scorned alike my native duty and thy\nnatural law. Lo, here is the talent Thou gavest me, my sense of right. I\nhave used each other sense, this only have I hid; it is eaten up with\nrust, but thus I bring it back to Thee. Take what is thine!\" Who would\ndare thus to sin against infinite Justice? Who would wish to sin against\nit when it is also infinite Love, and the law of right is but the\nhighway on which the Almightiness of the Father comes out to meet his\nprodigal, a great way off, penitent and returning home, or unrepentant\nstill, refusing to be comforted, and famishing on draff and husks, while\nthere is bread of heavenly life enough and yet to spare, comes out to\nmeet us, to take us home, and to bless us forever and forever?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[11] The terms _laws of the human spirit_, _spiritual laws_, &c., are\nsometimes used to denote exclusively those laws which man _must_ keep,\nnot merely what he _ought_ to keep, laws in relation to which man has no\nmore freedom than a mass of marble. The words are used above in a\ndifferent sense.\n\n[12]\n\nWhy dost thou, Tyrant, boast abroad thy wicked works to praise?\nDost thou not know there is a God, whose mercies last alwaies?\n\n   *   *   *   *\n\nOn mischiefe why sett'st thou thy minde, and wilt not walke upright?\nThou hast more lust false tales to find, than bring the truth to light.\nThou dost delight in fraud and guile, in mischiefe, bloud and wrong.\nThy lips have learned the flattering stile, oh false deceitful tongue.\n\nTherefore shall God for aye confound, and pluck thee from thy place;\nThy seed root out from off the ground, and so shall thee deface.\nThe just, when they behold thy fall, with feare shall praise the Lord;\nAnd in reproach of thee withall, crie out with one accord:--\n\n\"Behold the man that woulde not take the Lord for his defence;\nBut of his goods his God did make, and trust his corrupt sense.\nBut I, as olive, fresh and green, shall spring and spread abroad;\nFor why? my trust all times hath been, upon the living God!\n\n\"For this therefore will I give praise to Thee with heart and voyce;\nI will set forth Thy name alwayes, wherein Thy saints rejoyce.\"\n\n_Psalm lii. in Sternhold and Hopkins._\n\n\n[13] It has been said that the fugitive slave law cannot be executed in\nBoston. Let us not be deceived. Who would have thought a year ago, that\nthe Senator of Boston would make such a speech as that of last March,\nthat so many of the leading citizens of Boston would write such a letter\nof approval, that such a bill could pass Congress, and a man be found in\nthis city (Mr. Samuel A. Eliot) to vote for it and get no rebuke from\nthe people! Yet a single man should not endure the shame alone, which\nbelongs in general to the leading men of the city. The member for Boston\nfaithfully represented the public opinion of his most eminent\nconstituents, lay and clerical. Here is an account of what took place in\nNew York since the delivery of the sermon.\n\n[From the New York Tribune.]\n\n\"SLAVE CATCHING IN NEW YORK--FIRST CASE UNDER THE LAW.\n\n\"The following case, which occurred yesterday, is one of peculiar\ninterest, from the fact of its being the first case under the new\nFugitive Slave Law. It will be noticed that there is very little of the\n'law's delay' here; the proceedings were as summary as an Arkansas court\naudience could desire.\n\n\"U. S. COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE--Before Commissioner\nGardiner.--_Examination as to James Hamlet, charged to be a fugitive\nslave, the property of Mary Brown, of Baltimore._--No person was present\nas counsel for accused, and only one colored man. He is a light mulatto.\nThe marshal said Mr. Wood had been there. The commissioner said they\nwould go on, and if counsel came in, he would read proceedings.\n\n\"_Thomas J. Clare_ (a man with dark eyes and hair), sworn.--Am thirty\nyears of age; clerk for Merchant's Shot Manufacturing Company in\nBaltimore; know James Hamlet; he is slave of Mary Brown, a mother-in-law\nof mine, residing in Baltimore; have known Hamlet about twenty years; he\nleft my mother-in-law about two years ago this season, by absenting\nhimself from the premises, the dwelling where he resided in Baltimore;\nshe is entitled to his services; he is a slave for life; she never\nparted with him voluntarily; she came into possession of him by will\nfrom John G. Brown, her deceased husband; the written paper shown is an\nextract from his will; she held him under that from the time she\ninherited him till he escaped, as I have testified; this is the man\n(pointing to Hamlet, a light mulatto man, about twenty-four or\ntwenty-five years of age, looking exceedingly pensive).\n\n\"_Gustavus Brown_, sworn.--Am twenty-five years of age; reside in New\nYork; clerk with A. M. Fenday, 25 Front street; resided before coming\nhere in Baltimore; I know James Hamlet; I have known him since a boy; he\nis a slave to my mother; he is a slave for life; my mother inherited him\nunder the will of my father; he left her service by running away, I\nsuppose; absenting himself from the house in the city of Baltimore,\nabout two years since; I have seen him several times, within the last\nsix months, in the city; first time I saw him was in April last; my\nmother is still entitled to possession of him; she never has parted with\nhim; the man sitting here (Hamlet) is the man.\n\n\"Mr. Asa Child, Counsellor at Law, here came into the room, and took his\nseat; he said he had been sent to this morning, through another, by a\ngentleman with whom Hamlet had lived in this city (Mr. S. N. Wood), but\nhe had no directions in the matter; he merely came to see that the law\nis properly administered, and supposed it would be without him.\n\n\"Mr. Child was then shown the law, the power of attorney to Mr. Clare,\nthe affidavit of Mr. Clare on which Hamlet was arrested--and the\ntestimony thus far.\n\n\"_Mr. Clare_, cross-examined by Mr. Child.--I married Mrs. Brown's\ndaughter about seventeen years ago; Hamlet has always lived with us in\nthe family: I am in her family now, and was at the time he went away;\nthink he is about twenty-eight years of age (he looks much younger than\nthat--his features are very even, as those of a white person of the\nkind); he occasionally worked at the shot tower where I worked; he was\nhired there as a laborer, and Mrs. Brown got the benefit of him--that\nis, when I had no other use for him; he had formerly been employed as a\ndrayman; after I married into the family some year or two, we lived\ntogether, I furnishing the house; such wages as I got for the man it was\nreturned to Mrs. Brown, to be used as she saw fit; I was her agent to\nget employment for him as I could; I had him in various occupations; I\nhave a power of attorney; I have no further interest in him than he is\nher property, and we wish to get him back to Maryland again, where he\nleft.\n\n\"_Mr. Brown_, cross-examined.--Left home 27th March last. Was home when\nHamlet went away. At the time he was engaged at the shot tower business.\n\n\"Mr. Child said he had no further questions to ask. He supposed the\nrules of the law had been complied with.\n\n\"Mr. Gardiner, the commissioner, then said, I will deliver the fugitive\nover to the marshal, to be delivered over to the claimant.\n\n\"Mr. Child suggested if that was the law. The commissioner then said he\nwould hand him, as the law said, to the claimant, and if there should be\nany danger of rescue, he would deliver him to the United States Marshal.\n\n\"The United States Marshal said he had performed his duty in bringing\nhim in.\n\n\"Mr. Clare said he would demand such aid from the United States Marshal,\nas would secure the delivery of the man to his owner in Baltimore.\n\n\"Mr. Child suggested that it must be an affidavit that he apprehends a\nrescue. Mr. Clare said that he did so apprehend.\n\n\"Mr. Talmadge, the marshal, said he would have to perform his duty, if\ncalled upon.\n\n\"Mr. Child replied he supposed he would, but there were doubts as to the\nform.\n\n\"The necessary papers were made out by the commissioner, Mr. Clare\nswearing he feared a rescue, and Hamlet was delivered to him, thence to\nthe United States Marshal, and probably was conveyed with all possible\ndespatch to Baltimore, a coach being in waiting at the door; and he was\ntaken off in irons, an officer accompanying the party.\"\n\nHere is the charge of Judge McLean in a similar case.\n\n\"No earthly power has a right to interpose between a man's conscience\nand his Maker. He has a right, an inalienable and absolute right, to\nworship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. For this he\nalone must answer, and he is entirely free from all human restraint to\nthink and act for himself.\n\n\"But this is not the case when his acts affect the rights of others.\nSociety has a claim upon all its citizens. General rules have been\nadopted in the form of laws, for the protection of the rights of persons\nand things. These laws lie at the foundation of the social compact, and\ntheir observance is essential to the maintenance of civilization. In\nthese matters the law, and not conscience, constitutes the rule of\naction You are sworn to decide this case according to the law and\ntestimony; and you become unfaithful to the solemn injunctions you have\ntaken upon yourselves, when you yield to an influence which you call\nconscience, that places you above the law and the testimony.\n\n\"Such a rule can only apply to individuals; and when assumed as a basis\nof action on the rights of others, it is utterly destructive of all law.\nWhat may be deemed a conscientious act by one individual, may be held\ncriminal by another. In view of one, the act is meritorious; in the view\nof the other, it should be punished as a crime. And each has the same\nright, acting under the dictates of his conscience, to carry out his own\nview. This would overturn the basis of society. We must stand by the\nlaw. We have sworn to maintain it. It is expected that the citizens of\nthe free States should be opposed to slavery. But with the abstract\nprinciples of slavery we have nothing to do. As a political question\nthere could be no difference of opinion among us on the subject. But our\nduty is found in the Constitution of the Union, as construed by the\nSupreme Court. The fugitives from labor we are bound, by the highest\nobligations, to deliver up on claim of the master being made; and there\nis no State power which can release the slave from the legal custody of\nhis master.\n\n\"In regard to the arrest of fugitives from labor, the law does not\nimpose active duties on our citizens generally. They are not prohibited\nfrom exercising the ordinary charities of life towards the fugitive. To\nsecrete him or convey him from the reach of his master, or to rescue him\nwhen in legal custody, is forbidden; and for doing this a liability is\nincurred. This gives to no one a just ground of complaint. He has only\nto refrain from an express violation of the law, which operates to the\ninjury of his neighbor.\"\n\nHe seems to think the right to hold slaves as much a natural right as\nthe absolute right to worship God according to the \"dictates of\nconscience.\" One man has an unalienable right to liberty, other men an\nunalienable right to alienate and take it from him!\n\nHere is something in a different spirit from a Boston newspaper.\n\n\"THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL.\n\n     \"This infamous bill has finally passed both branches of\n     Congress.[A] My opinion on this subject may have little\n     weight with those who voted for it, but may help sustain the\n     sinking spirit of some poor disconsolate one, who, having\n     fled from the land of oppressors, is anxiously looking to\n     see if there is any one who will give him a cheering look,\n     or a kind reception, or who dares to give him a crust of\n     bread, or a cup of water, and help him on his way.\n\n     \"Allow me to say to such an one, that if pursued by the\n     merciless slaveholder, and every other door in Boston is\n     shut against him, there is a door that will be open at No. 2\n     Beach street, and that the fear of fines and imprisonment\n     will be ineffectual when the pursuer shall demand his\n     victim. If he enters before the fleeing captive is safe, it\n     will be at his peril. I am opposed to war, and all the\n     spirit of war; even to all preparations for what is called\n     self-defence in times of peace; yet I should resist the\n     pursuer, and not allow him to enter my dwelling until he was\n     able to tread me under his feet. I will not trample upon any\n     law, either of my own State, or of the nation, that does not\n     conflict with my conscientious duty to my God; but Jesus has\n     commanded, saying, 'All things whatsoever ye would that men\n     should do to you, do ye even so to them.'\n\n     \"If, for no crime, I had been taken and sold, and deprived\n     of all the rights of my manhood, and degraded to the rank of\n     a beast of burden; not only deprived of the opportunity to\n     labor for the support of my wife and children, but even\n     deprived of their kind sympathy and companionship, whenever\n     the interest or will of my oppressors should require it; and\n     I should, at the peril of my life, flee from my oppressors,\n     and they should pursue me to the dwelling of some poor\n     disciple of Jesus, it may be that of a colored man, and I\n     should beg of him to protect me, and help me to escape from\n     the pursuer's grasp, should I not hope, if he was a\n     Christian, he would give me bread and water, and help me on\n     my way, regardless of the fines and imprisonment that such a\n     kind act might render him liable to? Could I expect to meet\n     the approbation of my Lord, if I did not do as much for the\n     fleeing slave? Can there be a Christian, in this land of the\n     Pilgrims, who will not do it, and besides, do all in his\n     power to prevent any one of those Senators or\n     Representatives in Congress who voted for that infamous bill\n     from ever again misrepresenting any portion of the friends\n     of freedom, in Boston or elsewhere? It is said, this is a\n     law of the land, and must be obeyed: to such I would say,\n     'Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto men\n     more than unto God, judge ye,'\n\n     \"I prefer to obey God, if in so doing I must break the laws\n     of men and be punished, rather than violate the laws of God\n     and obey the laws of men, to escape fines and imprisonments,\n     or even death.\n\n     \"Boston, Sept. 23, 1850.\n\n      T. GILBERT.\"\n\nHere is yet more:\n\n     \"THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL.\n\n     \"MESSRS. EDITORS:--The bold and manly avowal of your\n     correspondent, Mr. T. Gilbert, in last evening's Traveller,\n     in commenting upon what he very justly denominates the\n     'infamous fugitive slave bill,' is but the very echoing of\n     thousands of hearts equally true to the cause of freedom,\n     and who seek the elevation of the down-trodden sons and\n     daughters of American slavery. That gentleman, acting upon\n     the dictates of an enlightened patriotism, and in deep\n     sympathy with the fleeing captive, has the courage to avow\n     his determination to throw wide open his door, and offers to\n     make his house--even though he should stand alone among his\n     fellow-citizens--an asylum to the fugitive slave, in his\n     retreat from the prison-house of bondage. The paramount\n     claims which he awards to the Divine law over that which is\n     but human, and therefore necessarily imperfect, commend his\n     spirited letter to the consideration of all those that have\n     in any way aided in the passage of a bill at variance with\n     the first principles of civil freedom, and in direct\n     hostility to the instruction of that great Teacher who hath\n     commanded us to 'Do unto others as we would that they should\n     do unto us.' That the determination of your correspondent\n     may be true and unfaltering, is the hearty prayer of one, at\n     least, of his fellow-citizens, who is ready at all times to\n     cooperate in making an asylum for the fugitive slave, even\n     though bonds and imprisonments should prove the penalty.\n\n     GEORGE W. CARNES.\n\n     \"Boston, Sept. 26, 1850.\"\n\n\n\nHere follow some characteristic remarks on the terror which the\nfugitives here in Boston feel in apprehension of being torn from their\nfamilies and their freedom.\n\n\"THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.\n\n\"The colored people had a grand time last evening, at Zion's Chapel in\nChurch street. Their object was to denounce the fugitive slave law; and\nthis was done with hearty good-will, or, we should say, malediction.\n\n\"The steam would have been well up, without any extraneous elements of\nexcitement; but what added a special interest to the occasion, and\nraised the temperament to blood-heat, was the announcement, made by Mr.\nDowning, that the wife of James Hamlet (the fugitive slave who was\nreturned to his owner in Baltimore, a few days since, under a process of\nlaw), had died yesterday, of grief and convulsions.\n\n\"This filled the measure of indignation which burned in the bosoms of\nall present, against a law which, besides its other abominations, could\nproduce such fatal effects. In the fever of the moment, a contribution\nwas called for, to defray the expense of her funeral, and about twenty\ndollars was collected.\n\n\"Shortly after, information was received that it was all a mistake about\nher dying of convulsions, or in any other way; and that she was as well\nas ever. This was a damper upon the enthusiasm of the occasion, but the\nmoney was already collected, and seeing it could not be applied just now\nto defray her funeral expenses, it was very properly decided to apply it\nto her living expenses. The meeting adjourned.\n\n\"Mrs. Hamlet was in our office yesterday, accompanied by her mother and\na colored man. She appeared to be in good health (though of course\ndistressed at the misfortune of her husband), and we hope she will live\na thousand years. She certainly shall, if his return will have that\neffect.\"--_N. Y. Journal of Commerce._\n\nI print these passages, hoping that some hundred years hence they may be\nfound in some old library, and valued as monuments of the state of\nChristianity in the free States in the year 1850.\n\n    [A] I call this bill _infamous_, because by it the man or\n    woman who is charged with being a slave is deprived of all\n    the means of self-defence allowed to those who are charged\n    with crimes, and to be delivered up summarily, without the\n    right of trial by jury, or any other proper means of proving\n    the charge groundless. Is it a worse crime to be a slave than\n    a thief or a murderer?\n\n[14] THE FUNCTION OF THE JURY.\n\nThere are two theories of the function of the jury in criminal trials.\nOne I will call the theory of the Government; the other the theory of\nthe People. The first has of late been insisted on in certain courts,\nand laid down by some judges in their charges to the jury. The second\nlies, perhaps dimly, in the consciousness of the people, and may be\ngathered from the conduct of juries in trials where the judges' law\nwould do obvious injustice to the prisoner.\n\nI. According to the theory of the Government. The judge is to settle the\nlaw for the jury. This involves two things:\n\n1. He is to declare the law denouncing punishment on the alleged crime.\n\n2. To declare what constitutes the crime. Then the jury are only to\ndetermine whether the prisoner did the deed which the judge says\nconstitutes the crime. He, exclusively, is to decide what is the law,\nand what deed constitutes the crime; they only to decide if the prisoner\ndid the deed. For example, to take a case which has not happened yet, to\nmy knowledge: John Doe is accused of having eaten a Medford cracker; and\nthereupon, by direction of the Government, has been indicted by a grand\njury for the capital offence of treason, and is brought before a\ntraverse jury for trial. The judge tells the jury, 1. That eating a\nMedford cracker constitutes the crime of treason. 2. That there is a law\ndenouncing death on that crime. Then the jury are to hearken to the\nevidence, and if it is proved to their satisfaction that John Doe ate\nthe Medford cracker, they are to return a verdict of guilty. They are\nonly to judge of the matter of fact, and take the law on the judge's\nauthority.\n\nII. According to the theory of the People, in order to render their\nverdict, the jury are to determine three things:\n\n1. Did the man do the deed alleged?\n\n2. If so, Is there a legal and constitutional statute denouncing\npunishment upon the crime? Here the question is twofold: (_a_) as to the\ndeed which constitutes the crime, and (_b_) as to the statute which\ndenounces the crime.\n\n3. If all this is settled affirmatively, then, Shall this man suffer the\npunishment thus legally and constitutionally denounced?\n\nFor example: John Doe is accused of having eaten a Medford cracker, is\nindicted for treason, and brought to trial; the judge charges as above.\nThen the jury are to determine:\n\n1. Did John Doe eat the Medford cracker in the manner alleged?\n\n2. If so: (_a_) Does that deed constitute the crime of treason? and\n(_b_) Is there a legal and constitutional statute denouncing the\npunishment of death on that crime?\n\n3. If so likewise, Shall John Doe suffer the punishment of death?\n\nThe first question, as to the fact, they are to settle by the evidence\npresented in open court, according to the usual forms, and before the\nface of the prisoner; the testimony of each witness forms one element of\nthat evidence. The jury alone are to determine whether the testimony of\nthe witnesses proves the fact.\n\nThe second question, (_a_) as to the deed which constitutes the crime,\nand (_b_) as to the law which denounces the crime, they are to settle by\nevidence; the testimony of the Judge, of the States' Attorney, of the\nPrisoner's counsel, each forms an element of that evidence. The jury\nalone are to determine whether that testimony proves that the deed\nconstitutes the crime, and that there is a law denouncing death against\nit; and the jury are to remember that the judge and the attorney who are\nthe creatures of the Government, and often paid to serve its passions,\nmay be, and often have been, quite as partial, quite as unjust, as the\nprisoner's counsel.\n\nThe third question, as to punishing the prisoner, after the other\nquestions are decided against him, is to be settled solely by the mind\nand conscience of the jury. If they know that John Doe did eat the\nMedford cracker; that the deed legally constitutes the crime of treason,\nand that there is a legal and constitutional statute denouncing death on\nthat crime, they are still to determine, on their oath as jurors, on\ntheir manhood as men, Whether John Doe shall suffer the punishment of\ndeath. They are jurors to do justice, not injustice; what they think is\njustice, not what they think injustice.\n\nThe Government theory, though often laid down in the charge, is seldom\nif ever practically carried out by a judge in its full extent. For he\ndoes not declare on his own authority what is the law and what\nconstitutes the crime, but gives the statutes, precedents, decisions and\nthe like; clearly implying by this very course that the jury are not to\ntake his authority barely, but his reasons if reasonable.\n\nIn the majority of cases, the statute and the ruling of the court come\nas near to real justice as the opinion of the jury does; then if they\nare satisfied that the prisoner did the deed alleged, they return a\nverdict of guilty with a clear conscience, and subject the man to what\nthey deem a just punishment for an unjust act. Their conduct then seems\nto confirm the Government theory of the jurors' function. Lawyers and\nothers sometimes reason exclusively from such cases, and conclude such\nis the true and actual theory thereof. But when a case occurs, wherein\nthe ruling of the judge appears wrong to the jury; when he declares\nlegal and constitutional what they think is not so; when he declares\nthat a trifling offence constitutes a great crime; when the statute is\nmanifestly unjust, forbidding what is not wrong, or when the punishment\ndenounced for a real wrong is excessive, or any punishment is provided\nfor a deed not wrong, though there is no doubt of the facts, the jury\nwill not convict. Sometimes they will acquit the prisoner; sometimes\nfail to agree. The history of criminal trials in England and America\nproves this. In such cases the jury are not false to their function and\njurors' oath, but faithful to both, for the jurors are the\n\"country\"--the justice and humanity of men.\n\nSuppose some one should invent a machine to be used in criminal trials\nfor determining the testimony given in court. Let me call it a\nMartyrion. This instrument receives the evidence and determines and\nreports the fact that the prisoner did, or did not, do the deed alleged.\nAccording to the government theory, the Martyrion would perfectly\nperform all the functions of the jury in a criminal case; but would any\ncommunity substitute the machine for the jury of \"twelve good men and\ntrue?\" If the jury is to be merely the judge's machine, it had better be\nof iron and gutta-percha than of human beings.\n\nIn Philadelphia, some years ago, a man went deliberately and shot a\nperson who had seduced his sister under circumstances of great atrocity.\nHe was indicted for wilful murder. There was no doubt as to the fact,\nnone as to the law, none as to the deed which constituted that crime.\nThe jury returned, \"Not guilty\"--and were justified in their verdict. In\n1850, in New Jersey, a man seduced the wife of another, under\ncircumstances even more atrocious. The husband, in open day, coolly and\ndeliberately shot the seducer; was tried for wilful murder. Here, too,\nthere was no doubt of the fact, of the law, or the deed which\nconstituted the crime of murder; but the jury, perfectly in accordance\nwith their official function, returned \"Not guilty.\"\n\nThe case of William Penn in 1670, who was tried under the Conventicle\nAct, is well known. The conduct of many English juries who would not\ncondemn a fellow-creature to death for stealing a few pounds of money,\nis also well known, and shows the value of this form of trial to protect\na man from a wicked law. I think most men will declare the verdict of\n\"Not guilty\" in the case of J. P. Zenger, tried for high treason in New\nYork in 1735, a righteous judgment, made in strict accordance with the\nofficial function of the jurors; but it was plainly contrary to the\nevidence as well as to the ruling of the court.\n\nSee Mr. Parker's Defence, p. 76, _et seq._ for further remarks on the\nFunction of the Jury (Boston, 1855).\n\n[15] So it appeared in September, 1851; but since then the whig party\nhas vindicated its claim to the same bad eminence as the democratic\nparty.\n\n[16] The person referred to fled away from Boston, and in one of the\nBritish provinces found the protection for his unalienable rights, which\ncould not be allowed him in New England.\n\n[17] This refers to a speech of Mr. Webster, occasioned by the passage\nof the fugitive slave law.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nTHE STATE OF THE NATION, CONSIDERED IN A SERMON FOR THANKSGIVING\nDAY.--PREACHED AT THE MELODEON, NOVEMBER 28, 1850.\n\nPROVERBS XIV. 34.\n\nRighteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.\n\n\nWe come together to-day, by the Governor's proclamation, to give thanks\nto God for our welfare, not merely for our happiness as individuals or\nas families, but for our welfare as a people. How can we better improve\nthis opportunity, than by looking a little into the condition of the\npeople? And accordingly I invite your attention to a Sermon of the State\nof this Nation. I shall try to speak of the Condition of the nation\nitself, then of the Causes of that condition, and, in the third place,\nof the Dangers that threaten, or are alleged to threaten, the nation.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFirst, of our Condition. Look about you in Boston. Here are a hundred\nand forty thousand souls, living in peace and in comparative prosperity.\nI think, without doing injustice to the other side of the water, there\nis no city in the old world, of this population, with so much\nintelligence, activity, morality, order, comfort, and general welfare,\nand, at the same time, with so little of the opposite of all these. I\nknow the faults of Boston, and I think I would not disguise them; the\npoverty, unnatural poverty, which shivers in the cellar; the unnatural\nwealth which bloats in the parlor; the sin which is hid in the corners\nof the jail; and the more dangerous sin which sets up Christianity for a\npretence; the sophistry which lightens in the newspapers, and thunders\nin the pulpit:--I know all these things, and do not pretend to disguise\nthem; and still I think no city of the old world, of the same\npopulation, has so much which good men prize, and so little which good\nmen deplore.\n\nSee the increase of material wealth; the buildings for trade and for\nhomes; the shops and ships. This year Boston will add to her possessions\nsome ten or twenty millions of dollars, honestly and earnestly got.\nObserve the neatness of the streets, the industry of the inhabitants,\ntheir activity of mind, the orderliness of the people, the signs of\ncomfort. Then consider the charities of Boston; those limited to our own\nborder, and those which extend further, those beautiful charities which\nencompass the earth with their sweet influence. Look at the schools, a\nmonument of which the city may well be proud, in spite of their defects.\n\nBut Boston, though we proudly call it the Athens of America, is not the\npleasantest thing in New England to look at; it is the part of\nMassachusetts which I like the least to look at, spite of its\nexcellence. Look further, at the whole of Massachusetts, and you see a\nfairer spectacle. There is less wealth at Provincetown, in proportion to\nthe numbers, but there is less want; there is more comfort; property is\nmore evenly and equally distributed there than here, and the welfare of\na country never so much depends upon the amount of its wealth, as on the\nmode in which its wealth is distributed. In the State, there are about\none hundred and fifty thousand families--some nine hundred and\nseventy-five thousand persons, living with a degree of comfort, which, I\nthink, is not anywhere enjoyed by such a population in the old world.\nThey are mainly industrious, sober, intelligent, and moral. Every thing\nthrives; agriculture, manufactures, commerce. \"The carpenter encourages\nthe goldsmith; he that smites the anvil, him that smootheth with the\nhammer.\" Look at the farms, where intelligent labor wins bread and\nbeauty both, out of the sterile soil and climate not over-indulgent.\nBehold the shops all over the State; the small shops where the shoemaker\nholds his work in his lap, and draws his thread by his own strong\nmuscles; and the large shops where machines, animate with human\nintelligence, hold, with iron grasp, their costlier work in their lap,\nand spin out the delicate staple of Sea Island cotton. Look at all this;\nit is a pleasant sight. Look at our hundreds of villages, by river,\nmountain, and sea; behold the comfortable homes, the people well fed,\nwell clad, well instructed. Look at the school-houses, the colleges of\nthe people; at the higher seminaries of learning; at the poor man's real\ncollege further back in the interior, where the mechanic's and farmer's\nson gets his education, often a poor one, still something to be proud\nof. Look at the churches, where, every Sunday, the best words of Hebrew\nand of Christian saints are read out of this Book, and all men are\nasked, once in the week, to remember they have a Father in heaven, a\nfaith to swear by, and a heaven to live for, and a conscience to keep. I\nknow the faults of these churches. I am not in the habit of excusing\nthem; still I know their excellence, and I will not be the last man to\nacknowledge that. Look at the roads of earth and iron which join\nvillages together, and make the State a whole. Follow the fisherman from\nhis rocky harbor at Cape Ann; follow the mariner in his voyage round the\nworld of waters; see the industry, the intelligence, and the comfort of\nthe people. I think Massachusetts is a State to be thankful for. There\nare faults in her institutions and in her laws, that need change very\nmuch. In her form of society, in her schools, in her colleges, there is\nmuch which clamors loudly for alteration,--very much in her churches to\nbe christianized. These changes are going quietly forward, and will in\ntime be brought about.\n\nI love to look on this State, its material prosperity, its increase in\nriches, its intelligence and industry, and the beautiful results that\nare seen all about us to-day. I love to look on the face of the people,\nin halls and churches, in markets and factories; to think of our great\nideas; of the institutions which have come of them; of our schools and\ncolleges, and all the institutions for making men wiser and better; to\nthink of the noble men we have in the midst of us, in every walk of\nlife, who eat an honest bread, who love mankind, and love God, who have\nconsciences they mean to keep, and souls which they intend to save.\n\nThe great business of society is not merely to have farms, and ships,\nand shops,--the greater shops and the less,--but to have men; men that\nare conscious of their manhood, self-respectful, earnest men, that have\na faith in the living God. I do not think we have many men of genius. We\nhave very few that I call great men; I wish there were more; but I think\nwe have an intelligent, an industrious, and noble people here in\nMassachusetts, which we may be proud of.\n\nLet us go a step further. New England is like Massachusetts in the main,\nwith local differences only. All the North is like New England in the\nmain; this portion is better in one thing; that portion worse in another\nthing. Our ideas are their ideas; our institutions are the same. Some of\nthe northern States have institutions better than we. They have added to\nour experience. In revising their constitutions and laws, or in making\nnew ones, they go beyond us, they introduce new improvements, and those\nnew improvements will give those States the same advantage over us,\nwhich a new mill, with new and superior machinery, has over an old mill,\nwith old and inferior machinery. By and by we shall see the result, and\ntake counsel from it, I trust.\n\nAll over the North we find the same industry and thrift, and similar\nintelligence. Here attention is turned to agriculture, there to mining;\nbut there is a similar progress and zeal for improvement. Attention is\nbestowed on schools and colleges, on academies and churches. There is\nthe same abundance of material comfort. Population advances rapidly,\nprosperity in a greater ratio. Everywhere new swarms pour forth from the\nold hive, and settle in some convenient nook, far off in the West. So\nthe frontier of civilization every year goes forward, further from the\nocean. Fifty years ago it was on the Ohio; then on the Mississippi; then\non the upper Missouri: presently its barrier will be the Rocky\nMountains, and soon it will pass beyond that bar, and the tide of the\nAtlantic will sweep over to the Pacific--yea, it is already there! The\nuniversal Yankee freights his schooner at Bangor, at New Bedford, and at\nBoston, with bricks, timber, frame-houses, and other \"notions,\" and by\nand by drops his anchor in the smooth Pacific, in the Bay of St.\nFrancis. We shall see there, ere long, the sentiments of New England,\nthe ideas of New England, the institutions of New England; the\nschool-house, the meeting-house, the court-house, the town-house. There\nwill be the same industry, thrift, intelligence, morality, and religion,\nand the idle ground that has hitherto borne nothing but gold, will bear\nupon its breast a republic of men more precious than the gold of Ophir,\nor the rubies of the East.\n\nHere I wish I could stop. But this is not all. The North is not the\nwhole nation; New England is not the only type of the people. There are\nother States differing widely from this. In the southern States you find\na soil more fertile under skies more genial. Through what beautiful\nrivers the Alleghanies pour their tribute to the sea! What streams\nbeautify the land in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi! There\ngenial skies rain beauty on the soil. Nature is wanton of her gifts.\nThere rice, cotton, and sugar grow; there the olive, the orange, the\nfig, all find a home. The soil teems with luxuriance. But there is not\nthe same wealth, nor the same comfort. Only the ground is rich. You\nwitness not a similar thrift. Strange is it, but in 1840, the single\nState of New York alone earned over four million dollars more than the\nsix States of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and\nMississippi! The annual earnings of little Massachusetts, with her seven\nthousand and five hundred square miles, are nine million dollars more\nthan the earnings of all Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina! The\nlittle county of Essex, with ninety-five thousand souls in 1840, earned\nmore than the large State of South Carolina, with five hundred and\nninety-five thousand.\n\nIn those States we miss the activity, intelligence, and enterprise of\nthe North. You do not find the little humble school-house at every\ncorner; the frequent meeting-house does not point its taper finger to\nthe sky. Villages do not adorn the margin of the mountain, stream and\nsea; shops do not ring with industry; roads of earth and iron are poorer\nand less common. Temperance, morality, comfort are not there as here. In\nthe slave States, in 1840, there were not quite three hundred and two\nthousand youths and maidens in all the schools, academies, and colleges\nof the South; but in 1840, in the free States of the North there were\nmore than two million two hundred and twelve thousand in such\ninstitutions! Little Rhode Island has five thousand more girls and boys\nat school than large South Carolina. The State of Ohio alone has more\nthan seventeen thousand children at school beyond what the whole fifteen\nslave States can boast. The permanent literature of the nation all comes\nfrom the North; your historians are from that quarter--your Sparkses,\nyour Bancrofts, your Hildreths, and Prescotts, and Ticknors; the poets\nare from the same quarter--your Whittiers, and Longfellows, and Lowells,\nand Bryants; the men of literature and religion--your Channings, and\nIrvings, and Emersons--are from the same quarter! Preaching--it is\neverywhere, and sermons are as thick almost as autumnal leaves; but who\never heard of a great or famous clergyman in a Southern State? of a\ngreat and famous sermon that rang through the nation from that quarter?\nNo man. Your Edwards of old time, and your Beechers, old and young, your\nChanning and Buckminster, and the rest, which throng to every man's\nlips--all are from the North. Nature has done enough for the South;\nGod's cup of blessing runs over--and yet you see the result! But there\nhas been no pestilence at the South more than at the North; no\nearthquake has torn the ground beneath their feet; no war has come to\ndisturb them more than us. The government has never laid a withering\nhand on their commerce, their agriculture, their schools and colleges,\ntheir literature and their church.\n\nStill, letting alone the South and the North as such, not considering\neither exclusively, we are one nation. What is a nation? It is one of\nthe great parties in the world. It is a sectional party, having\ngeographical limits; with a party organization, party opinions, party\nmottoes, party machinery, party leaders, and party followers; with some\ncapital city for its party head-quarters. There has been an Assyrian\nparty, a British, a Persian, an Egyptian, and a Roman party; there is\nnow a Chinese party, and a Russian, a Turkish, a French, and an English\nparty; these are also called nations. We belong to the American party,\nand that includes the North as well as the South; and so all are\nbrothers of the same party, differing amongst ourselves--but from other\nnations in this, that we are the American party, and not the Russian nor\nthe English.\n\nWe ought to look at the whole American party, the North and South, to\nsee the total condition of the people. Now at this moment there is no\nlack of cattle and corn and cloth in the United States, North or South,\nonly they are differently distributed in the different parts of the\nland. But still there is a great excitement. Men think the nation is in\ndanger, and for many years there has not been so great an outcry and\nalarm amongst the politicians. The cry is raised, \"The Union is in\ndanger!\" and if the Union falls, we are led to suppose that every thing\nfalls. There will be no more Thanksgiving days; there will be anarchy\nand civil war, and the ruin of the American people! It is curious to see\nthis material plenty, on the one side, and this political alarm and\nconfusion on the other. This condition of alarm is so well known, that\nnothing more need be said about it at this moment.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet me now come to the next point, and consider the Causes of our\npresent condition. This will involve a consideration of the cause of our\nprosperity and of our alarm.\n\n1. First, there are some causes which depend on God entirely; such as\nthe nature of the country, soil, climate, and the like; its minerals,\nand natural productions; its seas and harbors, mountains and rivers. In\nrespect to these natural advantages, the country is abundantly favored,\nbut the North less so than the South. Tennessee, Virginia and Alabama,\ncertainly have the advantage over Maine, New Hampshire and Ohio. That I\npass by; a cause which depends wholly on God.\n\n2. Then again, this is a wide and new country. We have room to spread.\nWe have not to contend against old institutions, established a thousand\nyears ago, and that is one very great advantage. I make no doubt that in\ncrossing the ocean, our fathers helped forward the civilization of the\nworld at least a thousand years; I mean to say, it would have taken\nmankind a thousand years longer to reach the condition we have attained\nin New England, if the attempt had of necessity been made on the soil of\nthe old world and in the face of its institutions.\n\n3. Then, as a third thing, much depends on the peculiar national\ncharacter. Well, the freemen in the North and South are chiefly from the\nsame race, this indomitable Caucasian stock; mainly from the same\ncomposite stock, the tribe produced by the mingling of Saxon, Danish and\nNorman blood. That makes the present English nation, and the American\nalso. This is a very powerful tribe of men, possessing some very noble\ntraits of character; active and creative in all the arts of peace;\nindustrious as a nation never was before; enterprising, practical; fond\nof liberty, fond also of law, capable of organizing themselves into\ngreat masses, and acting with a complete concert and unity of action. In\nthese respects, I think this tribe, which I will call the English tribe,\nis equal to any race of men in the world that has been or is; perhaps\nsuperior to any race that has been developed hitherto. But in what\nrelates to the higher reason and imagination, to the affections and to\nthe soul, I think this tribe is not so eminent as some others have been.\nNorth and South, the people are alike of Anglo-Norman descent.\n\n4. Another cause of our prosperity, which depends a great deal on\nourselves, is this--the absence of war and of armies. In France, with a\npopulation of less than forty millions, half a million are constantly\nunder arms. The same state of things prevails substantially in Austria,\nPrussia, and in all the German States. Here in America, with a\npopulation of twenty millions, there is not one in a thousand that is a\nsoldier or marine. In time of peace, I think we waste vast sums in\nmilitary preparations, as we did in actual war not long since. Still,\nwhen I compare this nation with others, I think we have cause to\nfelicitate ourselves on the absence of military power.\n\n5. Again, much depends on the past history of the race; and here there\nis a wide difference between the different parts of the country. New\nEngland was settled by a religious colony. I will not say that all the\nmen who came here from 1620 to 1650 were moved by religious motives; but\nthe controlling men were brought here by these motives, and no other.\nMany who cared less for religious ideas, came for the sake of a great\nmoral idea, for the sake of obtaining a greater degree of civil freedom\nthan they had at home. Now the Pilgrims and the Puritans are only a\nlittle ways behind us. The stiff ruff, the peaked beard, the\n\"Prophesying book\" are only six or seven generations behind the youngest\nof us. The character of the Puritans has given to New England much of\nits present character and condition. They founded schools and colleges;\nthey trained up their children in a stern discipline which we shall not\nforget for two centuries to come. The remembrance of their trials, their\nheroism, and their piety affects our preaching to-day, and our politics\nalso. The difference between New England and New York, from 1750 to\n1790, is the difference between the sons of the religious colony and the\nsons of the worldly colony. You know something of New York politics\nbefore the Revolution, and also since the Revolution; the difference\nbetween New York and New England politics at that time, is the\ndifference between the sons of religious men and the sons of men who\ncared very much less for religion.\n\nJust now, when I said that all the North is like New England, I meant\nsubstantially so. The West is our own daughter. New England has helped\npeople the western part of the State of New York; and the best elements\nof New England character mingling with others, its good qualities will\nappear in the politics of that mighty State.\n\nThe South, in the main, had a very different origin from the North. I\nthink few if any persons settled there for religion's sake; or for the\nsake of freedom in the State. It was not a moral idea which sent men to\nVirginia, Georgia and Carolina. \"Men do not gather grapes of thorns.\"\nThe difference of the seed will appear in the difference of the crop. In\nthe character of the people of the North and South, it appears at this\nday. The North is not to be praised, nor the South to be blamed for\nthis; they could not help it: but certainly it is an advantage to be\ndescended from a race of industrious, moral and religious men; to have\nbeen brought up under their training, to have inherited their ideas and\ninstitutions,--and this is a circumstance which we make quite too little\naccount of. I pass by that.\n\n6. There are other causes which depend on ourselves entirely. Much\ndepends on the political and social organization of the people. There is\nno denying that government has a great influence on the character of the\npeople; on the character of every man. The difference between the\ndevelopment of England and the development of Spain at this day, is\nmainly the result of different forms of government; for three centuries\nago the Spaniards were as noble a race as the English.\n\nA government is carried on by two agencies: the first is public opinion,\nand the next is public law,--the fundamental law which is the\nConstitution, and the subsidiary laws which carry out the ideas of the\nConstitution. In a government like this, public opinion always precedes\nthe laws, overrides them, takes the place of laws when there are none,\nand hinders their execution when they do not correspond to public\nopinion. Thus the public opinion of South Carolina demands that a free\ncolored seaman from the North shall be shut up in jail, at his\nemployer's cost. The public opinion of Charleston is stronger than the\npublic law of the United States on that point, stronger than the\nConstitution, and nobody dares execute the laws of the United States in\nthat matter. These two things should always be looked at, to understand\nthe causes of a nation's condition--the public opinion, as well as the\npublic law. Let me know the opinions of the men between twenty-five and\nthirty-five years of age, and I know what the laws will be.\n\nNow in public opinion and in the laws of the United States, there are\ntwo distinct political ideas. I shall call one the Democratic, and the\nother the Despotic idea. Neither is wholly sectional; both chiefly so.\nEach is composed of several simpler ideas. Each has enacted laws and\nestablished institutions. This is the democratic idea: That all men are\nendowed by their Creator with certain natural rights, which only the\npossessor can alienate; that all men are equal in these rights; that\namongst them is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of\nhappiness; that the business of the government is to preserve for every\nman all of these rights until he alienates them.\n\nThis democratic idea is founded in human nature, and comes from the\nnature of God who made human nature. To carry it out politically is to\nexecute justice, which is the will of God. This idea, in its\nrealization, leads to a democracy, a government of all, for all, by all.\nSuch a government aims to give every man all his natural rights; it\ndesires to have political power in all hands, property in all hands,\nwisdom in all heads, goodness in all hearts, religion in all souls. I\nmean the religion that makes a man self-respectful, earnest, and\nfaithful to the infinite God, that disposes him to give all men their\nrights, and to claim his own rights at all times; the religion which is\npiety within you, and goodness in the manifestation. Such a government\nhas laws, and the aim thereof is to give justice to all men; it has\nofficers to execute these laws, for the sake of justice. Such a\ngovernment founds schools for all; looks after those most who are most\nin need; defends and protects the feeblest as well as the richest and\nmost powerful. The State is for the individual, and for all the\nindividuals, and so it reverences justice, where the rights of all, and\nthe interests of all, exactly balance. It demands free speech; every\nthing is open to examination, discussion, \"agitation,\" if you will.\nThought is to be free, speech to be free, work to be free, and worship\nto be free. Such is the democratic idea, and such the State which it\nattempts to found.\n\nThe despotic idea is just the opposite:--That all men are _not_ endowed\nby their Creator with certain natural rights which only the possessor\ncan alienate, but that one man has a natural right to overcome and make\nuse of some other men for his advantage and their hurt; that all men are\n_not_ equal in their rights; that all men have _not_ a natural right to\nlife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that government is _not_\ninstituted to preserve these natural rights for all.\n\nThis idea is founded on the excess of human passions, and it represents\nthe compromise between a man's idleness and his appetite. It is not\nbased on facts eternal in human nature, but on facts transient in human\nnature. It does not aim to do justice to all, but injustice to some; to\ntake from one man what he ought not to lose, and give to another what he\nought not to get.\n\nThis leads to aristocracy in various forms, to the government of all by\nmeans of a part and for the sake of a part. In this state of things\npolitical power must be in few hands; property in few hands; wisdom in\nfew heads; goodness in few hearts, and religion in few souls. I mean the\nreligion which leads a man to respect himself and his fellow men; to be\nearnest, and to trust in the infinite God; to demand his rights of other\nmen and to give their rights to them.\n\nNeither the democratic nor the despotic idea is fully made real anywhere\nin the world. There is no perfect democracy, nor perfect aristocracy.\nThere are democrats in every actual aristocracy; despots in every actual\ndemocracy. But in the Northern States the democratic idea prevails\nextensively and chiefly, and we have made attempts at establishing a\ndemocratic government. In the Southern States the despotic idea\nprevails extensively and chiefly, and they have made attempts to\nestablish an aristocratic government. In an aristocracy there are two\nclasses: the people to be governed, and the governing class, the\nnobility which is to govern. This nobility may be movable, and depend on\nwealth; or immovable, and depend on birth. In the Southern States the\nnobility is immovable, and depends on color.\n\nIn 1840, in the North there were ten million free men, and in the South\nfive million free men and three million slaves. Three eighths of the\npopulation have no human rights at all--privileges as cattle, not rights\nas men. There the slave is protected by law, as your horse and your ox,\nbut has no more human rights.\n\nHere, now, is the great cause of the difference in the condition of the\nNorth and South; of the difference in the material results, represented\nby towns and villages, by farms and factories, ships and shops. Here is\nthe cause of the difference in schools, colleges, churches, and in the\nliterature; the cause of the difference in men. The South, with its\ndespotic idea, dishonors labor, but wishes to compromise between its\nidleness and its appetite, and so kidnaps men to do its work. The North,\nwith its democratic idea, honors labor; does not compromise between its\nidleness and its appetite, but lays its bones to the work to satisfy its\nappetite; instead of kidnapping a man who can run away, it kidnaps the\nelements, subdues them to its command, and makes them do its work. It\ndoes not kidnap a freeman, but catches the winds, and chains them to its\nwill. It lays hands on fire and water, and breeds a new giant, which\n\"courses land and ocean without rest,\" or serves while it stands and\nwaits, driving the mills of the land. It kidnaps the Connecticut and the\nMerrimac; does not send slave-ships to Africa, but engineers to New\nHampshire; and it requires no fugitive slave law to keep the earth and\nsea from escaping, or the rivers of New England from running up hill.\n\nThis is not quite all! I have just now tried to hint at the causes of\nthe difference in the condition of the people, North and South. Now let\nme show the cause of the agitation and alarm. We begin with a sentiment;\nthat spreads to an idea; the idea grows to an act, to an institution;\nthen it has done its work.\n\nMen seek to spread their sentiments and ideas. The democratic idea tries\nto spread; the despotic idea tries to spread. For a long time the nation\nheld these two ideas in its bosom, not fully conscious of either of\nthem. Both came here in a state of infancy, so to say, with our fathers;\nthe democratic idea very dimly understood; the despotic idea not fully\ncarried out, yet it did a great mischief in the State and church. In the\nDeclaration of Independence, writ by a young man, only the democratic\nidea appears, and that idea never got so distinctly stated before. But\nmark you, and see the confusion in men's minds. That democratic idea was\nthus distinctly stated by a man who was a slaveholder almost all his\nlife; and unless public rumor has been unusually false, he has left some\nof his own offspring under the influence of the despotic and not the\ndemocratic idea; slaves and not free men.\n\nIn the Constitution of the United States these two ideas appear. It was\nthought for a long time they were not incompatible; it was thought the\ngreat American party might recognize both, and a compromise was made\nbetween the two. It was thought each might go about its own work and let\nthe other alone; that the hawk and the hen might dwell happily together\nin the same coop, each lay her own eggs and rear her own brood, and\nneither put a claw upon the other.\n\nIn the mean time each founded institutions after its kind; in the\nNorthern States, democratic institutions; in the Southern, aristocratic.\nWhat once lay latent in the mind of the nation has now become patent.\nThe thinking part of the nation sees the difference between the two.\nSome men are beginning to see that the two are completely incompatible,\nand cannot be good friends. Others are asking us to shut our eyes and\nnot see it, and they think that so long as our eyes are shut, all things\nwill go on peacefully. Such is the wisdom of the ostrich.\n\nAt first the trouble coming from this source was a very little cloud,\nfar away on the horizon, not bigger than a man's hand. It seemed so in\n1804, when the brave senator from Massachusetts, a Hartford Convention\nFederalist, a name that calls the blood to some rather pale cheeks\nnow-a-days, proposed to alter the Constitution of the United States, and\ncut off the North from all responsibility for slavery. It was a little\ncloud not bigger than a man's hand; now it is a great cloud which covers\nthe whole hemisphere of heaven, and threatens to shut out the day.\n\nIn the last session of Congress, ten months long, the great matter was\nthe contest between the two ideas. All the newspapers rung with the\nbattle. Even the pulpits now and then alluded to it; forgetting their\ndecency, that they must preach \"only religion,\" which has not the least\nto do with politics and the welfare of the State.\n\nEach idea has its allies, and it is worth while to run our eye over the\narmies and see what they amount to. The idea of despotism has for its\nallies:\n\n1. The slaveholders of the South with their dependents; and the servile\nclass who take their ideas from the prominent men about them. This\nservile class is more numerous at the South than even at the North.\n\n2. It has almost all the distinguished politicians of the North and\nSouth; the distinguished great politicians in the Congress of the\nnation, and the distinguished little politicians in the Congresses of\nthe several States.\n\n3. It has likewise the greater portion of the wealthy and educated men\nin many large towns of the North; with their dependents and the servile\nmen who take their opinions from the prominent class about them. And\nhere, I am sorry to say, I must reckon the greater portion of the\nprominent and wealthy clergy, the clergy in the large cities. Once this\nclass of men were masters of the rich and educated; and very terrible\nmasters they were in Madrid and in Rome. Now their successors are doing\npenance for those old sins. \"It is a long lane,\" they say, \"which has no\nturn,\" and the clerical has had a very short and complete turn. When I\nsay the majority of the clergy in prominent situations in the large\ncities, are to be numbered among the allies of the despotic idea, and\nare a part of the great pro-slavery army, I know there are some noble\nand honorable exceptions, men who do not fear the face of gold, but\nreverence the face of God.\n\nThen on the side of the democratic idea there are:\n\n1. The great mass of the people at the North; farmers, mechanics, and\nthe humbler clergy. This does not appear so at first sight, because\nthese men have not much confidence in themselves, and require to be\nshaken many times before they are thoroughly waked up.\n\n2. Beside that there are a few politicians at the North who are on this\nside; some distinguished ones in Congress, some less distinguished ones\nin the various legislatures of the North.\n\n3. Next there are men, North and South, who look at the great causes of\nthe welfare of nations, and make up their minds historically, from the\nfacts of human history, against despotism. Then there are such as study\nthe great principles of justice and truth, and judge from human nature,\nand decide against despotism. And then such as look at the law of God,\nand believe Christianity is sense and not nonsense; that Christianity is\nthe ideal for earnest men, not a pretence for a frivolous hypocrite.\nSome of these men are at the South; the greater number are in the North;\nand here again you see the difference between the son of the Planter and\nthe son of the Puritan.\n\nHere are the allies, the threefold armies of Despotism on the one side,\nand of Democracy on the other.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow it is not possible for these two ideas to continue to live in peace.\nFor a long time each knew not the other, and they were quiet. The men\nwho clearly knew the despotic idea, thought, in 1787, it would die \"of a\nrapid consumption:\" they said so; but the culture of cotton has healed\nits deadly wound, at least for the present. After the brief state of\nquiet, there came a state of armed neutrality. They were hostile, but\nunder bonds to keep the peace. Each bit his thumb, but neither dared say\nhe bit it at the other. Now the neutrality is over; attempts are made to\ncompromise, to compose the difficulty. Various peace measures were\nintroduced to the Senate last summer; but they all turned out war\nmeasures, every one of them. Now there is a trial of strength between\nthe two. Which shall recede? which be extended? Freedom or Slavery? That\nis the question; refuse to look at it as we will,--refrain or refrain\nnot from \"political agitation,\" that is the question.\n\nIn the last Congress it is plain the democratic idea was beaten.\nCongress said to California, \"You may come in, and you need not keep\nslaves unless you please.\" It said, \"You shall not bring slaves to\nWashington for sale, you may do that at Norfolk, Alexandria, and\nGeorgetown, it is just as well, and this 'will pacify the North.'\" Utah\nand New Mexico were left open to slavery, and fifty thousand or seventy\nthousand square miles and ten million dollars were given to Texas lest\nshe should \"dissolve the Union,\"--without money or men! To crown all,\nthe Fugitive Slave Bill became a law.\n\nI think it is very plain that the democratic idea was defeated, and it\nis easy to see why. The three powers which are the allies of the\ndespotic idea, were ready, and could act in concert--the Southern\nslaveholders, the leading politicians, the rich and educated men of the\nNorthern cities, with their appendages and servile adherents. But since\nthen, the conduct of the people in the North, and especially in this\nState, shows that the nation has not gone that way yet. I think the\nnation never will; that the idea of freedom will never be turned back in\nthis blessed North. I feel sure it will at last overcome the idea of\nslavery.\n\nI come to this conclusion, firstly, from the character of the tribe:\nthis Anglo-Norman-Saxon tribe loves law, deliberation, order, method; it\nis the most methodical race that ever lived. But it loves liberty, and\nwhile it loves law, it loves law chiefly because it keeps liberty; and\nwithout that it would trample law under foot.\n\nSee the conduct of England. She spent one hundred millions of dollars in\nthe attempt to wipe slavery from the West Indies. She keeps a fleet on\nthe coast of Africa to put down the slave-trade there--where we also\nhave, I think, a sloop-of-war. She has just concluded a treaty with\nBrazil for the suppression of the slave-trade in that country, one of\nher greatest achievements in that work for many years.\n\nSee how the sons of the Puritans, as soon as they came to a\nconsciousness of what the despotic idea was, took their charters and\nwiped slavery clean out, first from Massachusetts, and then from the\nother States, one after another. See how every Northern State, in\nrevising its Constitution, or in making a new one, declares all men are\ncreated equal, that all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit\nof happiness.\n\nThen the religion of the North demands the same thing. Professors may\ntry to prove that the Old Testament establishes slavery; that the New\nTestament justifies the existence of slavery; that Paul's epistle to\nPhilemon was nothing more than another fugitive slave law, that Paul\nhimself sent back a runaway; but it does not touch the religion of the\nNorth. We know better. We say if the Old Testament does that and the New\nTestament, so much the worse for them both. We say, \"Let us look and see\nif Paul was so benighted,\" and we can judge for ourselves that the\nprofessor was mistaken more than the apostle.\n\nAgain, the spirit of the age, which is the public opinion of the\nnations, is against slavery. It was broken down in England, France,\nItaly, and Spain; it cannot stand long against civilization and good\nsense; against the political economy and the religious economy of the\ncivilized world. The genius of freedom stands there, year out, year in,\nand hurls firebrands into the owl's nest of the prince of darkness,\ncontinually,--and is all this with no effect?\n\nBesides that, it is against the law of God. That guides this universe,\ntreating with even-handed justice the great geographical parties,\nAustrian, Roman, British, or American, with the same justice wherewith\nit dispenses its blessings to the little local factions that divide the\nvillage for a day, marshalling mankind forward in its mighty progress\ntowards wisdom, freedom, goodness towards men, and piety towards God.\n\nOf the final issue I have no doubt; but no man can tell what shall come\nto pass in the mean time. We see that political parties in the State are\nsnapped asunder: whether the national party shall not be broken up, no\nman can say. In 1750, on the 28th day of November, no man in Old England\nor New England could tell what 1780 would bring forth. No man, North or\nSouth, can tell to-day what 1880 will bring to pass. He must be a bold\nman who declares to the nation that no new political machinery shall be\nintroduced, in the next thirty years, to our national mill. We know not\nwhat a day shall bring forth, but we know that God is on the side of\nright and justice, and that they will prevail so long as God is God.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow, then, to let alone details, and generalize into one all the causes\nof our condition, this is the result: We have found welfare just so far\nas we have followed the democratic idea, and enacted justice into law.\nWe have lost welfare just so far as we have followed the despotic idea,\nand made iniquity into a statute. So far as we have reaffirmed the\nordinance of nature and reenacted the will of God, we have succeeded. So\nfar as we have refused to do that, we have failed. Of old it was\nwritten, \"Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any\npeople.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd now a word of our dangers. There seems no danger from abroad; from\nany foreign State, unless we begin the quarrel; none from famine. The\nreal danger, in one word, is this--That we shall try to enact injustice\ninto a law, and with the force of the nation to make iniquity obeyed.\n\nSee some of the special forms of injustice which threaten us, or are\nalready here. I shall put them into the form of ideas.\n\n1. One, common among politicians is, that the State is for a portion of\nthe people, not the whole. Thus it has been declared that the\nConstitution of the United States did not recognize the three million\nslaves as citizens, or extend to them any right which it guarantees to\nother men. It would be a sad thing for the State to declare there was a\nsingle child in the whole land to whom it owed no protection. What,\nthen, if it attempts to take three millions from under its shield? In\nobedience to this false idea, the counsel has been given, that we must\nabstain from all \"Political agitation\" of the most important matter\nbefore the people. We must leave that to our masters, for the State is\nfor them, it is not for you and me. They must say whether we shall\n\"agitate\" and \"discuss\" these things or not. The politicians are our\nmasters, and may lay their fingers on our lips when they will.\n\n2. The next false idea is,--That government is chiefly for the\nprotection of property. This has long been the idea on which some men\nlegislated, but on the 19th day of this month, the distinguished\nSecretary of State, in a speech at New York, used these words: \"The\ngreat object of government is the protection of property at home and\nrespect and renown abroad.\" You see what the policy must be where the\ngovernment is for the protection of the hat, and only takes care of the\nhead so far as it serves to wear a hat. Here the man is the accident,\nand the dollar is the substance for which the man is to be protected. I\nthink a notion very much like this prevails extensively in the great\ncities of America, North and South. I think the chief politicians of the\ntwo parties are agreed in this--That government is for the protection of\nproperty, and every thing else is subsidiary. With many persons politics\nare a part of their business; the state-house and the custom-house are\nonly valued for their relation to trade. This idea is fatal to a good\ngovernment.\n\nThink of this, that \"The great object of government is the protection of\nproperty.\" Tell that to Samuel Adams, and John Hancock, and Washington,\nand the older Winthrops, and the Bradfords and Carvers! Why! it seems as\nif the buried majesty of Massachusetts would start out of the ground,\nand with its Bible in its hand say--This is false!\n\n3. The third false idea is this--That you are morally bound to obey the\nstatute, let it be never so plainly wrong and opposed to your\nconscience. This is the most dangerous of all the false ideas yet named.\nAmbitious men, in an act of passion, make iniquity into a law, and then\ndemand that you and I, in our act of prayer, shall submit to it and make\nit our daily life; that we shall not try to repeal and discuss and\nagitate it! This false idea lies at the basis of every despot's throne,\nthe idea that men can make right wrong, and wrong right. It has come to\nbe taught in New England, to be taught in our churches--though seldom\nthere, to their honor be it spoken, except in the churches of commerce\nin large towns--that if wrong is law, you and I must do what it demands,\nthough conscience declares it is treason against man and treason against\nGod. The worst doctrines of Hobbes and Filmer are thus revived.\n\nI have sometimes been amazed at the talk of men who call on us to keep\nthe fugitive slave law, one of the most odious laws in a world of odious\nlaws--a law not fit to be made or kept. I have been amazed that they\nshould dare to tell us the law of God, writ on the heavens and our\nhearts, never demanded we should disobey the laws of men! Well, suppose\nit were so. Then it was old Daniel's duty at Darius's command to give up\nhis prayer; but he prayed three times a day, with his windows up. Then\nit was John's and Peter's duty to forbear to preach of Christianity; but\nthey said, \"Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you\nmore than unto God, judge ye.\" Then it was the duty of Amram and\nJochebed to take up their new-born Moses and cast him into the Nile, for\nthe law of king Pharaoh, commanding it, was \"constitutional,\" and\n\"political agitation\" was discountenanced as much in Goshen as in\nBoston. But Daniel did not obey; John and Peter did not fail to preach\nChristianity; and Amram and Jochebed refused \"passive obedience\" to the\nking's decree! I think it will take a strong man all this winter to\nreverse the judgment which the world has passed on these three cases.\nBut it is \"innocent\" to try.\n\nHowever, there is another ancient case, mentioned in the Bible, in which\nthe laws commanded one thing and conscience just the opposite. Here is\nthe record of the law:--\"Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees\nhad given a commandment, that if any one knew where he [Jesus] were, he\nshould show it, that they might take him.\" Of course, it became the\nofficial and legal business of each disciple who knew where Christ was,\nto make it known to the authorities. No doubt James and John could\nleave all and follow him, with others of the people who knew not the law\nof Moses, and were accursed; nay the women, Martha and Mary, could\nminister unto him of their substance, could wash his feet with tears,\nand wipe them with the hairs of their head. They did it gladly, of their\nown free will, and took pleasure therein, I make no doubt. There was no\nmerit in that--\"Any man can perform an agreeable duty.\" But there was\nfound one disciple who could \"perform a disagreeable duty.\" He went,\nperhaps \"with alacrity,\" and betrayed his Saviour to the marshal of the\ndistrict of Jerusalem, who was called a centurion. Had he no affection\nfor Jesus? No doubt; but he could conquer his prejudices, while Mary and\nJohn could not.\n\nJudas Iscariot has rather a bad name in the Christian world: he is\ncalled \"The son of perdition,\" in the New Testament, and his conduct is\nreckoned a \"transgression;\" nay, it is said the devil \"entered into\nhim,\" to cause this hideous sin. But all this it seems was a mistake;\ncertainly, if we are to believe our \"republican\" lawyers and statesmen,\nIscariot only fulfilled his \"constitutional obligations.\" It was only\n\"on that point,\" of betraying his Saviour, that the constitutional law\nrequired him to have any thing to do with Jesus. He took his \"thirty\npieces of silver\"--about fifteen dollars; a yankee is to do it for ten,\nhaving fewer prejudices to conquer--it was his legal fee, for value\nreceived. True, the Christians thought it was \"the wages of iniquity,\"\nand even the Pharisees--who commonly made the commandment of God of none\neffect by their traditions--dared not defile the temple with this \"price\nof blood;\" but it was honest money. It was as honest a fee as any\nAmerican commissioner or deputy will ever get for a similar service. How\nmistaken we are! Judas Iscariot is not a traitor; he was a great\npatriot; he conquered his \"prejudices,\" performed \"a disagreeable duty\"\nas an office of \"high morals and high principle;\" he kept the \"law\" and\nthe \"Constitution,\" and did all he could to \"save the Union;\" nay, he\nwas a saint, \"not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.\" \"The law of\nGod never commands us to disobey the law of man.\" _Sancte Iscariote ora\npro nobis._\n\nIt is a little strange to hear this talk in Boston, and hear the\ndoctrine of passive obedience to a law which sets Christianity at\ndefiance, taught here in the face of the Adamses, and Hancock, and\nWashington! It is amazing to hear this talk, respecting such a law,\namongst merchants. Do they keep the usury laws? I never heard of but one\nmoney-lender who kept them,[18] and he has been a long time dead, and I\nthink he left no kith nor kin! The temperance law,--is that kept? The\nfifteen gallon law,--were men so very passive in their obedience to\nthat, that they could not even \"agitate?\" yet it violated no law of\nGod--was not unchristian. When the government interferes with the\nrumsellers' property, the law must be trod under foot; but when the law\ninsists that a man shall be made a slave, I must give up conscience in\nmy act of prayer, and stoop to the vile law men have made in their act\nof passion!\n\nIt is curious to hear men talk of law and order in Boston, when the\nother day one or two hundred smooth-faced boys, and youths beardless as\ngirls, could disturb a meeting of three or four thousand men, for two\nhours long; and the chief of the police, and the mayor of the city stood\nand looked on, when a single word from their lips might have stilled the\ntumult and given honest men a hearing.[19]\n\nTalk of keeping the fugitive slave law! Come, come, we know better. Men\nin New England know better than this. We know that we ought not to keep\na wicked law, and that it must not be kept when the law of God forbids!\n\nBut the effect of a law which men cannot keep without violating\nconscience, is always demoralizing. There are men who know no higher law\nthan the statute of the State. When good men cannot keep a law that is\nbase, some bad ones will say, \"Let us keep no law at all,\"--then where\ndoes the blame lie? On him that enacts the outrageous law.\n\nThe idea that a statute of man frees us from obligation to the law of\nGod, is a dreadful thing. When that becomes the deliberate conviction of\nthe great mass of the people, North or South, then I shall despair of\nhuman nature; then I shall despair of justice, and despair of God. But\nthis time will never come.\n\nOne of the most awful spectacles I ever saw, was this: A vast multitude\nattempting, at an orator's suggestion, to howl down the \"Higher law,\"\nand when he said, \"Will you have this to rule over you?\" they answered,\n\"Never!\" and treated the \"Higher law\" to a laugh and a howl! It was done\nin Faneuil Hall;[20] under the eyes of the three Adamses, Hancock, and\nWashington; and the howl rung round the venerable arches of that hall! I\ncould not but ask, \"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a\nvain thing? the rulers of the earth set themselves, and kings take\ncounsel against the Lord and say, 'Let us break his bands asunder, and\ncast off his yoke from us.'\" Then I could not but remember that it was\nwritten, \"He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall\nhave them in derision. He taketh up the isles as a very little thing,\nand the inhabitants of the earth are as grasshoppers before Him.\" Howl\ndown the law of God at a magistrate's command! Do this in Boston! Let us\nremember this--but with charity.\n\nMen say there is danger of disunion, of our losing fealty for the\nConstitution. I do not believe it yet! Suppose it be so. The\nConstitution is the machinery of the national mill; and suppose we agree\nto take it out and put in new; we might get worse, very true, but we\nmight get better. There have been some modern improvements; we might\nintroduce them to the State as well as the mill. But I do not believe\nthere is this danger. I do not believe the people of Massachusetts think\nso. I think they are strongly attached to the Union yet, and if they\nthought \"the Union was in peril--this day,\" and every thing the nation\nprizes was likely to be destroyed, we should not have had a meeting of a\nfew thousands in Faneuil Hall, but the people would have filled up the\ncity of Worcester with a hundred thousand men, if need be; and they\nwould have come with the cartridge-box at their side, and the firelock\non their shoulder. That is the way the people of Massachusetts would\nassemble if they thought there was real danger.\n\nI do not believe the South will withdraw from the Union, with five\nmillion free men, and three million slaves. I think Massachusetts would\nbe no loser, I think the North would be no loser; but I doubt if the\nNorth will yet allow them to go if so disposed. Do you think the South\nis so mad as to wish it?\n\nBut I think I know of one cause which may dissolve the Union--one which\nought to dissolve it, if put in action: that is, a serious attempt to\nexecute the fugitive slave law, here and in all the North. I mean an\nattempt to recover and take back all the fugitive slaves in the North,\nand to punish, with fine and imprisonment, all who aid or conceal them.\nThe South has browbeat us again and again. She has smitten us on the one\ncheek with \"Protection,\" and we have turned the other, kissing the rod;\nshe has smitten that with \"Free trade.\" She has imprisoned our citizens;\ndriven off, with scorn and loathing, our officers sent to ask\nconstitutional justice. She has spit upon us. Let her come to take back\nthe fugitives--and, trust me, she \"will wake up the lion.\"\n\nIn my humble opinion, this law is a wedge--sharp at one end, but wide at\nthe other--put in between the lower planks of our Ship of State. If it\nbe driven home, we go to pieces. But I have no thought that that will be\ndone quite yet. I believe the great politicians, who threatened to drive\nit through the gaping seams of our argosy, will think twice before they\nstrike again. Nay, that they will soon be very glad to bury the wedge\n\"Where the tide ebbs and flows four times a day.\" I do not expect this\nof their courage, but of their fears; not of their justice--I am too old\nfor that--but of their concern for property, which it is the \"great\nobject of government\" to protect.\n\nI know how some men talk in public, and how they act at home. I heard a\nman the other day, at Faneuil Hall, declare the law must be kept, and\ndenounce, not very gently, all who preached or prayed against it, as\nenemies of \"all law.\" But that was all talk, for this very man, on that\nvery day, had violated the law; had furnished the golden wheels on which\nfugitives rode out of the reach of the arms which the marshal would have\nbeen sorry to lift. I could tell things more surprising--but it is not\nwise just now![21]\n\nI do not believe there is more than one of the New England men who\npublicly helped the law into being, but would violate its provisions;\nconceal a fugitive; share his loaf with a runaway; furnish him golden\nwings to fly with. Nay, I think it would be difficult to find a\nmagistrate in New England, willing to take the public odium of doing the\nofficial duty.[22] I believe it is not possible to find a regular jury,\nwho will punish a man for harboring a slave, for helping his escape, or\nfine a marshal or commissioner for being a little slow to catch a\nslave.[23] Men will talk loud in public meetings, but they have some\nconscience after all, at home. And though they howl down the \"Higher\nlaw\" in a crowd, yet conscience will make cowards of them all, when they\ncome to lay hands on a Christian man, more innocent than they, and send\nhim into slavery forever! One of the commissioners of Boston talked loud\nand long, last Tuesday, in favor of keeping the law. When he read his\nlitany against the law of God, and asked if men would keep the \"Higher\nlaw,\" and got \"Never\" as the welcome, and amen for response--it seemed\nas if the law might be kept, at least by that commissioner, and such as\ngave the responses to his creed. But slave-hunting Mr. Hughes, who came\nhere for two of our fellow-worshippers,[24] in his Georgia newspaper,\ntells a different story. Here it is, from the \"Georgia Telegraph,\" of\nlast Friday. \"I called at eleven o'clock at night, at his [the\ncommissioner's] residence, and stated to him my business, and asked him\nfor a warrant, saying that if I could get a warrant, I could have the\nnegroes [William and Ellen Craft] arrested. He said the law did not\nauthorize a warrant to be issued: that it was my duty to go and arrest\nthe negro without a warrant, and bring him before him!\" This is more\nthan I expected. \"Is Saul among the prophets?\" The men who tell us that\nthe law must be kept, God willing, or against His will--there are\nPuritan fathers behind them also; Bibles in their houses; a Christ\ncrucified, whom they think of; and a God even in their world, who\nslumbers not, neither is weary, and is as little a respecter of\nparchments as of persons! They know there is a people, as well as\npoliticians, a posterity not yet assembled, and they would not like to\nhave certain words writ on their tombstone. \"Traitor to the rights of\nmankind,\" is no pleasant epitaph. They, too, remember there is a day\nafter to-day; aye, a forever; and, \"Inasmuch as ye have not done it unto\none of the least of these my brethren, ye have not done it unto me,\" is\na sentence they would not like to hear at the day of judgment.[25]\n\nMuch danger is feared from the \"political agitation\" of this matter.\nGreat principles have never been discussed without great passions, and\nwill not be, for some time, I suppose. But men fear to have this\ndespotic idea become a subject of discussion. Last spring, Mr. Webster\nsaid here in Boston, \"We shall not see the legislation of the country\nproceed in the old harmonious way, until the discussion in Congress and\nout of Congress, upon the subject [of slavery] shall be in some manner\nsuppressed. Take that truth home with you!\" We have lately been told\nthat political agitation on the subject must be stopped. So it seems\nthis law, like that which Daniel would not keep, is one that may not be\nchanged, and must not be talked of.\n\nNow there are three modes in which attempts may be made to stop the\nagitation.\n\n1. By sending\n\n    \"----troops, with guns and banners,\n    Cut short our speeches and our necks,\n    And break our heads to mend our manners.\"\n\nThat is the Austrian way, which has not yet been tried here, and will\nnot be.\n\n2. By sending lecturers throughout the land, to stir up the people to be\nquiet, and agitate them till they are still; to make them sign the\npledge of total abstinence from the discussion of this subject. That is\nnot likely to effect the object.\n\n3. For the friends of silence to keep their own counsel--and this seems\nas little likely to be tried, as the others to succeed.\n\nStrange is it to ask us to forbear to talk on a subject which involves\nthe welfare of twenty million men! As well ask a man in a fever not to\nbe heated, and a consumptive person not to cough, to pine away and turn\npale. Miserable counsellors are ye all, who give such advice. But we\nhave seen lately the lion of the democrats, and the lamb of the whigs,\nlie down together, joined by this opinion, so gentle and so loving, all\nat once, that a little child could lead them, and so \"fulfil the sure\nprophetic word.\" Yes, we have seen the Herod of one party, and the\nPilate of the other, made friends for the sake of crucifying the freedom\nof mankind.\n\nBut there is one way in which, I would modestly hint, that we might stop\nall this talk \"in Congress and out of Congress,\" that is, to \"discuss\"\nthe matter till we had got at the truth, and the whole truth; then to\n\"agitate\" politically, till we had enacted justice into law, and carried\nit out all over the North, and all over the South. After that there\nwould be no more discussion about the fugitive slave bill, than about\nthe \"Boston port bill;\" no more agitation about American slavery, than\nthere is about the condition of the people of Babylon before the flood.\nI think there is no other way in which we are likely to get rid of this\ndiscussion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch is our condition, such its causes, such our dangers. Now, for the\nlesson, look a moment elsewhere. Look at continental Europe, at Rome,\nAustria, Prussia, and the German States--at France. How uncertain is\nevery government! France--the stablest of them all! Remember the\nrevolution which two years ago shook those States so terribly, when all\nthe royalty of France was wheeled out of Paris in a street cab. Why are\nthose States so tottering? Whence those revolutions? They tried to make\niniquity their law, and would not give over the attempt! Why are the\narmies of France five hundred thousand strong, though the nation is at\npeace with all the world? Because they tried to make injustice law! Why\ndo the Austrian and German monarchs fear an earthquake of the people?\nBecause they tread the people down with wicked laws! Whence came the\ncrushing debts of France, Austria, England? From the same cause: from\nthe injustice of men who made mischief by law!\n\nIt is not for men long to hinder the march of human freedom. I have no\nfear for that, ultimately,--none at all, simply for this reason, that I\nbelieve in the Infinite God. You may make your statutes; an appeal\nalways lies to the higher law, and decisions adverse to that get set\naside in the ages. Your statutes cannot hold Him. You may gather all the\ndried grass and all the straw in both continents; you may braid it into\nropes to bind down the sea; while it is calm, you may laugh, and say,\n\"Lo, I have chained the ocean!\" and howl down the law of Him who holds\nthe universe as a rosebud in his hand--its every ocean but a drop of\ndew. \"How the waters suppress their agitation,\" you may say. But when\nthe winds blow their trumpets, the sea rises in its strength, snaps\nasunder the bonds that had confined his mighty limbs, and the world is\nlittered with the idle hay! Stop the human race in its development and\nmarch to freedom? As well might the boys of Boston, some lustrous night,\nmounting the steeples of this town, call on the stars to stay their\ncourse! Gently, but irresistibly, the Greater and the Lesser Bear move\nround the pole; Orion, in his mighty mail, comes up the sky; the Bull,\nthe Ram, the Heavenly Twins, the Crab, the Lion, the Maid, the Scales,\nand all that shining company, pursue their march all night, and the new\nday discovers the idle urchins in their lofty places, all tired, and\nsleepy, and ashamed.\n\nIt is not possible to suppress the idea of freedom, or forever hold down\nits institutions. But it is possible to destroy a State; a political\nparty with geographical bounds may easily be rent asunder. It is not\nimpossible to shiver this American Union. But how? What clove asunder\nthe great British party, one nation once in America and England? Did not\nour fathers love their father-land? Aye. They called it home, and were\nloyal with abundant fealty; there was no lack of piety for home. It was\nthe attempt to make old English injustice New England law! Who did\nit,--the British people? Never. Their hand did no such sacrilege! It was\nthe merchants of London, with the \"Navigation Act;\" the politicians of\nWestminster with the \"Stamp Act;\" the tories of America, who did not die\nwithout issue, that for office and its gold would keep a king's unjust\ncommands. It was they, who drove our fathers into disunion against their\nwill. Is here no lesson? We love law, all of us love it; but a true man\nloves it only as the Safeguard of the Rights of Man. If it destroy these\nrights, he spurns it with his feet. Is here no lesson? Look further\nthen.\n\nDo you know how empires find their end? Yes, the great States eat up the\nlittle. As with fish, so with nations. Aye, but how do the great States\ncome to an end? By their own injustice, and no other cause. They would\nmake unrighteousness their law, and God wills not that it be so. Thus\nthey fall; thus they die. Look at these ancient States, the queenliest\nqueens of earth. There is Rome, the widow of two civilizations,--the\nPagan and the Catholic. They both had her, and unto both she bore\ndaughters and fair sons. But, the Niobe of Nations, she boasted that her\nchildren were holier and more fair than all the pure ideas of justice,\ntruth, and love, the offspring of the eternal God. And now she sits\nthere, transformed into stone, amid the ruins of her children's bones.\nAt midnight I have heard the owl hoot in the coliseum and the forum,\ngiving voice to desolation; and at midday I have seen the fox in the\npalace where Augustus gathered the wealth, the wit, the beauty and the\nwisdom of a conquered world; and the fox and the owl interpreted to me\nthe voice of many ages, which came to tell this age, that though hand\njoin in hand, the wicked shall not prosper.\n\nCome with me, my friends, a moment more, pass over this Golgotha of\nhuman history, treading reverent as you go, for our feet are on our\nmothers' grave, and our shoes defile our fathers' hallowed bones. Let us\nnot talk of them; go further on, look and pass by. Come with me into the\nInferno of the nations, with such poor guidance as my lamp can lend. Let\nus disquiet and bring up the awful shadows of empires buried long ago,\nand learn a lesson from the tomb.\n\nCome, old Assyria, with the Ninevitish dove upon thy emerald crown! What\nlaid thee low? \"I fell by my own injustice. Thereby Nineveh and Babylon\ncame, with me, also, to the ground.\"\n\nOh queenly Persia, flame of the nations, wherefore art thou so fallen,\nwho troddest the people under thee, bridgedst the Hellespont with ships,\nand pouredst thy temple-wasting millions on the western world? \"Because\nI trod the people under me, and bridged the Hellespont with ships, and\npoured my temple-wasting millions on the western world. I fell by my own\nmisdeeds!\"\n\nThou muselike, Grecian queen, fairest of all thy classic sisterhood of\nStates, enchanting yet the world with thy sweet witchery, speaking in\nart, and most seductive song, why liest thou there with beauteous yet\ndishonored brow, reposing on thy broken harp? \"I scorned the law of God;\nbanished and poisoned wisest, justest men; I loved the loveliness of\nflesh, embalmed it in the Parian stone; I loved the loveliness of\nthought, and treasured that in more than Parian speech. But the beauty\nof justice, the loveliness of love, I trod them down to earth! Lo,\ntherefore have I become as those Barbarian States--as one of them!\"\n\nOh manly and majestic Rome, thy sevenfold mural crown, all broken at thy\nfeet, why art thou here? It was not injustice brought thee low; for thy\ngreat book of law is prefaced with these words, justice is the\nunchanging, everlasting will to give each man his right! \"It was not the\nsaint's ideal: it was the hypocrite's pretence! I made iniquity my law.\nI trod the nations under me. Their wealth gilded my palaces,--where thou\nmayst see the fox and hear the owl,--it fed my courtiers and my\ncourtezans. Wicked men were my cabinet counsellors, the flatterer\nbreathed his poison in my ear. Millions of bondmen wet the soil with\ntears and blood. Do you not hear it crying yet to God? Lo here have I my\nrecompense, tormented with such downfall as you see! Go back and tell\nthe new-born child, who sitteth on the Alleghanies, laying his either\nhand upon a tributary sea, a crown of thirty stars about his youthful\nbrow--tell him that there are rights which States must keep, or they\nshall suffer wrongs! Tell him there is a God who keeps the black man and\nthe white, and hurls to earth the loftiest realm that breaks His just,\neternal law! Warn the young Empire that he come not down dim and\ndishonored to my shameful tomb! Tell him that justice is the unchanging,\neverlasting will to give each man his right. I knew it, broke it, and am\nlost. Bid him to know it, keep it, and be safe!\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"God save the Commonwealth!\" proclaims the Governor. God will do his\npart,--doubt not of that. But you and I must help Him save the State.\nWhat can we do? Next Sunday I will ask you for your charity; to-day I\nask a greater gift, more than the abundance of the rich, or the poor\nwidow's long remembered mite. I ask you for your justice. Give that to\nyour native land. Do you not love your country? I know you do. Here are\nour homes and the graves of our fathers; the bones of our mothers are\nunder the sod. The memory of past deeds is fresh with us; many a\nfarmer's and mechanic's son inherits from his sires some cup of manna\ngathered in the wilderness, and kept in memory of our exodus; some\nstones from the Jordan, which our fathers passed over sorely bested and\nhunted after; some Aaron's rod, green and blossoming with fragrant\nmemories of the day of small things when the Lord led us--and all these\nattach us to our land, our native land. We love the great ideas of the\nNorth, the institutions which they founded, the righteous laws, the\nschools, the churches too--do we not love all these? Aye. I know well\nyou do. Then by all these, and more than all, by the dear love of God,\nlet us swear that we will keep the justice of the Eternal Law. Then are\nwe all safe. We know not what a day may bring forth, but we know that\nEternity will bring everlasting peace. High in the heavens, the\npole-star of the world, shines Justice; placed within us, as our guide\nthereto, is Conscience. Let us be faithful to that\n\n    \"Which though it trembles as it lowly lies,\n    Points to the light that changes not in heaven.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[18] The late Mr. John Parker.\n\n[19] This took place at a meeting in Faneuil Hall to welcome Mr. George\nThompson.\n\n[20] At the \"Union meeting\" two days before the delivery of this sermon.\n\n[21] Nor even yet. November 24, 1851.\n\n[22] Subsequent events have shown the folly of this statement.\nClergymen, it is said, are wont to err, by overrating the moral\nprinciple of men. See the next sermon.\n\n[23] Recent experiments fortunately confirm this, and, spite of all the\nunjust efforts to pack a jury, none has yet been found to punish a man\nfor such a \"Crime.\"\n\n[24] Mr. William Craft, and Mrs. Ellen Craft.\n\n[25] This also appears to have been a mistake. Still I let the passage\nstand, though it is apparently not at all true.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nTHE CHIEF SINS OF THE PEOPLE.--A SERMON DELIVERED AT THE MELODEON,\nBOSTON, ON FAST DAY, APRIL 10, 1851.\n\n\nMy Friends,--This is a day of Public Humiliation and Prayer. We have one\nevery year. It is commonly in the city churches only a farce, because\nthere is no special occasion for it, and the general need is not felt.\nBut such is the state of things in the Union at this moment, and\nparticularly in Boston, that, if it were not a custom, it would be a\ngood thing, even if it were for the first time in the history of our\ncountry, to have such a day for Humiliation and Prayer, that we consider\nthe state of the nation, and look at our conduct in reference to the\ngreat principles of religion, and see how we stand before God; for these\nare times that try men's souls.\n\nLast Sunday, I purposely disappointed you, and turned off from what was\nnearest to your heart and was nearest to mine,--a subject that would\nhave been easy to preach on without any preparation. Then I asked you\nto go to the Fountain of all strength, and there prepare yourselves for\nthe evils that we know not of. To-day, the Governor has asked us to come\ntogether, and consider, in the spirit of Christianity, the public sins\nof the community, to contemplate the value of our institutions, and to\nask the blessing of God on the poor, the afflicted, and the oppressed. I\nam glad of this occasion; and I will improve it, and ask your attention\nto a sermon of The Chief Sins of this People.\n\nI have said that these are times that try men's souls. This is such an\noccasion as never came before, and, I trust, never will again. I have\nmuch to say to you, much more than I intend to say to-day, much more\nthan there are hours enough in this day to speak. Many things I shall\npass by. I shall detain you to-day somewhat longer than is my wont; but\ndo not fear, I will look out for your attention. I simply ask you to be\ncalm, to be composed, and to hear with silence what I have to say.\n\nTo understand these things, we must begin somewhat far off.\n\nThe purpose of human life is to form a manly character, to get the best\ndevelopment of body and of spirit,--of mind, conscience, heart, soul.\nThis is the end: all else is the means. Accordingly, that is not the\nmost successful life in which a man gets the most pleasure, the most\nmoney or ease, the most power of place, honor, and fame; but that in\nwhich a man gets the most manhood, performs the greatest amount of human\nduty, enjoys the greatest amount of human right, and acquires the\ngreatest amount of manly character. It is of no importance whether he\nwin this by wearing a hod upon his shoulders, or a crown upon his head.\nIt is the character, and not the crown, I value. The crown perishes with\nthe head that wore it; but the character lives with the immortal man who\nachieved it; and it is of no consequence whether that immortal man goes\nup to God from a throne or from a gallows.\n\nEvery man has some one preponderating object in life,--an object that he\naims at and holds supreme. Perhaps he does not know it. But he thinks of\nthis in his day-dreams, and his dreams by night. It colors his waking\nhours, and is with him in his sleep. Sometimes it is sensual pleasure\nthat he wants; sometimes money; sometimes office, fame, social\ndistinction; sometimes it is the quiet of a happy home, with wife and\nchildren, all comfortable and blessed; sometimes it is excellence in a\nspecial science or art, or department of literature; sometimes it is a\nspecial form of philanthropy; and sometimes it is the attainment of\ngreat, manly character.\n\nThis supreme object of desire is sometimes different at different times\nin a man's life, but in general is mainly the same all through. For \"The\nchild is father of the man,\" and his days bound each to each, if not by\nnatural piety, then by unnatural profaneness. This desire may act with\ndifferent intensity in the active and passive periods, in manhood and in\nage. It is somewhat modified by the season of passion, and by the season\nof ambition.\n\nIf this object of special desire be worthy, so is the character in\ngeneral; if base, so is the man. For this special desire becomes the\nmaster-motive in the man; and, if strong, establishes a unity in his\nconsciousness, and calls out certain passions, appetites, powers of mind\nand conscience, heart and soul; and, in a long life, the man creates\nhimself anew in the image of his ideal desire. This desire, good or bad,\nwhich sways the man, is writ on his character, and thence copied into\nthe countenance; and lust or love, frivolity or science, interest or\nprinciple, mammon or God, is writ on the man. Still this unity is seldom\nwhole and complete. With most men there are exceptional times, when they\nturn off a little from their great general pursuit. Simeon the Stylite\ncomes down from his pillar-top, and chaffers in the market-place with\ncommon folks. Jeffries is even just once or twice in his life, and\nWilkes is honorable two or three times. Even when the chief desire is a\nhigh and holy one, I should not expect a man to go through life without\never committing an error or a sin. When I was a youngster, just let\nloose from the theological school, I thought differently; but at this\nday, when I have felt the passions of life, and been stirred by the\nambitions of life, I know it must be expected that a man will stumble\nnow and then. I make allowances for that in myself, as I do in others.\nThese are the exceptional periods in a man's life,--the eddies in the\nstream. The stream runs down hill all the time, though the eddy may for\na time apparently run up.\n\nNow, as with men, so it is with nations. The purpose of national life is\nto bring forth and bring up manly men, who do the most of human duty,\nhave the most of human rights, and enjoy the most of human welfare. So\nthat is not the most successful nation which fills the largest space,\nwhich occupies the longest time, which produces the most cattle, corn,\ncotton, or cloth, but that which produces the most men. And, in\nreference to men, you must count not numbers barely, but character quite\nas much. That is not the most successful nation which has an exceptional\nclass of men, highly cultured, well-bodied, well-minded, well-born,\nwell-bred, at the one end of society; and at the other a mighty\nmultitude, an instantial class, poor, ill-born, ill-bred, ill-bodied,\nand ill-minded too, as in England; but that is the most successful\nnation which has the whole body of its people well-born, well-bred,\nwell-bodied, and well-minded too; and those are the best institutions\nwhich accomplish this best; those worst, which accomplish it least. The\ngovernment, the society, the school, or the church, which does this\nwork, is a good government, society, school, or church; that which does\nit not, is good for nothing.\n\nAs with men, so with nations. Each has a certain object of chief desire,\nwhich object prevails over others. The nation is not conscious of\nit,--less so, indeed, than the individual; but, silently, it governs the\nnation's life. Sometimes this chief desire is the aggrandizement of the\ncentral power,--the monarchy: it was so once in France; but, God be\npraised! is not so now. Then devotion to the king's person was held as\nthe greatest national excellence, and disrespect for the king was\ntreason, the greatest national crime. The people must not dare to\nwhisper against their king. Sometimes it is the desire to build up an\naristocracy. It was once so in Venice. It may be an aristocracy of\npriests, of soldiers, of nobles, or an aristocracy of merchants.\nSometimes it is to build up a middle class of gentry, as in Basel and\nBerne. It may be a military desire, as in ancient Rome; it may be\necclesiastical ambition, as in modern Rome; or commercial ambition, as\nin London and many other places.\n\nThe chief object of desire is not always the same in the course of a\nnation's history. A nation now greatens the centripetal power,\nstrengthening the king and weakening the people; now it greatens the\ncentrifugal power, weakening the king and strengthening the people. But,\ncommonly, you see some one desire runs through all the nation's history,\nonly modified by its youth, or manhood, or old age, and by\ncircumstances which react upon the nation as the nation acts upon them.\n\nThis chief object of desire may be permanent, and so govern the whole\nnation for all its history. Or it may be, on the other hand, a transient\ndesire, which is to govern it for a time. In either case, it will appear\nprominently in the controlling classes; either in the classes which\ncontrol all through, or in such as last only for a time. Thus the\nmilitary desire appeared chiefly in the patricians of old Rome, and not\nmuch in the plebeians; the commercial ambition appeared in the nobles of\nVenice; the ecclesiastical in the priests of modern Rome, where the\npeople care little for the church, though quite as much perhaps as it\ndeserves.\n\nAs the chief desire of the individual calls out appetites and passions,\nwhich are the machinery of that desire, and reconstructs the man in its\nimage; so the desire of a nation, transient or permanent, becoming the\nmaster-motive of the people, calls out certain classes of men, who\nbecome its exponents, its machinery, and they make the constitution,\ninstitutions, and laws to correspond thereto.\n\nAs with one man, so with the millions, there may be fluctuations of\npurpose for a time. I cannot expect that one man, or many men, will\nalways pursue an object without at some time violating fundamental\nprinciples. I might have thought so once. But as I live longer, and see\nthe passion and the ambition of men, see the force of circumstances, I\nknow better. No ship sails across the ocean with a straight course,\nwithout changing a sail: it frequently leaves its direct line, now\n\"standing\" this way, now that; and the course is a very crooked one,\nalthough, as a whole, it is towards the mark.\n\nAmerica is a young nation, composite, not yet unified; and it is,\ntherefore, not quite so easy to say what is the chief desire of the\npeople; but, if I understand American history, this desire is the Love\nof Individual Liberty. Nothing has been so marked in our history as\nthis. We are consciously, in part, yet still more unconsciously, aiming\nat democracy,--at a government of all the people, by all the people, and\nfor the sake of all the people. Of course that must be a government by\nthe higher law of God, by the Eternal Justice to which you and I and all\nof us owe reverence. We all love freedom for ourselves; one day we shall\nlove it for every man,--for the tawny Indian and the sable Negro, as\nmuch as for you and me. This love of freedom has appeared in the ideas\nof New England,--and New England was once America; it was once the soul,\nalthough not the body of America. It appeared in its political action\nand its ecclesiastical action, in the State and in the church, and in\nall the little towns. In general, every change in the constitution of a\nfree State makes it more democratic; every change in local law is for\ndemocracy, not against it. We have broken with the old feudal\ntradition,--broken forever with that. I think this love of individual\nliberty is the specific desire of the people. If we are proud of any\nthing, it is of our free institutions. I know there are men who are\nprouder of wealth than of any thing else: by and by I shall have a word\nto say of them. But in Massachusetts, New England, in the North, if we\nshould appeal to the great body of the people, and \"poll the house,\" and\nask of all what they were proudest of, they would not say, of our\ncattle, or cotton, or corn, or cloth; but it is of our freedom, of our\nmen and women. Leaving out of the calculation the abounding class, which\nis corrupt everywhere, and the perishing class, which is the vassal as\nit is the creature of the abounding class, and as corrupt and selfish\nhere as everywhere, we shall find that seven-eighths of the people of\nNew England are eminently desirous of this one thing. This desire will\ncarry the day in any fifty years to come, as it has done in two hundred\nand fifty years past. The great political names of our history are all\non its side: Washington, the Adamses--both of them, God bless\nthem!--Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, these were all friends of liberty. I\nknow the exceptions in the history of some of these men, and do not deny\nthem. Other American names, dear to the people, are of the same stamp.\nThe national literature, so far as we have any national literature, is\ndemocratic. I know there is what passes for American literature, because\nit grows on American soil, but which is just as far from being\nindigenous to America as the orange is from being indigenous to Cape\nCod. This literature is a poor, miserable imitation of the feudal\nliterature of old Europe. Perhaps it is now the prominent literature of\nthe time. One day America will take it and cast it out from her. The\ntrue American literature is very poor, is very weak, is almost miserable\nnow; but it has one redeeming quality,--it is true to freedom, it is\ntrue to democracy.\n\nIn the Revolution this desire of the nation was prominent, and came to\nconsciousness. It was the desire of the most eminent champions of\nliberty. At one time in the history of the nation, the platform of\nspeakers was in advance of the floor that was covered by the people at\nlarge, because at that time the speakers became conscious of the idea\nwhich possessed the hearts of the people. That is the reason why John\nHancock, the two Adamses, and Jefferson, came into great prominence\nbefore the people. They were more the people than the people themselves;\nmore democratic than the democrats. I know, and I think it must be quite\nplain in our history, that this has been the chief desire of the people.\nIf so, it determines our political destination.\n\nHowever, with nations as with men, there are exceptional desires; one of\nwhich, with the American nation at present, is the desire for wealth.\nJust now, that is the most obvious and preponderate desire in the\nconsciousness of the people. It has increased surprisingly in fifty\nyears. It is the special, the chief desire of the controlling class. By\nthe controlling class, I mean what are commonly called \"our first men.\"\nI admit exceptions, and state the general rule. With them every thing\ngives way to money, and money gives way to nothing, neither to man nor\nto God.\n\nSee some proofs of this. There are two ways of getting money; one is by\ntrade, the other is by political office. The pursuit of money, in one or\nthe other of these ways, is the only business reckoned entirely\n\"commendable\" and \"respectable.\" There are other callings which are very\nnoble in themselves, and deemed so by mankind; but here they are not\nthought \"commendable\" and \"respectable,\" and accordingly you very seldom\nsee young men, born in what is called \"the most respectable class of\nsociety,\" engaged in any thing except the pursuit of money by trade or\nby office. There are exceptions; but the sons of \"respectable men,\" so\ncalled, seldom engage in the pursuit of any thing but money by trade or\noffice. This is the chief desire of a majority of the young men of\ntalent, ambition, and education. Even in colleges more respect is paid\nto money than to genius. The purse is put before the pen. In the\nchurches, wealth is deemed better than goodness or piety. It names\ntowns and colleges; and he is thought the greatest benefactor of a\nuniversity who endows it with money, not with mind. In giving name to a\nstreet in Boston, you call the wealthy end after a rich man, and only\nthe poor end after a man that was good and famous. Money controls the\nchurches. It draws veils of cotton over the pulpit window, to color \"the\nlight that cometh from above.\" As yet the churches are not named after\nmen whose only virtue is metallic, but the recognized pillars of the\nchurches are all pillars of gold. Festus does not tremble before Paul,\nbut Paul before Festus. The pulpit looks down to the pews for its\ngospel, not up to the eternal God. Is there a rich pro-slavery man in\nthe parish? The minister does not dare read a petition from an oppressed\nslave asking God that his \"unalienable rights\" be given him. He does not\ndare to ask alms for a fugitive. St. Peter is the old patron saint of\nthe Holy Catholic Church. St. Hunker is the new patron saint of the\nchurches of commerce, Catholic and Protestant.\n\nMoney controls the law as well as the gospel. The son of a great man and\nnoble is forgotten if the father dies poor; but the mantle of the rich\nman falls on the son's shoulders. If the son be only half so manly as\nhis sire, and twice as rich, he is sure to be doubly honored. Money\nsupplies defects of character, defects of culture. It is deemed better\nthan education, talent, genius, and character, all put together. Was it\nnot written two thousand years ago in the Proverbs, it \"answereth all\nthings?\" Look round and see. It does not matter how you get or keep it.\n\"The end justifies the means.\" Edmund Burke, or somebody else, said\n\"Something must be pardoned to the spirit of liberty.\" Now it is\n\"Something must be pardoned\" to the love of money, nothing \"to the\nspirit of liberty.\" We find that rich men will move out of town on the\nlast day of April, to avoid taxation on the first day of May. That is\nnothing. It is very \"respectable,\" very \"honorable,\" indeed! I do not\nbelieve that there is any master-carpenter or master-blacksmith in\nBoston who would not be ashamed to do so. But men of the controlling\nclasses do not hesitate! No matter how you get money. You may rent\nhouses for rum-shops and for brothels; you may make rum, import rum,\nsell rum, to the ruin of the thousands whom you thereby bring down to\nthe kennel and the almshouse and the jail. If you get money by that, no\nmatter: it is \"clean money,\" however dirtily got.\n\nA merchant can send his ships to sea, and in the slave-trade acquire\ngold, and live here in Boston, New York, or Philadelphia; and his gold\nwill be good sterling gold, no matter how he got it! In political\noffice, if you are a Senator from California or Oregon, you may draw\n\"constructive mileage,\" and pay yourself two or three thousand dollars\nfor a journey never made from home, and two or three thousand more back\nto your home. So you filch thousands of dollars out of the public purse,\nand you are the \"Honorable Senator\" just as before. You have got the\nmoney, no matter how. You may be a Senator from Massachusetts, and you\nmay take the \"trust fund,\" offered you by the manufacturers of cotton,\nand be bound as their \"retained attorney,\" by your \"retaining fee,\" and\nyou are still \"the Honorable Senator from Massachusetts,\" not hurt one\njot in the eyes of the controlling classes. If you are Secretary of\nState, you may take forty or fifty thousand dollars from State Street\nand Wall Street, and suffer no discredit at all. At one end of the Union\nthey will deny the fact as \"too atrocious to be believed\" at this end\nthey admit it, and say it was \"honorable in the people to give it,\" and\n\"honorable in the Secretary to take it.\"\n\n    \"Alas! the small discredit of a bribe\n    Scarce hurts the master, but undoes the scribe.\"\n\nIt would sound a little strange to some people, if we should find that\nthe judges of a court had received forty or fifty thousand dollars from\nmen who were plaintiffs in that Court. You and I would remember that a\ngift blindeth the eyes of the prudent, how much more of the profligate!\nBut it would be \"honorable\" in the plaintiffs to give it; \"honorable\" in\nthe judges to take it!\n\nHitherto I have called your attention to the proofs of the\npreponderance of money. I will now point you to signs, which are not\nexactly proofs, of this immediate worship of money. See these signs in\nBoston.\n\nWhen the Old South Church was built, when Christ's Church in Salem\nStreet, when King's Chapel, when Brattle Square Church, they were\nrespectively the costliest buildings in town. They were symbols of\nreligion, as churches always are; symbols of the popular esteem for\nreligion. Out of the poverty of the people, great sums of money were\ngiven for these \"Houses of God.\" They said, like David of old, It is a\nshame that we dwell in a palace of cedars, and the Ark of the Most High\nremains under the curtains of a tent. How is it now? A crockery shop\noverlooks the roof-tree of the church where once the eloquence of a\nChanning enchanted to heaven the worldly hearts of worldly men. Now a\nhotel looks down on the church which was once all radiant with the sweet\npiety of a Buckminster. A haberdasher's warehouse overtops the church of\nthe Blessed Trinity; the roof of the shop is almost as tall as the very\ntower of the church. These things are only symbols. Let us compare\nBoston, in this respect, with any European city that you can name; let\nus compare it with gay and frivolous Vienna, the gayest and most\nfrivolous city of all Europe, not setting Paris aside. For though the\nsurface of life in Paris sparkles and glitters all over with radiant\nand iridescent and dazzling bubbles, empty and ephemeral, yet underneath\nthere flows a stream which comes from the great fountain of nature, and\ntends on to the ocean of human welfare. No city is more full of deep\nthought and earnest life. But in Vienna it is not so. Yet even there,\nabove the magnificence of the Herrengasse, above the proud mansions of\nthe Esterhazys and the Schwartzenbergs and the Lichtensteins, above the\ncostly elegance of the imperial palace, St. Stephen's Church lifts its\ntall spire, and points to God all day long and all the night, a still\nand silent emblem of a power higher than any mandate of the Kings of\nearth; ay, to the Infinite God. Men look up to its cross overtowering\nthe frivolous city, and take a lesson! Here, Trade looks down to find\nthe church.\n\nI am glad that the churches are lower than the shops. I have said it\nmany times, and I say it now. I am glad they are less magnificent than\nour banks and hotels. I am glad that haberdashers' shops look down on\nthem. Let the outward show correspond to the inward fact. If I am\npinched and withered by disease, I will not disguise it from you by\nwrappages of cloth; but I will let you see that I am shrunken and\nshrivelled to the bone. If the pulpit is no nearer heaven than the\ntavern-bar, let that fact appear. If the desk in the counting-room is to\ngive law to the desk in the church, do not commit the hypocrisy of\nputting the pulpit-desk above the counting-room. Let us see where we\nare.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe consequence of such causes as are symbolized by these facts must\nneeds appear in our civilization. Men tell us there is no law higher\nthan mercantile! Do you wonder at it? It was said in deeds before words;\nthe architecture of Boston told it before the politicians. Money is the\ngod of our idolatry. Let the fact appear in his temples. Money is master\nnow, all must give way to it,--that to nothing: the church, the State,\nthe law, is not for man, but money.\n\nLet the son of a distinguished man beat a watchman, knowing him to be\nsuch, and be brought before a Justice (it would be \"levying war\" if a\nmulatto had done so to the marshal); he is bailed off for two hundred\ndollars. But let a black man have in his pockets a weapon, which the\nConstitution and laws of Massachusetts provide that any man may have if\nhe please, he is brought to trial and bound over for--two hundred\ndollars, think you? No! but for six hundred dollars! three times as much\nas is required of the son of the Secretary of State for assaulting a\nmagistrate![26]\n\n The Secretary of State publicly declared, a short time since, that\n\"The great object of government is the protection of property at home,\nand respect and renown abroad.\" I thank him for teaching us that word!\nThat is the actual principle of the American government.\n\nIn all countries of the world, struggles take place for human rights.\nBut in all countries there is a class who desire a privilege for\nthemselves adverse to the rights of mankind: they are commonly richer\nand abler-minded than the majority of men; they can act in concert.\nBetween them and mankind there is a struggle. The quarrel takes various\nforms. The contest has been going on for a long time in Europe. There,\nit is between the aristocracy of birth, and the aristocracy of wealth;\nfor there it is not money, but birth, that makes noble. In this struggle\nthe aristocracy of birth is gradually giving way to the aristocracy of\ngold. A long and brilliant rent-roll makes up for a short and obscure\npedigree.\n\nIn that great movement for human freedom which has lasted a thousand\nyears, the city has generally represented Right in its conflict with\nMight. So, in the middle ages, the city, the home of the trader, of the\nmechanic, of the intelligent man, was democratic. There freedom got\norganized in guilds of craftsmen. But the country was the home of the\nnoble and his vassals, the haughty, the ignorant, and the servile. Then\nthe country was aristocratic. It was so in the great struggles between\nthe king and the people in England and France, in Italy and Holland.\n\nIn America there is no nobility of birth--it was the people that came\nover, not monarchy, not aristocracy; they did not emigrate. The son of\nGuy Fawkes and the son of Charlemagne are on the same level. I know in\nBoston some of the descendants of Henri Quatre, the greatest king of\nFrance. I know also descendants of Thomas Wentworth, \"the great Earl of\nStrafford;\" and yet they are now obscure and humble men, although of\nfamous birth. I do not say it should not be so; but such is the fact.\nHere the controversy is not between distinguished birth and money; it is\nbetween money on the one hand, and men on the other; between capital and\nlabor; between usurped privilege and natural right. Here, the cities, as\nthe seat of wealth, are aristocratic; the country, as the seat of labor,\nis democratic. We may see this in Boston. Almost all the journals in the\ncity are opposed to a government of all the people, by all the people,\nfor all the people. Take an example from the free soil movement, which,\nso far as it goes, is democratic. I am told that of the twenty-one\njournals in Massachusetts that call themselves \"democratic,\" eighteen\nfavor the free soil movement, more or less; and that the three which do\nnot are all in the cities. The country favors the temperance movement,\none of the most democratic of all; for rum is to the aristocracy of\ngold, what the sword once was to the aristocracy of blood; the castles\nof the baron, and the rum-shops of the capitalist, are alike fortresses\nadverse to the welfare of mankind. The temperance movement finds little\nfavor in the cities.\n\nIn the country he who works with manly hands is held in esteem; in the\ncity, in contempt. Here laboring men have no political influence, and\nlittle confidence in themselves. They have been accustomed to do as they\nwere told,--to do as their \"masters\" bid.\n\nI call a man a Tory who, for himself or for others, seeks a privilege\nadverse to the rights of mankind; who puts the accidents of men before\nthe substance of manhood. I may safely say the cities, in the main, are\nTory towns; that Boston, in this sense, is a Tory town. They are so,\njust as in the middle ages the cities were on the other side. This is\nunavoidable in our form of civilization just now. Accordingly, in all\nthe great cities of the North, slavery is in the ascendant: but, as soon\nas we get off the pavement, we come upon different ideas; freedom\nculminates and rises to the meridian.\n\nIn America the controlling class in general are superior to the majority\nin money, in consequent social standing, in energy, in practical\npolitical skill, and in intellectual development; in virtue of these\nqualities, they are the controlling class. But in general they are\ninferior to the majority of men in justice, in general humanity, and in\nreligion,--in piety and goodness. Respectability is put before Right;\nLaw before Justice; Money before God. With them religion is compliance\nwith a public hearsay and public custom; it is all of religion, but\npiety and goodness; its chief sacrament is bodily presence in a\nmeeting-house; its only sacrifice, a pew-tax. I know there are\nexceptions, and honor them all the more for being so very exceptional:\nthey are only enough to show the rule.\n\nIn the main, this controlling class governs the land by two instruments:\nthe first is the Public Law; the next is Public Opinion. The law is what\nwas once public opinion, or thought to be; is fixed, written, and\nsupposed to be understood by somebody. Public opinion is not written,\nand not fixed; but the opinion of the controlling class overrides and\ninterprets the law,--bids or forbids its execution. Public opinion can\nmake or unmake a law; interpret as it chooses, and enforce or forbid its\nexecution as it pleases.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch being the case, and such being the chief transient national desire\njust now, the controlling class consider the State as a machine to help\nthem make money. A great politician, it is said, once laid down this\nrule,--\"Take care of the rich, and the rich will take care of the\npoor.\" Perhaps he did not say that, though he did say that \"The great\nobject of government is the protection of property at home, and respect\nand renown abroad.\" Such being the case, laws are made accordingly, and\ninstitutions are modified accordingly. Let me give an example. In all\nthe towns of New England, town-money is raised by taxes on all the\npeople, and on all the property. The rich man is taxed according to his\nriches, and the poor man according to his poverty. But the national\nmoney is raised by taxation not in proportion to a man's wealth. A\nbachelor in New England, with a million dollars, pays a much smaller\nnational tax than a carpenter who has no money at all, but only ten\nchildren, the poor man's blessing. The mechanic, with a family of\ntwelve, pays more taxes than the Southern planter owning a tract of land\nas wide as the town of Worcester, with fifteen hundred slaves to till\nit. This, I say, is not an accident. It is the work of politicians, who\nknow what they are about, and think a blunder is worse than a sin; and,\nsin as they may, they do not commit such blunders as that.\n\nThis controlling class, with their dependents, their vassals, lay and\nclerical--and they have lay as well as clerical vassals, and more\nnumerous, if less subservient--keep up the institution of slavery. Two\nhundred years ago, that was the worst institution of Europe. Our\nfathers, breaking with feudal institutions in general, did not break\nwith this: they brought it over here. But when the nation, aroused for\nits hour of trial, rose up to its great Act of Prayer, and prayed the\nDeclaration of Independence, all the nation said \"Amen\" to the great\nAmerican idea therein set forth. Every Northern State reaffirms the\ndoctrine that \"All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator\nwith unalienable rights, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of\nhappiness.\" But in spite of this, and of the consciousness that it is\ntrue, while the Northern States have cast out this institution, the\nSouthern States have kept it. The nation has adopted, extended, and\nfostered it. This has been done, notwithstanding the expectation of the\npeople in 1787 that it would soon end. It has been done against the\ndesign of the Constitution, which was \"to form a more perfect Union,\nestablish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common\ndefence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of\nliberty;\" against the idea of America, that \"All men have an equal and\nunalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;\"\nagainst all religion, all humanity, all right, ay, and against the\nconscience of a majority of the people.\n\nWell, a law was passed last September, that would have been atrocious\ntwo hundred years ago: you all know it. I have no words to describe it\nby. For the last two hundred years, the English race has not invented\nan adjective adequate to describe it. The English language is used up\nand broken down by any attempt to describe it. That law was not the\ndesire of the people; and, could the nation have been polled North and\nSouth, three fourths would have said \"No!\" to the passage of that law.\nIt was not passed to obtain the value of the slaves escaped, for in\nseven months twenty slaves have not been returned! It was not a measure\nlooking to legal results, but it was a political measure, looking to\npolitical results: what those results will be we shall see in due time.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn America the controlling class is divided into two great parties: one\nis the Slave Power in the States of the South; the other is the Money\nPower in the cities of the North. There are exceptional men in both\ndivisions--men that own slaves, and yet love freedom and hate slavery.\nThere are rich men in Northern cities who do the same; all honor to\nthem. But in general it is not so; nay, it is quite otherwise. They are\nhostile to the great idea of America. Let me speak with the nicety of\ntheological speech. These two divisions are two \"Persons\" in one\n\"Power;\" there is only one \"Nature\" in both, one \"Will.\" If not the same\nnature, it is a like nature: Homoi-ousia, if not Homo-ousia! The\nFugitive Slave Law was the act of the two \"Persons,\" representing the\nsame \"Nature,\" and the same \"Will.\" It was the result of a union of the\nSlave Power of the South with the Money Power of the North: the\nPhilistines and the Hebrews ploughed with the same heifer.\n\nThere is sometimes an excuse or a palliation for a wicked deed. There\nwas something like one for the \"Gag Law,\" the \"Alien and Sedition Law,\"\nalthough there is no valid excuse for either of these laws, none to\nscreen their author from deserved reproach. There is no excuse for the\nFugitive Slave Law; there was no occasion for it.\n\nYou all know how it was brought about; you remember the speech of Mr.\nWebster on the 7th of March, 1850, a day set apart for the blessed\nMartyrs, Saints Perpetua and Felicitas. We all know who was the author\nof that law. It is Mr. Webster's Fugitive Slave Law! It was his\n\"thunder,\" unquestioned and unquestionable. You know what a rapid change\nwas wrought in the public opinion of the controlling classes, soon after\nits passage. First the leading whigs went over. I will not say they\nchanged their principles, God knows, not I, what principles they have, I\nwill only say they altered their \"resolutions,\" and ate their own words.\nTrue, the whigs have not all gone over. There are a few who still cling\nto the old Whig-tree, after it has been shaken and shaken, and thrashed\nand thrashed, and brushed and brushed, by politicians, as apple-trees in\nautumn. There are still a few little apples left, small and withered no\ndoubt, and not daring to show their dishonored heads just now, but still\ncontaining some precious seeds that may do service by and by. Whig\njournal after journal went over; politician after politician \"caved in\"\nand collapsed. At the sounding of the rams' horns of slavery, how quick\nthe Whig Jericho went down! Its fortresses of paper resolutions rolled\nup and blew away. Of course, men changed only after \"logical\nconviction.\" Of course, nobody expected a \"reward\" for the change, at\nleast only in the world to come. Were they not all Christians? True, on\nthe 17th of June last, seventy-five years after the battle of Bunker\nHill, Mr. Webster said in the Senate, that if the North should vote for\nthe Fugitive Slave Bill, a Tariff was expected. But that was of no\nmoment, no more than worldly riches to \"the elect.\" Of course, a man has\na right to change his opinions every ten minutes, if he has a good and\nsufficient reason. Of course, these men expected no offices under this\nor any future President! But presently the Fugitive Slave Law became a\nWhig doctrine, a test of party fidelity and fitness for office!\n\nYou all remember the \"Union\" meeting in Boston. On that occasion,\ndemocrats \"of the worst kind\" suddenly became \"respectable.\" The very\ndemocratic prince of devils was thought to be as good a \"gentleman\" as\nany in the city.\n\nIt was curious to see the effect of the Fugitive Slave Law on the\ndemocratic party. Democrat after democrat \"caved in;\" journal after\njournal went over; horse, foot, and dragoons, they went over. The\nDemocratic party North, and American Slavery South, have long been\naccustomed to accommodate themselves with the same nag after the old\nfashion of \"ride and tye.\" In the cities, democrats went over in tribes;\nentire Democratic Zabulons and Nephthalims, whole Galilees of Democratic\nGentiles, all at once saw great Whig light; and to them that sat in the\nshadow of Freedom, Slavery sprung up.\n\nThat portion of the Whig party which did not submit, became as meek, ay,\nbecame meeker even than the beast which the old prophet in the fable is\nalleged to have ridden; for, though beaten again and again,--because\nalarmed at seeing the angel of Freedom that bars the way before the\ngreat Whig Balaam, who has been bidden by his master to go forth and\ncurse the people of the Lord,--it dares not open its mouth and say,\n\"What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three\ntimes?\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut when such a law is hostile to the feelings of a majority of the\npeople, to their conscience and their religion, how shall we get the law\nexecuted? That is a hard matter. In Russia and in Austria it would be\nvery easy. Russia has an army five hundred or eight hundred thousand\nstrong; and that army is ready. But here there is no such army. True,\nthe President asked Congress to give him greater power, and the answer\ncame from the Slave party South, not from the Money party North, \"No!\nyou have more now than you know how to use.\" Failing in this attempt,\nwhat was to be done that the law might be executed? Two things must be\ndone: A false idea must persuade the people to allow it to be done; Base\nmen must be found to do it. A word upon each point.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI. The false idea is set on foot, that the people are morally bound to\nobey any law which is made until it is repealed. General Haynau wrote a\nletter, not long ago, to the subalterns in the Austrian army, and thus\nquoth he: \"You are bound to obey the law. It is none of your business\nwhether the law is constitutional or not; that is our affair.\" So went\nit with our officers here. We are told that there is \"no such thing as a\nhigher law,\" \"no rule of conduct better than that enacted by the law of\nthe land.\" Conscience is only to tell you to keep the statutes. Religion\nconsists in \"fearing God and serving the king.\" You are told that\nreligion bids you to \"fear God and keep the commandments,\" no matter\nwhat these commandments may be. No matter whether it be King Ahab, or\nKing Peter the Cruel: you are told,--\"Mr. Republican, what right have\nyou to question the constitutionality or justice of any thing? Your\nbusiness is to keep the law.\" Religion is a very excellent thing, quotes\nMr. Webster, except when it interferes in politics; then it makes men\nmad.\n\nIt is instructive to see the different relations which religion has\nsustained to law, at different periods of the world's history. At some\nother time I may dwell more at length upon this; now I will say but one\nword. At the beginning, religion takes precedence of law. Before there\nis any human government, man bows himself to the Source of law, and\naccepts his rule of conduct from his God. By and by, some more definite\nrule is needed, and wise men make human laws; but they pretend to derive\nthese from a divine source. All the primitive lawgivers, Moses, Minos,\nZaleucus, Numa, and the rest, speak in the name of God. For a long time,\nlaw comes up to religion for aid and counsel. At length law and\nreligion, both imperfect, are well established in society, religion\nbeing the elder sister; both act as guardians of mankind. Institution\nafter institution rises up, all of them baptized by religion and\nconfirmed by law, taking the sacrament from the hands of each. At length\nit comes to pass that law seeks to turn religion out of doors.\nPoliticians, intoxicated with ambition, giddy with power, and sometimes\nalso drunk with strong drink, make a statute which outrages all the\ndictates of humanity, and then insist that it is the duty of sober men\nto renounce religion for the sake of keeping the wicked statute of the\npoliticians. All tyrants have done so!\n\nIn the North, the majority of men think that the law of man is\nsubordinate to religion--the statutes of man beneath the law of God;\nthat as ethics, personal morals, are amenable to conscience, so\npolitics, national morals, are amenable to the same conscience; and that\nreligion has much to do with national as with individual life. Depend\nupon it, that idea is the safeguard of the State and of the law. It will\npreserve it, purify it, and keep it; but it will scourge every wicked\nlaw out of the temple of justice with iron whips, if need be. Depend\nupon it, when we lose our hold of that idea, all hope of order is gone.\nBut there is no danger; we are pretty well persuaded, that the law of\nGod is a little greater than the statute of an accidental president\nunintentionally chosen for four years. When we think otherwise, we may\ncount our case hopeless, and give up all.\n\nBut with the controlling class of men it is not so. They tell us that we\nmust keep any law, constitutional or not, legal or not, just or unjust:\nfirst, that we must submit passively, and let the government execute it;\nnext, we must actively obey it, and with alacrity when called upon to\nexecute it ourselves. This doctrine is the theory advanced in most of\nthe newspapers of Boston. It is preached in some of the pulpits, though,\nthank God! not in all.\n\nThis doctrine appears in the charge of the Judge of the Circuit Court to\nthe grand jury.[27] I believe that judge to be a good and excellent and\nhonorable man; I never heard a word to the contrary, and I am glad to\nthink that it is so.[28] I have to deal only with his opinions; not with\nhis theoretic doctrines of law, of which latter I profess to know\nnothing; but with the theoretic doctrines of morality he lays down. Of\nmorality I do profess to know something.\n\nHe says some excellent things in his charge, which I am glad were said.\nHe is modest in some places, and moderate in others. He does not think\nthat a dozen black men taking a fugitive out of court are guilty of\n\"levying war,\" and therefore should be hanged, drawn, and quartered, if\nyou can catch them. All honor to his justice. He does not say, as the\nSecretary of State, that we must suppress discussion and stop agitation.\nHe says we may agitate as much as we have a mind to; may not only speak\nagainst a law, but may declaim against it, which is to speak strongly. I\nthank the judge for this respect for the Constitution. But with regard\nto the higher and lower law, he has some peculiar opinions. He supposes\na case: that the people ask him, \"Which shall we obey, the law of man or\nthe law of God?\" He says, \"I answer, obey both. The incompatibility\nwhich the question assumes does not exist.\"\n\nSo, then, here is a great general rule, that between the \"law of man\"\nand the \"will of God\" there is no incompatibility, and we must \"obey\nboth.\" Now let us see how this rule will work.\n\nIf I am rightly informed, King Ahab made a law that all the Hebrews\nshould serve Baal, and it was the will of God that they should serve the\nLord.--According to this rule of the judge, they must \"obey both.\" But\nif they served Baal, they could not serve the Lord. In such a case,\n\"what is to be done?\"--We are told that Elijah gathered the prophets\ntogether; \"and he came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye?\nIf the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.\" Our\nmodern prophet says, \"Obey both. The incompatibility which the question\nassumes does not exist.\" Such is the difference between Judge Elijah and\nJudge Peleg.\n\nLet us see how this rule will work in other cases; how you can make a\ncompromise between two opposite doctrines. The king of Egypt commanded\nthe Hebrew nurses, \"When you do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew\nwomen, if it be a son ye shall kill him.\" I suppose it is plain to the\nJudge of the Circuit Court that this kind of murder, killing the\nnew-born infants, is against \"the will of God;\" but it is a matter of\nrecord that it was according to \"the law of man.\" Suppose the Hebrew\nnurses had come to ask Judge Sprague for his advice. He must have said,\n\"Obey both!\" His rule is a universal one.\n\nAnother decree was once made as it is said, in the Old Testament, that\nno man should ask any petition of any God for thirty days, save of the\nking, on penalty of being cast into the den of lions. Suppose Daniel--I\nmean the old Daniel, the prophet--should have asked him, What is to be\ndone? Should he pray to Darius or pray to God? \"Obey both!\" would be the\nanswer. But he cannot, for he is forbid to pray to God. We know what\nDaniel did do.\n\nThe elders and scribes of Jerusalem commanded the Christians not to\nspeak or to teach at all in the name of Jesus; but Peter and John asked\nthose functionaries, \"Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken\nunto you more than unto God, judge ye.\" Our judge must have said, There\nis no \"incompatibility;\" \"obey both!\" What \"a comfortable Scripture\"\nthis would have been to poor John Bunyan! What a great ethical doctrine\nto St. Paul! He did not know such Christianity as that. Before this time\na certain man had said, \"No man can serve two masters.\" But there was\none person who made the attempt, and he also is eminent in history. Here\nwas \"the will of God,\" to do to others as you would have others do to\nyou: \"Love thy neighbor as thyself.\" Here is the record of \"the law of\nman:\" \"Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a\ncommandment, that, if any man knew where he [Jesus] were, he should show\nit that they might take him.\" Judas, it seems, determined to \"obey\nboth,\"--\"the law of man\" and \"the will of God.\"--So he sat with Jesus at\nthe Last Supper, dipped his hand in the same dish, and took a morsel\nfrom the hand of Christ, given him in token of love. All this he did to\nobey \"the will of God.\" Then he went and informed the Commissioner or\nMarshal where Jesus was. This he did to obey \"the law of man.\" Then he\ncame back, and found Christ,--the agony all over, the bloody sweat wiped\noff from his brow, presently to bleed again,--the Angel of Strength\nthere with him to comfort him. He was arousing his sleeping disciples\nfor the last time, and was telling them, \"Pray, lest ye enter into\ntemptation.\"--Judas came and gave him a kiss. To the eleven it seemed\nthe friendly kiss, obeying \"the will of God.\" To the Marshal it also\nseemed a friendly kiss,--obeying \"the law of man.\" So, in the same act,\nhe obeys \"the law of God\" and \"the will of man,\" and there is no\n\"incompatibility!\"\n\nOf old it was said, \"Thou canst not serve God and mammon.\" He that said\nit, has been thought to know something of morals,--something of\nreligion.\n\nTill the fugitive slave law was passed, we did not know what a great\nsaint Iscariot was. I think there ought to be a chapel for him, and a\nday set apart in the calendar. Let him have his chapel in the navy-yard\nat Washington. He has got a priest there already. And for a day in the\ncalendar--set apart for all time the seventh of March!\n\nLet us look at some other things in that Judge's address to the grand\njury. \"Unjust and oppressive laws may indeed be passed by human\ngovernment. But if infinite and inscrutable Wisdom permits political\nsociety ... to establish such laws, may not the same Wisdom permit and\nrequire individuals ... to obey them?\" Ask the prophets in such a case,\nif they would have felt themselves permitted and required to obey them!\nAsk the men who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they\nmight obtain a better resurrection; who had trial of cruel mockings and\nscourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment; who were stoned and\nsawn asunder; who were slain with the sword; who wandered about in\nsheep-skins and goat-skins, destitute, afflicted, and tormented, of whom\nthe world was not worthy! Ask the apostles, who thanked God they were\ncounted worthy to suffer shame in the name of Christ! Ask Paul, who was\neight times publicly beaten, thrice shipwrecked; and in perils of\nwaters, of robbers, of the heathen, of false brethren--that worst of all\nperil! Nay, ask Christ; let the Crucified reply,--whether, when a\nwicked law is made, and we are commanded to keep it, God means we\nshould! Ask the men who, with their ocean-wearied feet, consecrated the\nrock of Plymouth forever! Ask the patriots of the Revolution! What do\nthey say? I will not give the answer. Even the martyred Jesuits say No.\nWho is it that says Yes? Judas and the Judge. Let them go--each \"to his\nown place.\" Let me say no more of them.\n\nThis attempt to keep the people down by false doctrine, is no new thing.\nBut to say that there is no law higher than what the State can make, is\npractical atheism. It is not a denial of God in his person; that is only\nspeculative atheism. It is a denial of the functions and attributes of\nGod; that is real atheism. If there is no God to make a law for me, then\nthere is no God for me.\n\nThe law of the land is so sacred, it must override the law of God, must\nit? Let us see if all the laws of the United States are kept everywhere.\nLet a black man go to South Carolina in a ship, and we shall see. Let\nthe British minister complain that South Carolina puts British subjects\nin jail, for the color of their skin. Mr. Secretary Clayton tells him,\nWe cannot execute the laws of the United States in South Carolina. Why\nnot? Because the people of South Carolina will not allow it!\n\nAre the laws of Massachusetts kept in Boston, then? The usury law says,\nThou shalt not take more than six per cent. on thy money. Is that kept?\nThere are thirty-four millions of banking capital in Massachusetts, and\nI think that every dollar of this capital has broken this law within the\npast twelve months; and yet no complaint has been made. There are three\nor four hundred brothels in this city of Boston, and ten or twelve\nhundred shops for the sale of rum. All of them are illegal: some are as\nwell known to the police as is this house; indeed, a great deal more\nfrequented by some of them, than any house of God. Does anybody disturb\nthem? No! I have a letter from an alderman who furnishes me with facts\nof this nature, who says, that \"Some of the low places are prosecuted,\nsome broken up.\" Last Saturday night, the very men who guarded Mr. Sims,\nI am told, were playing cards in his prison-house, contrary to the laws\nof Massachusetts. In Court Square, in front of the court-house, is a\nrum-shop, one of the most frequented in the city, open at all hours of\nthe day, and, for aught I know, of the night too. I never passed when\nits \"fire was quenched,\" and its \"worm\" dead. Is its owner prosecuted?\nHow many laws of Massachusetts have been violated this very week, in\nthis very city, by the slave-hunters here, by the very officers of the\nState? What is the meaning of this? Every law which favors the\naccumulation of money, must be kept; but those which prohibit the\nunjust accumulation of money by certain classes--they need not be\nkept.[29]\n\nNo doubt it would be a great pity to have the city government careful to\nkeep the laws of the city,--to suppress rum-shops, and save the citizens\nfrom the almshouse, the jail, and the gallows. Such laws may be executed\nat Truro and Wellfleet; but it is quite needless for the officers of\n\"The Athens of America,\" to attend to the temperance laws.[30]--What a\npity for the magistrates of Boston to heed the laws of the State! No; it\nis the fugitive slave law that they must keep.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nII. A great deal of pains has been taken to impress the people with\ntheir \"moral duty to obey the fugitive slave law.\" To carry it out,\ngovernment needs base men; and that, my brothers, is a crop which never\nfails. Rye and wheat may get blasted many times in the course of years;\nthe potato may rot; apples and peaches fail. But base men never fail.\nPut up your black pirate-flag in the market-place, offer \"money and\noffice,\" and they will come as other carrion-vultures to their prey. The\nolive, the fig, and the orange are limited in their range; even Indian\ncorn and oats will not grow everywhere; but base men are indigenous all\nthe world over, between the tropics, and under a polar sky. No bad\nscheme ever failed for lack of bad men to carry it out. Do you want to\nkill Baptists and Quakers in Boston? There are the men for you. To hang\n\"witches\" at Salem? There are hangmen in plenty on Gallows Hill. Would\nJames the Second butcher his subjects? He found his \"human\" tools ready.\nWould Elizabeth murder the Puritans and Catholics? There was no lack of\nruffians. Would bloody Mary burn the Protestants? There were more\nexecutioners than victims. Would the Spanish Inquisition torture and put\nto death the men for whom Christ died? She found priests and\n\"gentlemen,\" ready for their office. Would Nero murder the Christians,\nand make a spectacle of their sufferings? Rome is full of scoundrels to\ndo the deed, and teems with spectators rushing to the amphitheatre at\nthe cry of \"Christians to the Lions!\" all finding a holiday in their\nbrothers' agony. Would the high-priests crucify the Son of man? They\nfound a commissioner to issue the mandate, a marshal to enforce it, a\ncommissioner to try him by illegal process,--for the process against\nChrist was almost as unconstitutional as that against Sims,--they found\na commissioner ready to condemn Christ, against his own conscience,\nsoldiers ready to crucify him. Ay! and there was a Peter to deny him,\nand a Judas to betray, and now there is a judge with his legal ethics,\nto justify the betrayal! I promised not to speak of Judas or the judge\nagain, but they will come up before me! It is true, that, if in Boston,\nsome judicial monster should wish to seethe a man in a pot of scalding\nwater, he would find another John Boilman in Boston, as Judge Jeffries\nfound one in England, in 1686.\n\nThe churches of New England, and the North, have had their trials. In my\ntime they have been tried in various ways. The temperance reformation\ntried them. They have had perils on account of slavery. The Mexican war\ntried them; the fugitive slave law has put them to the rack. But, never\nin my day, have the churches been so sorely tried, nor done so well as\nnow. The very letter of the New Testament on the one side, and of the\nOld Testament on the other, both condemned the law; the spirit of them\nboth was against all slavery.\n\nThere are two great sects in Christendom,--the churches of Christianity,\nand the churches of commerce. The churches of Christianity always do\nwell: they think that religion is love to God, and love to man. But the\nchurches of commerce, which know no higher law, what should they do?\nSome of the ministers of the churches of commerce were wholly silent.\nWhy so? The poor ministers were very modest all at once. Now, modesty is\na commendable virtue; but see how it works. Here is a man who has given\nhis mind ten, twenty, or thirty years to the study of theology, and\nknows every Hebrew particle of the Old Testament, and every Greek\nparticle of the New Testament, as well as he knows the Lord's Prayer;\nevery great work on the subject of Christianity, from Nicodemus down to\nNorton. Let him come out and say that the Old Testament was written like\nother books; let him say that the miracles of the Old and New Testament\nare like the miracles of the Popish legends; then, ministers in their\npulpits, who never studied theology or philosophy, or pretended to\nstudy, only to know, the historical development of religion in the\nworld,--they will come down instantly upon our poor man, call his\ndoctrines \"false,\" and call him an \"infidel,\" an \"atheist.\" But let a\nrich parishioner, or a majority of the rich parishioners, be in favor of\nthe fugitive slave law, and all at once the minister is very modest\nindeed. He says to his people, by silence or by speech, \"I do not\nunderstand these things; but you, my people, who all your lives are\nengaged in making money and nothing else, and worship mammon and nothing\nelse, you understand them a great deal better than I do. My modesty\nforbids me to speak. Let us pray!\"[31]\n\nSome ministers have been silent; others have spoken out in favor of the\nlower law, and in derision of the higher law. Here is a famous minister,\nthe very chief of his denomination, reported in the newspapers to have\nsaid that he would surrender his own mother to slavery rather than have\nthe Union dissolved! I believe him this time. A few years ago, that\nminister printed, in the organ of his sect, that the existence of God\nwas \"not a certainty!\" He did not mean to say that he doubted or\ndisbelieved it, only that it was \"not a certainty!\" I should suppose\nthat he had gone further in that direction, and thought the\nnon-existence of God was \"a certainty.\" But he is not quite original in\nthis proposed sacrifice. He has been preceded and outbid by a Spanish\nCatholic. Here is the story in Senor de Castro's History of the Spanish\nProtestants, written this very year. I can tell the story shorter than\nit is there related. In 1581, there lived a man in Valladolid, who had\ntwo Protestant daughters, being himself a Catholic. The Inquisition was\nin full blast, and its fiery furnace heated seven times hotter than\nbefore. This man, according to the commandment of the priests and Pope,\ncomplained to the inquisitors against his daughters, who were summoned\nto appear before them. They were tried, and condemned to be burned\nalive, at his suggestion. He furnished the accusation, brought forward\nthe evidence, and was the only witness in the case. That was not all.\nAfter this condemnation, he went round his own estates, and from\nselected trees cut down morsels of wood, and carried them to the city\nto use in burning his own daughters. He was allowed to do this, and of\ncourse the priest commended him for his piety and love of God! Thus, in\n1581, in Valladolid, a father at noon-day, with wood from his own\nestate, on his own complaint and evidence, with his own hands, burned\nhis two daughters alive; and the Catholic Church said, Well done! Now,\nin my opinion, the Hidalgo of Valladolid a little surpasses the\nUnitarian Doctor of Divinity. I do not know what \"recompense of reward\"\nthe Spanish Hidalgo got for his deed; but the American divine, for his\noffer, has been put into \"one of the priests' offices, that he might eat\na piece of bread.\" He has been appointed, as the newspapers say, a\nChaplain of the Navy at Washington. Verily he has his reward.\n\nBut there have been found men in Boston to go a little further. Last\nThanksgiving Day, I said it would be difficult to find a magistrate in\nBoston to take the odium of sending a fugitive back to slavery. I\nbelieved, after all, men had some conscience, although they talked about\nits being a duty to deliver up a man to bondage. Pardon me, my country,\nthat I rated you too high! Pardon me, town of Boston, that I thought\nyour citizens all men! Pardon me, lawyers, that I thought you had been\nall born of mothers! Pardon me, ruffians, who kill for hire! I thought\nyou had some animal mercy left, even in your bosom! Pardon me, United\nStates' commissioners, marshals, and the like, I thought you all had\nsome shame! Pardon me, my hearers, for such mistakes. One commissioner\nwas found to furnish the warrant! Pardon me, I did not know he was a\ncommissioner; if I had, I never would have said it!\n\nSpirits of tyrants, I look down to you! Shade of Cain, you great first\nmurderer, forgive me that I forgot your power, and did not remember that\nyou were parent of so long a line! And you, my brethren, if hereafter I\ntell you that there is any limit of meanness or wickedness which a\nYankee will not jump over, distrust me, and remind me of this day, and I\nwill take it back!\n\nLet us look at the public conduct of any commissioner who will send an\ninnocent man from Boston into slavery. I would speak of all men\ncharitably; for I know how easy it is to err, yea, to sin. I can look\ncharitably on thieves, prowling about in darkness; on rumsellers, whom\npoverty compels to crime; on harlots, who do the deed of shame that holy\nwoman's soul abhors and revolts at; I can pity the pirate, who scours\nthe seas doing his fiendish crimes--he is tempted, made desperate by a\ngradual training in wickedness. The man, born at the South, owning\nslaves, who goes to Africa and sells adulterated rum in exchange for men\nto retail at Cuba,--I cannot understand the consciousness of such a man;\nyet I can admit that by birth and by breeding he has become so\nimbruted, he knows no better. Nay, even that he may perhaps justify his\nconduct to himself. I say I think his sin is not so dreadful as that of\na commissioner in Boston who sends a man into slavery. A man commits a\nmurder, inflamed by jealousy, goaded by desire of great gain, excited by\nfear, stung by malice, or poisoned by revenge, and it is a horrid thing.\nBut to send a man into slavery is worse than to murder him. I should\nrather be slain than enslaved. To do this, inflamed by no jealousy,\ngoaded by no desire of great gain,--only ten dollars!--excited by no\nfear, stung by no special malice, poisoned by no revenge,--I cannot\ncomprehend that in any man, not even in a hyena. Beasts that raven for\nblood do not kill for killing's sake, but to feed their flesh. Forgive\nme, O ye wolves and hyenas! that I bring you into such company. I can\nonly understand it in a devil!\n\nWhen a man bred in Massachusetts, whose Constitution declares that \"All\nmen are born free and equal;\" within sight of Faneuil Hall, with all its\nsacred memories; within two hours of Plymouth Rock; within a single hour\nof Concord and Lexington; in sight of Bunker Hill,--when he will do such\na deed, it seems to me that there is no life of crime long enough to\nprepare a man for such a pitch of depravity; I should think he must have\nbeen begotten in sin, and conceived in iniquity, and been born \"with a\ndog's head on his shoulders;\" that the concentration of the villany of\nwhole generations of scoundrels would hardly be enough to fit a man for\na deed like this!\n\nYou know the story of Thomas Sims. He crept on board a Boston vessel at\nSavannah. Perhaps he had heard of Boston, nay, even of Faneuil Hall, of\nthe old Cradle of Liberty, and thought this was a Christian town, at\nleast human, and hoped here to enjoy the liberty of a man. When the ship\narrived here, the first words he spoke were, \"Are we up there?\" He was\nseized by a man who at the court-house boasted of his cruelty towards\nhim, who held him by the hair, and kept him down, seeking to kidnap and\ncarry him back into slavery. He escaped!\n\nBut a few weeks pass by: the man-stealers are here; the commissioner\nissues his warrant; the marshals serve it in the night. Last Thursday\nnight,--when odious beasts of prey, that dare not face the light of\nheaven, prowl through the woods,--those ruffians of the law seized on\ntheir brother-man. They lie to the bystanders, and seize him on a false\npretence. There is their victim--they hold him fast. His faithless knife\nbreaks in his hand; his coat is rent to pieces. He is the slave of\nBoston.[32] Can you understand his feelings? Let us pass by that. His\n\"trial!\" Shall I speak of that? He has been five days on trial for more\nthan life, and has not seen a judge! A jury? No,--only a commissioner! O\njustice! O republican America! Is this the liberty of Massachusetts?\n\nWhere shall I find a parallel with men who will do such a deed,--do it\nin Boston? I will open the tombs, and bring up most hideous tyrants from\nthe dead. Come, brood of monsters, let me bring you up from the deep\ndamnation of the graves wherein your hated memories continue for all\ntime their never-ending rot. Come, birds of evil omen! come, ravens,\nvultures, carrion-crows, and see the spectacle! come, see the meeting of\ncongenial souls! I will disturb, disquiet, and bring up the greatest\nmonsters of the human race! Tremble not, women; tremble not, children;\ntremble not, men! They are all dead! They cannot harm you now! Fear the\nliving, not the dead.\n\nCome hither, Herod the wicked. Thou that didst seek after that young\nchild's life, and destroyedst the Innocents! Let me look on thy face!\nNo; go! Thou wert a heathen! Go, lie with the Innocents thou hast\nmassacred. Thou art too good for this company!\n\nCome, Nero! Thou awful Roman Emperor! Come up! No; thou wast drunk with\npower! schooled in Roman depravity. Thou hadst, besides, the example of\nthy fancied gods! Go, wait another day. I will seek a worser man.\n\nCome hither, St. Dominic! come, Torquemada!--Fathers of the Inquisition!\nMerciless monsters, seek your equal here! No; pass by! You are no\ncompanions for such men as these! You were the servants of atheistic\npopes, of cruel kings. Go to, and get you gone. Another time I may have\nwork for you,--not now; lie there and persevere to rot. You are not yet\nquite wicked and corrupt enough for this comparison. Go, get ye gone,\nlest the sun turn back at sight of ye!\n\nCome up, thou heap of wickedness, George Jeffries!--thy hands deep\npurple with the blood of thy murdered fellow men! Ah, I know thee! awful\nand accursed shade! Two hundred years after thy death, men hate thee\nstill, not without cause! Let me look upon thee! I know thy history.\nPause and be still, while I tell it to these men.\n\nBrothers, George Jeffries \"began in the sedition line.\" \"There was no\nact, however bad, that he would not resort to to get on.\" \"He was of a\nbold aspect, and cared not for the countenance of any man.\" \"He became\nthe avowed, unblushing slave of the court, and the bitter persecutor and\nunappeasable enemy of the principles he had before supported.\" He \"was\nuniversally insolent and over-bearing.\" \"As a judge, he did not consider\nthe decencies of his post, nor did he so much as affect to be\nimpartial, as became a judge.\" His face and voice were always unamiable.\n\"All tenderness for the feelings of others, all self-respect were\nobliterated from his mind.\" He had \"a delight in misery, merely as\nmisery,\" and \"that temper which tyrants require in their worst\ninstruments.\" \"He made haste to sell his forehead of brass and his\ntongue of venom to the court.\" He had \"more impudence than ten carted\nstreet-walkers;\" and was appropriately set to a work \"which could be\ntrusted to no man who reverenced law, or who was sensible of shame.\" He\nwas a \"Commissioner\" in 1685. You know of the \"Bloody assizes\" which he\nheld, and how he sent to execution three hundred and twenty persons in a\nsingle circuit. \"The whole country was strewed with the heads and limbs\nof his victims.\" Yet a man wrote that \"A little more hemp might have\nbeen usefully employed.\" He was the worst of the English judges. \"There\nwas no measure, however illegal, to the execution of which he did not\ndevotedly and recklessly abandon himself.\" \"During the Stuart reigns,\nEngland was cursed by a succession of ruffians in ermine, who, for the\nsake of court favor, wrested the principles of law, the precepts of\nreligion, and the duties of humanity; but they were all greatly\noutstripped by Jeffries.\" Such is his history.\n\nCome, shade of a judicial butcher! Two hundred years thy name has been\npilloried in face of the world, and thy memory gibbeted before mankind!\nLet us see how thou wilt compare with those who kidnap men in Boston! Go\nseek companionship with them! Go claim thy kindred, if such they be! Go\ntell them that the memory of the wicked shall rot,--that there is a God;\nan Eternity; ay! and a Judgment too! where the slave may appeal against\nhim that made him a slave, to Him that made him a man.\n\nWhat! Dost thou shudder? Thou turn back? These not thy kindred! Why dost\nthou turn pale, as when the crowd clutched at thy life in London Street?\nIt is true, George Jeffries, and these are not thy kin. Forgive me that\nI should send thee on such an errand, or bid thee seek companionship\nwith such--with Boston hunters of the slave! Thou wert not base enough!\nIt was a great bribe that tempted thee! Again I say, pardon me for\nsending thee to keep company with such men! Thou only struckst at men\naccused of crime; not at men accused only of their birth! Thou wouldst\nnot send a man into bondage for two pounds! I will not rank thee with\nmen who, in Boston, for ten dollars, would enslave a negro now! Rest\nstill, Herod! Be quiet, Nero! Sleep, St. Dominic, and sleep, O\nTorquemada! in your fiery jail! Sleep, Jeffries, underneath \"the altar\nof the church\" which seeks with Christian charity to hide your hated\nbones.\n\n\"But,\" asks a looker-on, \"What is all this for?\" Oh! to save the Union.\n\"A precious Union which needs a saving such as this! And who are to rend\nthe Union asunder?\" Why, men that hate slavery and love freedom for all\nmankind. \"Is this the way to make them love the Union and slavery, and\nhate freedom for all mankind?\" We know none better. \"What sort of a\nmeasure is this fugitive slave law?\" Oh! it is a \"peace measure.\" Don't\nyou see how well it works? how quiet the city? in the country not a\nmouse stirring? There will not be a word against the peace measure in\nall New England on this Fast Day. Blessed are the peace-makers, saith\nLord! \"But you have great warrant for such deeds?\" Oh yes, the best in\nthe world,--the example of Washington. He also \"saved the Union.\" \"So\nmen blaspheme.\"\n\nLet me tell you a little of that great man. Shortly after the passage of\nthe law of 1793, a favorite female slave of Washington's wife ran away\nfrom the President of the new republic, and went into New Hampshire. She\nlived at Portsmouth. Washington wrote to Mr. Whipple, a United States'\nmarshal, I think, or, at any rate, an officer of the United States,\nsaying that he should like to have the woman sent back to him, if it\ncould be done without tumult, and without shocking the principles and\nthe feelings of the people. He added that the slave was a favorite of\nhis wife. Mr. Whipple wrote back, and said,--It cannot be done without\ntumult, nor without shocking the principles and feelings of the people.\nWashington said no more! The woman died at a great age, a few years ago,\nat Portsmouth. That was the example of Washington,--the man who at his\ndeath freed his slaves! Would to God he had done it before! But they\nthat come at the eleventh hour shall never be cast out from my charity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSee what is the consequence of this measure! See what has been the\ncondition of Boston for the past week! Read the mingled truth and lies\nin the newspapers; look at men's faces in the street; listen to their\ntalk; see the court-house in chains; see one hundred policemen on guard,\nand three companies of military picketed in Faneuil Hall; behold the\npeople shut out from the courts--I will not say of justice! See the\nofficers of Massachusetts made slave-hunters--against the law;\nconstitutional rights struck down--against the law; sheriffs refusing to\nserve writs--against the law; see the great civil rights our fathers\ngained five hundred years ago, the trial by jury, by our \"peers,\" by the\n\"law of the land,\" all cloven down; the writ of \"personal replevin\" made\nnull--no sheriff daring to execute a law made to suit such a case as\nthis, made but eight years ago! Where is your high Sheriff? Where is\nyour Governor? See the judges of Massachusetts bend beneath that chain;\nsee them bow down, one by one, and kneel, and creep, and cringe, and\ncrouch, and crawl, under the chain! Note the symbol! That was the chain\non the neck of the Commonwealth, visible on the necks of the judges as\nthey entered the Bastile of Boston,--the Barracoon of Boston! A few\nyears ago, they used to tell us, \"Slavery is an abstraction;\" \"we at the\nNorth have nothing to do with it,\" Now liberty is only an abstraction!\nHere is a note just handed me in the pulpit:--\n\n     \"Marshal Tukey told me this morning, that his orders were\n     _not merely to keep the peace_, but to _assist the United\n     States' marshal in detaining and transporting the slave_;\n     that he _knew he was violating the State law, as well as I\n     did_; but it was not his responsibility, but that of the\n     Mayor and Aldermen. I thought you might like to know this.\"\n\nWell, my brethren, I know Boston has seen sad days before now. When the\nstamp act came here in our fathers' time, it was a sad day; they tolled\nthe bells all over town, and Mayhew wished \"they were cut off that\ntrouble you.\" It was a sad day when the tea came here, although, when it\nwent down the stream, all the hills of New England laughed. And it was a\nsadder day still, the 17th of June, 1775, when our fathers fought and\nbled on yonder hill, all red from battle at Concord and Lexington, and\npoured sheeted death into the ranks of their enemies, while the\ninhabitants of this town lifted up their hands, but could not go to\nassist their brethren in the field; and when, to crown all their\nsadness, they saw four hundred of the houses of their sister town go up\nin flames to heaven, and could not lend a helping hand! A sadder day\nwhen they fired one hundred guns in Boston for the passage of the\nfugitive slave law. It was the saddest day of all, when a man was\nkidnapped in Boston by the men of Boston, and your court-house hung with\nchains.\n\nIt was not from the tyrants of the other side of the world that this\ntrouble came!\n\nIf you could have seen what I have this morning, at sunrise, one hundred\nof the police of this city, contrary to the laws of the State, drilling\nwith drawn swords, to learn to guard a man whilst he should be carried\ninto bondage! And who do you suppose was at their head? A man bearing an\nhonorable name--Samuel Adams! Tell it not in Massachusetts; let not your\nchildren hear of this, lest they curse the mothers that bore them. It is\nwell that we should have a day of fasting and humiliation and prayer,\nwhen such things are done here.\n\nWell, my brethren, these are only the beginning of sorrows. There will\nbe other victims yet; this will not settle the question. What shall we\ndo? I think I am a calm man and a cool man, and I have a word or two to\nsay as to what we shall do. Never obey the law. Keep the law of God.\nNext I say, resist not evil with evil; resist not now with violence. Why\ndo I say this? Will you tell me that I am a coward? Perhaps I am; at\nleast I am not afraid to be called one. Why do I say, then, do not now\nresist with violence? Because it is not time just yet; it would not\nsucceed. If I had the eloquence that I sometimes dream of, which goes\ninto a crowd of men, and gathers it in its mighty arm, and sways them as\nthe pendent boughs of yonder elm shall be shaken by the summer breeze\nnext June, I would not give that counsel. I would call on men, and lift\nup my voice like a trumpet through the whole land, until I had gathered\nmillions out of the North and the South, and they should crush slavery\nforever, as the ox crushes the spider underneath his feet. But such\neloquence is given to no man. It was not given to the ancient Greek who\n\"shook the arsenal and fulmined over Greece.\" He that so often held the\nnobles and the mob of Rome within his hand, had it not. He that spoke as\nnever man spake, and who has since gathered two hundred millions to his\nname, had it not. No man has it. The ablest must wait for time! It is\nidle to resist here and now. It is not the hour. If in 1765 they had\nattempted to carry out the Revolution by force, they would have failed.\nHad it failed, we had not been here to-day. There would have been no\nlittle monument at Lexington \"sacred to liberty and the rights of\nmankind,\" honoring the men who \"fell in the cause of God and their\ncountry.\" No little monument at Concord; nor that tall pile of eloquent\nstone at Bunker Hill, to proclaim that \"Resistance to tyrants is\nobedience to God.\" Success is due to the discretion, heroism, calmness,\nand forbearance of our fathers: let us wait our time. It will\ncome--perhaps will need no sacrifice of blood.\n\nResist, then, by peaceful means; not with evil, but with good. Hold the\nmen infamous that execute this law; give them your pity, but never give\nthem your trust, not till they repent. Then swiftly forgive. Agitate,\ndiscuss, petition, and elect to office men whom you can trust; not men\nwho never show their face in the day of darkness and of peril. Choose\nmen that are men.\n\nI suppose that this man will be carried back to slavery. The law of the\nUnited States has been cloven down; the law of Massachusetts cloven\ndown. If we have done all that we can we must leave the result to God.\nIt is something that a man can only be kidnapped in Boston by riding\nover the law, and can only be tried in a court-house surrounded by\nchains, when the crouching judges crawl under the iron of slavery to\nenter their house of bondage; that even on Fast Day it is guarded by one\nhundred police, and three companies of military are picketed in Faneuil\nHall--the \"Sims Brigade!\"[33]\n\nThe Christians saw Christ crucified, and looked on from afar; sad, but\nimpotent. The Christians at Rome saw their brethren martyred, and could\nnot help them: they were too weak. But the blood of martyrs is the seed\nof the church. To-day is St. Bademus' Day: three hundred and seventy-six\nyears after Christ, that precious saint was slain because he would not\nkeep the commandment of the king. By crucified redeemers shall mankind\nbe saved. If we cannot prevent crucifixion, let us wait for the\nredemption.\n\nShall I ask you to despair of human liberty and rights? I believe that\nmoney is to triumph for the present. We see it does in Boston,\nPhiladelphia, New York, and Washington: see this in the defence of\nbribery; in the chains of the court-house; in the judges' pliant necks;\nin the swords of the police to-day; see it in the threats of the press\nto withdraw the trade of Boston from towns that favor the unalienable\nrights of man!\n\nWill the Union hold out? I know not that. But, if men continue to\nenforce the fugitive slave law, I do not know how soon it will end; I do\nnot care how soon the Union goes to pieces. I believe in Justice and the\nLaw of God; that ultimately the right will prevail. Wrong will prevail\nfor a time, and attract admiration. I have seen in a haberdasher's\nshop-window the figure of a wooden woman showily arrayed, turning round\non a pivot, and attracting the gaze of all the passers-by; but ere long\nit is forgotten. So it will be with this transient love of slavery in\nBoston; but the love of right will last as long as the granite in New\nHampshire hills. I will not tell you to despair of freedom because\npoliticians are false; they are often so. Despair of freedom for the\nblack man! No, never. Not till heaven shakes down its stars; nay, not\ntill the heart of man ceases to yearn for liberty; not till the eternal\nGod is hurled from his throne, and a devil takes his place! All the arts\nof wicked men shall not prevail against the Father; nay, at last, not\nagainst the Son.\n\nThe very scenes we have witnessed here,--the Court-House in chains,--the\nLaws of Massachusetts despised,--the Commonwealth disgraced,--these\nspeak to the people with an eloquence beyond all power of human speech.\nHere is great argument for our cause. This work begets new foes to every\nform of wrong. There is a day after to-day,--an eternity after\nto-morrow. Let us be courageous and active, but cool and tranquil, and\nfull of hope.\n\nThese are the beginning of sorrows; we shall have others, and trials.\nContinued material prosperity is commonly bad for a man, always for a\nnation. I think the time is coming when there will be a terrible contest\nbetween liberty and slavery. Now is the time to spread ideas, not to\nbear arms. I know which will triumph: the present love of thraldom is\nonly an eddy in the great river of the nation's life; by and by it will\npass down the stream and be forgot. Liberty will spread with us, as the\nspring over the New England hills. One spot will blossom, and then\nanother, until at last the spring has covered the whole land, and every\nmountain rejoices in its verdant splendor.\n\nO Boston! thou wert once the prayer and pride of all New England men,\nand holy hands were laid in baptism on thy baby brow! Thou art\ndishonored now; thou hast taken to thy arms the enemies of men. Thou\nhast betrayed the slave; thy brother's blood cries out against thee from\nthe ground. Thou art a stealer of mankind. In thy borders, for long\nyears, the Cradle of Liberty has been placed. The golden serpent of\ncommerce has twined its snaky folds about it all, and fascinated into\nsleep the child. Tread lightly, soldiers: he yet may wake. Yes, in his\ntime this child shall wake, and Boston shall scourge out the memory of\nthe men who have trodden her laws under foot, violated the dearest\ninstincts of her heart, and profaned her religion. I appeal from\nBoston, swollen with wealth, drunk with passion, and mad against\nfreedom--to Boston in her calm and sober hour.\n\nO Massachusetts, noble State, the mother that bore us all; parent of\ngoodly institutions and of noble men, whose great ideas have blessed the\nland!--how art thou denied, dishonored, and brought low! One of thine\nown hired servants has wrought this deed of shame, and rent the bosom\nwhich took him as an adopted son. Shall it be always thus? I conjure\nthee by all thy battle-fields,--by the remembrance of the great men born\nof thee, who battled for the right, thy Franklin, Hancock, the\nAdamses--three in a single name,--by thine ideas and thy love of\nGod,--to forbid forever all such deeds as this, and wipe away thy deep\ndisgrace.\n\nAmerica, thou youngest born of all God's family of States! thou art a\ngiant in thy youth, laying thine either hand upon thine either sea; the\nlakes behind thee, and the Mexique bay before. Hast thou too forgot thy\nmission here, proud only of thy wide-spread soil, thy cattle, corn, thy\ncotton, and thy cloth? Wilt thou welcome the Hungarian hero, and yet\nhold slaves, and hunt poor negroes through thy land? Thou art the ally\nof the despot, thyself out-heathening the heathen Turk. Yea, every\nChristian king may taunt thee with thy slaves. Dost thou forget thine\nown great men,--thy Washington, thy Jefferson? forget thine own proud\nwords prayed forth to God in thy great act of prayer? Is it to protect\nthy wealth alone that thou hast formed a State? and shall thy wealth be\nslaves? No, thou art mad. It shall not be. One day thou wilt heed the\nlessons of the past, practise thy prayer, wilt turn to God, and rend out\nof thy book the hated page where Slavery is writ. Thy sons who led thee\nastray in thy madness, where shall they appear?\n\nAnd thou our God, the Father of us all, Father and Mother too, Parent of\nfreemen, Parent also of the slave, look down upon us in our sad estate.\nLook down upon thy saints, and bless them; yea, bless thy sinners too;\nsave from the wicked heart. Bless this town by thy chastisement; this\nState by thine afflictions; this nation by thy rod. Teach us to resist\nevil and with good, till we break the fetters from every foot, the\nchains from every hand, and let the oppressed go free. So let thy\nkingdom come; so may thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[26] The above paragraph refers to cases which had then recently\noccurred, and were known to everybody.\n\n[27] Mr. Peleg Sprague.\n\n[28] The above paragraph was written in April, 1851, and was only\nhistorical, not also prophetic.\n\n[29] It was well known that the laws of Massachusetts were violated, but\nno prosecution of the offenders was ever begun. The committee to whom\nthe matter was referred, thought that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts\nwas not to be trusted to vindicate the laws of the State, against\nkidnappers in Boston.\n\n[30] In November, 1851, the City Marshal reports to the Board of\nAldermen, the following facts:--There are fifteen hundred places in\nBoston, where intoxicating drinks are sold, in violation of the laws of\nMassachusetts.\n\n    Kept by Americans,                       490\n    Kept by foreigners,                     1010\n    Open on Sunday,                          979\n    Groceries that keep intoxicating drink,  469\n    Other places,                           1031\n\nAll the \"First class hotels,\" except four, have open bars, for the sale\nof intoxicating drink. The government of Boston, which violated the laws\nof Massachusetts, to kidnap a man, and deliver him to his tormentors,\nasks the city marshal to give such information as is calculated to check\nthe progress of crime and intemperance. He reports--\"Execute the laws!\"\nIn 1851, Boston has the honor of kidnapping one of her inhabitants, and\nsending him to slavery, and of supporting fifteen hundred rum-shops, in\ncontinual violation of the laws of Massachusetts.\n\n[31] While these volumes are getting printed, one of the sectarian\nnewspapers of Boston publishes the following paragraph:--\n\n\"The English railways are all in use on the Sabbath, and all evidently\nunder a curse. Their stock is ruinously low. Three hundred and fifty\nmillions of dollars have been embarked in these enterprises, and the\naverage dividends which they pay is but three per cent. And more than\nthis, a large number of fatal accidents have occurred of late. While we\nregret that the business men of England, who control these lines, have\nnot wisdom enough to see the folly of making haste to be rich, in\ndefiance of the ordinances of God, we rejoice that so many of the\nrailroad operators in this country, rest on the Sabbath day, according\nto the commandment.\" See note [B]** on p. 267.\n\n[32] The tattered garment is still kept as a melancholy monument of the\ncivilization of Boston in the middle of the nineteenth century.\n\n[33] Mr. Sims was sent off to bondage in the barque Acorn by the city\nauthorities of Boston. I believe he is the first man ever returned as a\nfugitive slave from Massachusetts by the form of law since the adoption\nof the Constitution. Arrived at Savannah, he was immediately conducted\nto prison. His mother and other relatives were not allowed to see him.\nHe was cruelly and repeatedly scourged. Meantime the citizens of Boston,\nwho had aided in kidnapping him, and had accompanied him to Savannah,\nwere publicly feasted by the inhabitants of Georgia. The present fate of\nMr. Sims is unknown to me.\n\nNov. 27th, 1851.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nTHE THREE CHIEF SAFEGUARDS OF SOCIETY.--CONSIDERED IN A SERMON AT THE\nMELODEON, ON SUNDAY, JULY 6, 1851.\n\nPROVERBS XIV. 34.\n\nRighteousness exalteth a Nation.\n\n\nThis is the first Sunday after the anniversary of the national\nbirth-day. It seems proper, on this occasion, to go beyond matters\nmerely personal, and affecting us only as individuals. I will speak of\nthe duties of man in a wider sphere; of political affairs. So I ask your\nattention to a Sermon of the Safeguards of Society. I choose this\nsubject, because some men profess a fear that American society is in\ndanger, and because some persons are busily teaching doctrines which\nseem hostile to the very design of society itself. I shall not speak of\npolitics as economy, but as morality, and look at the affairs of State\nfrom a religious point of view.\n\nWe are often told, that human society is of divine\nappointment,--society meaning the mass of men living together in a\ncertain fellowship. If this means that man is by nature a social being,\nand in their progressive development men must unite and form societies,\nthen, it is true, society is of divine appointment. But so is a farm;\nfor man is by nature and position an agricultural being, and in their\nprogressive development men make farms and practise agriculture.\nAgriculture is as necessary as society.--But it does not follow from\nthis, that the Egyptian, the Flemish, or the American mode of\nagriculture is of divine appointment, and men bound by God to practise\nthat, or to limit themselves thereto; and it no more follows that the\nEgyptian, the Flemish, or the American mode of society is of divine\nappointment, and men bound by God to limit themselves to it. It would be\nthought ridiculous to claim divinity for Dutch farming, or any other\nspecial mode of farming; but it is just as ridiculous to claim divinity\nfor Dutch society, or any other society. The farm and the society are\nalike and equally the work of men.\n\nThen we are often told, that human government is of divine appointment,\nand men morally bound to submit to it,--government being used as a\ncollective term to include the political, ecclesiastical, and social\nestablishments of a people, and the officers who administer them. If\nthis means, that, at a certain stage of man's progressive political\ndevelopment, it is necessary to have certain political, ecclesiastical,\nand social establishments, such as a monarchy or an aristocracy, with\npersons to administer them, then it is true, and government is of divine\nappointment.--But the fence of a farm is just as necessary to\nagriculture, at a certain stage of agricultural development, as\ngovernment to society. However, it does not follow from this, that a\nstone-wall or a rail-fence is of divine appointment; and it no more\nfollows that a monarchy or an aristocracy is of divine appointment. It\nwould be thought ridiculous for a farmer to claim divinity for his\nfence; it is just as absurd for a politician to claim it for his\ngovernment. Both are alike and equally the work of men.\n\nAgain it is said that human statutes are of divine appointment, and\ntherefore binding on the conscience of men. If this means, that, at a\ncertain stage of social and political development, men must form certain\nrules for social and political conduct, then it is true, and human\nstatutes are of divine appointment. But rules for agricultural conduct\nare just as necessary for the farm and the garden as political rules for\nsociety and the State, and so equally divine.--But it does not follow\nfrom this, that the agricultural rules for the farm and the garden laid\ndown by Columella the Roman, or Cobbett the Briton, are of divine\nappointment; and it no more follows that the political rules for society\nand the State laid down by the men of New England or the men of New\nHolland,--by men \"fore-ordained\" at birth to be lawgivers, or by men\n\"elected\" in manhood to make laws,--are of divine appointment. It would\nbe thought ridiculous for a British farmer to claim divinity for\nTusser's \"Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry;\" but it is just as\nabsurd for a British politician to claim divinity for the British\nConstitution, or the statutes of the realm. Rules for farming the land\nand rules for farming the people are alike and equally the work of men.\n\nStill further, it is said that human officers to execute the statutes,\nadminister the government, and sustain society, are also of divine\nappointment; and hence we are morally bound to employ, honor, and obey\nthem. If this means, that at a certain stage of man's social, political,\nand legal development, it is necessary to have certain persons whose\nofficial business it shall be to execute those statutes, then it is\ntrue, and human officers are of divine appointment. But it is just as\nnecessary to have certain persons, whose official business it shall be\nto execute the rules for farming the land; and so the agricultural\nofficers are just as much of divine appointment as the political. But it\ndoes not follow that ploughman Keith and reaper Gibson are such by the\ngrace of God, and therefore we are morally bound to employ, honor, and\nobey them; and it no more follows that King Ferdinand or President\nFillmore are such by the grace of God, and we morally bound to employ,\nhonor, and obey them. It would be thought ridiculous for Keith and\nGibson to claim divinity for their function of ploughman or reaper; but\nit is equally absurd for Fillmore and Ferdinand to claim divinity for\ntheir function of president or king. The farm-office and the\nstate-office are alike and equally the work of men.\n\nYet it is often taught that society, government, statutes, and officers\nare peculiarly and especially of divine appointment, in a very different\nsense from that mentioned just now; and therefore you and I are morally\nbound to respect all the four. We are told this by men who would be\nastonished if any one should claim divine appointment for farm-fences,\nrules of husbandry, for ploughmen and reapers.--This is sometimes done\nby persons who know no better.\n\nIn conformity with that fourfold claim of divinity for things of human\nappointment, we are told that the great safeguard of man's social\nwelfare is this,--Entire subordination of the individual to the\ncommunity, subordination in mind and conscience, heart and soul; entire\nsubmission to the government; entire obedience to the statute; entire\nrespect for the officer; in short, the surrender of the individual to\nthe State, of his mind to the public opinion, of his conscience to the\npublic statute, of his religion to some bench of attorneys, and his will\nto the magistrate. This fourfold subordination of the individual is\ndemanded, no matter what the community, the government, the statutes,\nor the officers may be.--Let us look a little more narrowly into this\nmatter, and see what is the purpose, the end, and aim of individual\nhuman life, and of social human life; then we may be the better able to\ndetermine what are the safeguards thereof.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat is man here on earth to accomplish? He is to unfold and perfect\nhimself, as far as possible, in body and spirit; to attain the full\nmeasure of his corporeal and spiritual powders, his intellectual, moral,\naffectional, and religious powers; to develop the individual into a\ncomplete man. That, I take it, is the purpose, the end, the scope, and\nfinal cause of individual life on earth. Accordingly, that is the best\nform of individual life which does this most completely; that worst\nwhich does it least. He is the most fortunate man who gets the greatest\ndevelopment of his body and his spirit in all their several and\nappropriate functions: all else is means thereto, and this the end\nthereof. Ease, wealth, honor, fame, power, and all the outward things\nmen wish for, and all such things as are valuable, are means to this\nend, no more. Wise men do not account him lucky who comes into the world\nborn to riches, distinction, thrones of power; but him who goes out of\nit wise, just, good, and holy.\n\nAccordingly, all else is to be subordinated to the attainment of this\npurpose; this to nothing. But what faculties of the individual are to\nrule and take precedence? The highest over the lowest; the lasting over\nthe transient; the eternal over the perishing. I will wound my hand to\nsave my head, subordinating the less to the greater. Not barely to live,\nbut to live nobly, is my purpose. I will wound or sacrifice my body to\nsave the integrity of my spirit, to defend the rights of my mind, of my\nconscience, of my affections, of my religious faculty--my soul.\nConscience, when awakened, commands this. Prophets of the Old Testament,\nand apostles of the New Testament, martyrs of all the churches under\nheaven, are historical witnesses to this instinct of human nature.\nMillions of soldiers have been found ready to sacrifice the life of\ntheir body to the integrity of their spirit: they would die, but not\nrun.\n\nMan is social by nature: gregarious by instinct, he is social with\nself-conscious will. To develop the individual into the perfect man, men\nmust mix and mingle. Society is the condition of individual development.\nMoses or Newton, living all alone, would not have attained the human\ndignity of a clown or a savage; they would never have mastered\narticulate speech: the gregarious elephant, the lonely eagle, would\nsurpass these men, born to the mightiest genius. Society, companionship\nof men, is both a necessity and a comfort, a good in itself, a means to\nother good.\n\nAs the great purpose of human life is to develop the individual into\nthe complete and perfect man in body and spirit, so the purpose of\nsociety is to help furnish the means thereto; to defend each, and\nfurnish him an opportunity and all possible help to become a complete\nand perfect man. Individuals are the monads, the primitive atoms, of\nwhich society is composed: its power, its perfection, depend primarily\non the power and perfection of the individuals, as much so as the weight\nof a pendulum or of Mount Sheehallin depends on the primitive atoms\nthereof. Destroy the individuality of those atoms, human or\nmaterial,--all is gone. To mar the atom is to mar the mass. To preserve\nitself, therefore, society is to preserve the individuality of the\nindividual.\n\nSuch is its general purpose: this involves several particulars. One is\npurely negative in its form,--To prevent men from hurting one another.\nIn early ages, that was the chief business of society which men had\nbecome conscious of. Society was recognized as an instrument to help\naccomplish two things: first, to defend itself against other societies\nor collections of men, and so preserve the integrity of the mass. This\nwas done by means of armies, forts, fleets, and all the artillery of\nwar. The next thing was, within itself, to defend the many feeble from\nthe few that are strong, or the few strong from the many weak; to\npreserve the integrity of the individuals, the atoms which compose the\nmass. This was done by statutes of prohibition, declaring, \"Thou shalt\nnot.\" This defence from foreign or domestic harm involves two things:\nfirst, the protection of the person, the substance of the community or\nthe individual; and, next, the protection of the property, the accident\nof the social or individual person. All this may be comprised in one\nterm as the negative function of society, appearing in two modes, as it\nprotects from foreign or domestic hurt. This function is performed\nconsciously: one community says to other communities, \"You shall not\nhurt me,\" and to its own members, \"You must not hurt one another,\" and\nknows what it is about in so doing. Some of the nations of Europe have\nscarcely got beyond this; their government seems to acknowledge no\nfunction but this negative one.\n\nThen comes the positive function of society. That is, To furnish\nopportunities for the mass, as such, to develop itself; and the\nindividual, as such, to develop himself, individually and socially, and\nexercise all his faculties in his own way; subject only to this rule,\nthat he hurts nobody else. See how this is done abroad between society\nand society. This community agrees with others, that they, mutually,\nshall not only not injure each other, but positively help one another.\n\"Protect my citizens by your statutes, whilst in your land; and I will\ndo the same with yours,\" says Belgium to France. That is agreed upon.\n\"Let my ships into your harbors,\" says England, \"come whence they may,\nand with what they may bring; and I will do the same by yours.\" America\nsays, \"Agreed;\" and it is so to the good of both. Thus each Christian\nnation secures for itself opportunities for development in all other\nChristian countries, and so helps the person, and also his property.\nThis is done by treaties; and each nation has its ministers and consuls\nto lie abroad, and help accomplish this work. This is the foreign part\nof the positive function of society, and is destined to a great\nexpansion in times to come.\n\nSee how it is done at home, and the whole furnishes positive helps to\nthe special parts. Society establishes almshouses, hospitals, schools,\ncolleges, churches, and post-offices; coins money as a standard measure\nof all values; builds roads of earth, of water, or of iron; carries\nletters; surveys the land; prints books telling of its minerals, plants,\nand living things that swim or creep or fly or walk; puts light-houses\nalong the coast, and breakwaters to protect a port. Thus society\nfurnishes its members a positive help for the mind, body, and estate;\nhelps the individual become a complete and perfect man, by affording him\nfacilities for the development of his substance, and the possession of\nhis accidents. This is the domestic part of the positive function of\nsociety. Some men, as the socialists in France, wish to extend it much\nfurther, making the government patriarchal to bless,--not, as of old,\ndespotic to curse. This also is done with a distinct self-consciousness\nof the immediate end and the means thereto.\n\nBut the greater part of this positive work is done with no such distinct\nconsciousness thereof: it is brought about by the men living together;\nis done, not by government, but by society. The presence of numbers\nincreases the intellectual temperature, so to say, and quickens the\nsocial pulse. Machines are invented, science extended, new truths in\nmorals and religion are found out, literature and art create new\nloveliness, and men become greater and more noble, while society takes\nno heed; and so all are helped. The government often only checks this\nwork.\n\nBy most subtle contrivances, though not of you and me, a provision is\nmade for the great. Without willing it, we prepare a cradle for every\ngiant, ready to receive him soon as he is born. A young woman has a rare\ngenius for music; no legal and constitutional provision has been made\nfor her, society having no instinctive and prophetic consciousness of\nsuch an advent; but men with music in their souls, and spell-bound by\ntheir ears, are drawn together, and encourage her sweet soul into all\nthe wildest, sweetest, and most bewildering witchery of song. If some\nlad of marvellous genius is born in the woods, men seek him out, and\ntrain him up with the accumulated wisdom of ten thousand years, that\nthis newest diamond from the mine of God may be appropriately set. So\nit is with a thousand other things; and thus society calls out the\ndainties of the cook, the machine of the inventor, the orator's\npersuasive power, the profound thought of the thinker, the poet's vision\nand his faculty divine, the piety of the highest saint God sends. Thus,\nspite of all the Herods in Jerusalem, a crown is got ready for him that\nis born King of the world; wise men are always waiting for the star\nwhich goes before the new-born Son of God; and, though that star stand\nstill over a stable, they are ready on the spot with their myrrh, their\nfrankincense, and their gold. Society has its shepherds watching their\nflock, and its angels to proclaim the glad tidings of great joy to all\nmankind.\n\nWhile society, in its positive function, thus helps the strong, it\nprovides also for the weak, and gives them the benefit of the strong\nman's protection: thus the individuality of the ablest and the most\nfeeble is defended at the same time. This is done in part by private\ncharity; in part also by the organized public charity. The sick, the\npoor, the crazy, the lame, the blind, the deaf, are sacredly cared for.\nEven the fool is not left in his folly, but the wisdom of society\nwatches over his impotent and wretched brain. Thus the two extremes of\nthe human race are provided for: the man of vast genius and a tough body\ngets his culture and his place; and from his station in the senate, the\npulpit, or the closet, sends out his thunder, his lightning, or his\nsunshine over all the land, to save the people and to bless; while the\nlame man, the lunatic woman, the blind boy, the poor and sickly little\ngirl, born with the scrofulous worm feeding on her cheek,--all have the\nbenefit of the manifold power of society. The talent of a Webster, the\ngenius of an Emerson, the frailty of an unacknowledged child left on the\ndoorstone at night, to die next month in the almshouse, all have their\nplace in the large cradle of society, whose coverlet wraps them\nall,--the senator, the poet, and the fool. Attend a meeting of the\nalumni of Harvard College, of the heads of the railroads or factories of\nNew England, a convention of merchants, naturalists, metaphysicians, of\nthe senate of the nation, you see how society gives place and protection\nto the best heads in the State. Then go to some house of industry, and\nsee the defence afforded for the worst; you see what a wonderful\ncontrivance society itself is. I say a contrivance, yet it is not the\ncontrivance chiefly of Solon or Charlemagne, but of Almighty God; a\ncontrivance for three things,--To prevent men from hurting one another\nin person or property; to give the strong and the weak the advantage of\nliving together; and thus to enable each to have a fair chance for the\ndevelopment of his person and the acquisition of property. The mechanism\nof society, with its statical and dynamical laws, is the most marvellous\nphenomenon in the universe. Thereby we are continually building wiser\nthan we know, or rather the providence of the Father builds by us, as by\nthe coral insect of Pacific Seas, foundations for continents which we\ndream not of.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThese three things are the general end of society, and indispensable to\nthe purpose of life. To attain them, there must be a certain amount of\nindividual variety of action, a certain amount of social unity of\naction; and the two must be to a certain degree balanced into\nequilibrium. The larger the amount of individual variety and social\nunity of action, the more complete the equilibrium of the two, the more\ncompletely is the purpose of individual and social life accomplished and\nattained: the atom is not sacrificed to the mass, nor the mass to the\natom; the individual gains from being a citizen, the citizen from his\nindividuality; all are the better for each, and each for all.\n\nTo accomplish this purpose, men devise certain\nestablishments,--institutions, constitutions, statutes--human machinery\nfor attaining the divine end in the individual and the social form. But\nhere is the condition of existence which all these establishments must\nconform to. Every thing in nature has a certain constant mode of action:\nthis, we call a law of nature. The laws of nature are universal,\nunchangeable, and perfect as God, whose mind they in part express. To\nsucceed in any thing, we must find out and keep the natural laws\nrelating thereto. There are such laws for the individual,--constant\nmodes of action which belong to human nature, writ therein by God. My\nmind and conscience are the faculties by which I learn these laws.\nConscience perceives by instinct; mind sees afterwards by experiment.\nThere are also such laws for society, constant modes of action, which\nbelong to human nature in its social form. They are also written in the\nnature of man. The mind and conscience of the individuals who make up\nthe society are the faculties by which these laws likewise are found\nout. These laws, constant modes of individual or social action, are the\nsole and exclusive basis of human establishments which help attain the\nend of individual and social life. What conforms to these natural rights\nis called right; what conforms not, is wrong. A mill-dam or a monument\nmust conform to the statical laws of matter, or not serve the purpose it\nwas meant for; a mill or a steam-engine must conform to the dynamical\nlaws of matter, or it is also useless. So all the social establishments\nof mankind, designed to further the positive or negative functions of\nsociety, must conform to the laws of human nature, or they will fail to\nachieve the purposes of individual and social life.\n\nAs I come to individual self-consciousness, I give utterance to these\nnatural laws, or my notion of them, in certain rules of conduct which I\nmake for myself. I say, \"This will I do, for it is right; that will I\nnot do, for it is wrong.\" These are my personal resolutions, personal\nstatutes. I make them in my high act of prayer, and in my common life\nseek to conform thereto. When I rise higher, in another act of prayer\nwhich has a greater experience for its basis and so represents more\nlife, I shall revise the old rules of conduct, and make new ones that\nare better. The rules of conduct derive all their objective and real\nvalue from their conformity with the law of God writ in my nature; all\ntheir subjective and apparent value, from their conformity to my notions\nof the law of God. The only thing which makes it right, and an\nindividual moral duty for me to keep my resolutions, is, that they\nthemselves are right, or I believe them so. Now, as I see they are\nwrong, or think I see it, I shall revise or change them for better.\nAccordingly, I revise them many times in my life: now by a gradual\nchange, the process of peaceful development; now by a sudden change,\nunder conviction of sin, in penitence for the past, and great concern of\nmind for the future, by the process of personal revolution. But these\nrules of conduct are always provisional,--my ladder for climbing up to\nthe purposes of individual life. I will throw them away as soon as I can\nget better. They are amenable subjectively to my notion of right, and\nobjectively to right itself,--to conscience and to God.\n\nAs the individuals, all, the majority, or some controlling men, come to\nsocial self-consciousness, they express these natural laws, or their\nnotion thereof, in certain rules of social conduct. They say, \"This\nshall all men do, for it is right; that shall no man do, for it is\nwrong.\" The nation makes its social resolutions, social statutes, in its\nact of prayer; for legislation is to the State what prayer is to the\nman,--often an act of penitence, of sorrow, of fear, and yet of faith,\nhope, and love. When it rises higher, it revises and makes better rules\nof conduct: they derive all their objective and real value from their\nconformity with the law of God; all their subjective and apparent value,\nfrom their conformity with the nation's notion thereof. The only thing\nwhich makes it right, and a social moral duty for society, or any of its\nmembers, to keep these social statutes, is that they are right, or\nthought so. In the progress of society, its rules of conduct get revised\na good many times: now it is done by gradual, peaceful development; now\nby sudden and stormy revolutions, when society is penitent for the sin\nof the past, and in great anxiety and concern of mind through fear of\nthe future. These social statutes are only provisional, to help men\nclimb up to the purpose of social life. They are all amenable\nsubjectively to the notion of right; objectively to right itself,--to\nthe conscience of the individuals and to God.\n\nThen society appoints officers whose special conventional function is to\nsee to the execution of these social rules of conduct. They are legally\namenable to the rules of conduct they are to carry out; socially\namenable to the community that appoints them; individually amenable to\ntheir own conscience and to God.\n\nTo sum up all this in one formula: Officers are conventionally amenable\nto society; society, with its officers and its rules of conduct,\namenable to the purpose of society; the design of individual life, to\nthe individuals that compose it; individuals, with their rules of\nconduct, amenable each to his own conscience; and all to the law of the\nuniverse, to the Eternal Right, which represents the conscience of God.\nSo far as society is right, government right, statutes right, officers\nright, all may justly demand obedience from each: for though society,\ngovernment, statutes, and officers are mere human affairs, as much so as\nfarms, fences, top-dressing, and reapers, and are as provisional as\nthey; yet Right is divine, is of God, not merely provisional and for\nto-day, but absolute and for eternity. So, then, the moral duty to\nrespect the government, to keep the statutes, to obey the officers, is\nall resolvable into the moral duty of respecting the integrity of my own\nnature, of keeping the eternal law of nature, of obeying God. If\ngovernment, statutes, officers, command me to do right, I must do it,\nnot because commanded, but because it is right; if they command me to\ndo wrong, I must refuse, not because commanded, but because it is wrong.\nThere is a constitution of the universe: to keep that is to preserve the\nunion between man and man, between man and God. To do right is to keep\nthis constitution: that is loyalty to God. To keep my notion of it is\nloyalty to my own soul. To be false to my notion thereof is treason\nagainst my own nature; to be false to that constitution is treason\nagainst God. The constitution of the universe is not amenable to men:\nthat is the law of God, the higher law, the constant mode of action of\nthe infinite Father of all. In that He lives and moves, and has His\nbeing.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is now easy to see what are the Safeguards of society, the things\nwhich promote the end and aim of society,--the development of the body\nand spirit of all men after their law,--and thus help attain the purpose\nof individual life. I will mention three of these safeguards, in the\norder of their importance.\n\nFirst of all, is Righteousness in the People: a religious determination\nto keep the law of God at all hazards; a sacred and inflexible reverence\nfor right; a determined habit of fidelity each to his own conscience.\nThis, of course, implies a hatred of wrong; a religious and determined\nhabit of disobeying and resisting every thing which contradicts the law\nof God, of disobeying what is false to this and our conscience. There is\nno safeguard for society without this. It is to man what\nimpenetrability, with the other primary qualities, is to matter. All\nmust begin with the integral atoms, with the individual mind and\nconscience; all be tried by that test, personal integrity, at last. What\nis false to myself I must never do,--at no time, for no consideration,\nin nowise. This is the doctrine of the higher law; the doctrine of\nallegiance to God; a doctrine which appears in every form of religion\never taught in the world; a doctrine admitted by the greatest writers on\nthe foundation of human law, from Cicero to Lord Brougham. Even Bentham\ncomes back to this. I know it is now-a-days taught in the United States,\nthat, if any statute is made after the customary legal form, it is\nmorally binding on all men, no matter what the statute may be; that a\ncommand to kidnap a black man and sell him into slavery, is as much\nmorally binding as a command for a man to protect his own wife and\nchild. A people that will practically submit to such a doctrine is not\nworthy of liberty, and deserves nothing but law, oppressive law,\ntyrannical law; and will soon get what it deserves. If a people has this\nnotion, that they are morally bound to obey any statute legally made,\nthough it conflict with public morals, with private conscience, and with\nthe law of God, then there is no hope of such a people; and the sooner\na tyrant whips them into their shameful grave, the better for the world.\nTrust me, to such a people the tyrant will soon come. Where the carcass\nis thither will the vultures be gathered together. Let no man put\nasunder the carrion and the crow. So much for the first and\nindispensable safeguard.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe next is derivative therefrom, Righteousness in the Establishments of\nthe People. Under this name I include three things, namely,\ninstitutions, constitutions, and statutes. Institutions are certain\nmodes of operation, certain social, ecclesiastical, or political\ncontrivances for doing certain things. Thus an agricultural club is a\nsocial institution to help farming; a private school is a social\ninstitution for educating its pupils; a church is an ecclesiastical\ninstitution for the promotion of religion; an aristocracy is a political\ninstitution for governing all the people by means of a few, and for the\nsake of a few; a congress of senators and representatives is a\nlegislative institution for making statutes; a jury of twelve men is a\njudicial institution to help execute the statutes; universal suffrage is\na democratic institution for ruling the State.\n\nConstitutions are fundamental rules of conduct for the nation, made by\nthe highest human authority in the land, and only changeable thereby,\ndetermining what institutions shall be allowed, how administered, by\nwhom and in what manner statutes shall be made.\n\nStatutes are particular rules of conduct to regulate the action of man\nwith man, of individuals with the State, and of the State with\nindividuals.\n\nStatutes are amenable to the constitutions; the constitutions to the\ninstitutions; they to the people; all subjectively to the conscience of\nthe individual, and objectively to the conscience of God.\n\nEstablishments are the machinery which a people contrives wherewith to\ncarry out its ideas of the right or the expedient. In the present state\nof mankind, they are indispensable to accomplish the purpose of\nindividual life. There are indeed a few men who for their good conduct,\nafter they are mature, require no human laws whatever. They regulate\nthemselves by their idea of right, by their love of truth, of justice,\nof man and God. They see the law of God so clear that they need no\nprohibitive statutes to restrain them from wrong. They will not lie nor\nsteal, though no statutes forbid, and all other men both lie and steal;\nnot if the statutes command falsehood and theft. These men are saints.\nThe wealth of Athens could not make Aristides unjust. Were all men like\nJesus of Nazareth, statutes forbidding wrong would be as needless as\nsails to a shark, a balloon to a swallow, or a railroad to the lightning\nof heaven. This is always a small class of men, but one that continually\nincreases. We all look to the time when this will include all men. No\nman expects to find law books and courts in the kingdom of heaven.\n\nThen there is a class, who need these statutes as a well-known rule of\nconduct to encourage them to do right, by the assurance that all other\nmen will likewise be made to do so, even if not willing. They see the\nlaw of God less clear and strong, and need human helps to keep it. This\nclass comprises the majority of mankind. The court-house helps them,\nthough they never use it; the jail helps them, though never in it. These\nare common men. They are very sober in Connecticut; not very sober in\nCalifornia.\n\nThen there is a third class who will do wrong, unless they are kept from\nit by punishment or the fear thereof. They do not see the law of God, or\nwill not keep it if they do. The court-house helps them; so does the\njail, keeping them from actual crime while there, deterring while out of\nit. Take away the outward restraints, their seeming virtue falls to\npieces like a barrel without its hoops. These are knaves. I think this\nclass of men will continually diminish with the advance of mankind; that\nthe saints will grow common, and the knaves get scarce. Good\nestablishments promote this end; those of New England, especially the\nschools, help forward this good work, to convert the knaves to common\nmen, to transfigure the common men to saints. Bad establishments, like\nmany in Austria, Ireland, and South Carolina, produce the opposite\neffect: they hinder the development of what is high and noble in man,\nand call out what is mean and low; for human laws are often instruments\nto debauch a nation.\n\nIf a nation desires to keep the law of God, good establishments will\nhelp the work; if it have none such, it must make them before it can be\nat peace. They are as needful as coats and gowns for the body. Sometimes\nthe consciousness of the people is far in advance of its establishments,\nand there must be a revolution to restore the equilibrium. It is so at\nRome, in Austria and Prussia. All these countries are on the brink of\nrevolution, and are only kept down by the bayonet. It was so here\nseventy-five years ago, and our fathers went through fire and blood to\nget the establishments they desired. They took of the righteousness in\nthe people, and made therefrom institutions, constitutions, and\nstatutes. So much for the second and derivative safeguard.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe third is Righteousness in the Public Officers, good men to\nadminister the establishments, manage the institutions, expound and\nenforce the constitutions and execute the statutes, and so represent the\nrighteousness of the people. In the hands of such men as see the purpose\nof social and individual life, and feel their duty to keep the integrity\nof their conscience and obey the law of God, even bad establishments\nare made to work well, and serve the purpose of human life; because the\nman puts out the evil of the institution, constitution, or statute, and\nputs his own righteousness in its place. There was once a judge in New\nEngland who sometimes had to administer bad laws. In these cases, he\ntold the jury, \"Such is the law, common or enacted; such are the\nprecedents; such the opinions of Judge This and Judge That; but justice\ndemands another thing. I am bound by my oath as judge to expound to you\nthe law as it is; you are bound by oath as jurors to do justice under\nit; that is your official business here to-day.\" Such a man works well\nwith poor tools; with good ones he would work much better. By the action\nof such men, aided by public opinion which they now follow and now\ndirect, without any change of legislation, there is a continual progress\nof justice in the establishments of a nation. Bad statutes are dropped\nor corrected, constitutions silently ameliorated, all institutions made\nbetter. Thus wicked laws become obsolete. There is a law in England\ncompelling all men to attend church. Nobody enforces it.\n\nPut a bad man to administer the establishments, one who does not aim at\nthe purpose of society, nor feel bound to keep the higher law of God,\nthe best institutions, constitutions, statutes, become ineffectual,\nbecause the man puts out the good thereof, and puts in his own evil.\nThe best establishments will be perverted to the worst of purposes. Rome\nhad all the machinery of a commonwealth; with Caesar at the head it\nbecame a despotism. In 1798, France had the establishments of a\nrepublic; with Napoleon for first consul, you know what it became: it\nsoon was made an empire, and the Constitution was trodden under foot. In\n1851, France has the institutions of a democracy; with Louis Napoleon as\nchief, you see what is the worth of the provisions for public justice.\nWhat was the Constitution of England good for under the thumb of Charles\nI. and James II.? What was the value of the common law, of the trial by\njury, of Magna Charta, \"such a fellow as will have no sovereign,\" with a\nGeorge Jeffries for Judge, a James II. for king, and such juries as\ncorrupt sheriffs brought together? They were only a mockery. What were\nthe charters of New England against a wicked king and a corrupt cabinet?\nConnecticut went out of the court and into the Charter Oak for\nself-preservation. What were all the institutions of Christianity when\nAlexander VI. dishonored the seat even of the Pope?\n\nPut a saint, who feels his duty to keep the law of God, in office, even\nbad rules will work well. But put a man who recognizes no law of God,\nnot into a jail, but in a great office; give him courts and courtiers,\nfleets and armies, nay, only newspapers and \"union committees\" to serve\nhim, you see what will be done. The resolute determination of the\npeople to obey the law of God, the righteousness of their\nestablishments, will be of small avail, frustrated by the wickedness of\nthe men in power. The English Parliament once sent a fleet to aid the\nHuguenots at Rochelle. King Charles I. gave the admiral secret orders to\nsurrender his ships to the enemy he was sent to oppose! The purpose of\nall human life may be as foully betrayed by wicked men in a high place.\nIn a monarchy, the king is answerable for it with his neck; in a\nrepublic there is the same danger; but, where all seems to proceed from\nthe people, it may be more difficult to do justice to a wicked officer.\nSo much for the third safeguard, also derivative from the first.\n\nTo make a good house, you want good materials,--solid stone, sound\nbricks, sound timber; a good plan, and also good builders. So, as\nsafeguards of society, to achieve its purpose, you want good\nmaterial,--a righteous people who will be faithful to their own\nconscience, and obey God and reverence the law of nature; a good\nplan,--righteous establishments, institutions, constitutions, statutes\nconformable to the laws of God; and you want good builders,--righteous\nofficers to represent the eternal justice of the Father. You want this\nthreefold righteousness.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow are we provided with these three safeguards just now? Have we this\nRighteousness in the People?--which is the first thing. Perhaps there is\nno nation with a higher reverence for justice, and more desire to keep\nthe law of God; at least we have been told so, often enough. I think the\nnation never had more of it than now; never so much. But here are whole\nclasses of men who practically seem to have no reverence for God's law;\nwho declare there is no such thing; whose conduct is most shamefully\nunrighteous in all political matters. They seek to make us believe there\nis no law above the caprice of man. Of such I will speak by and by.\n\nIt is plain there is not righteousness enough in the people to hinder us\nfrom doing what we know is contrary to the law of God. Thus, we keep one\nsixth part of the people in a state of slavery. This we do in violation\nof our own axiom, declared to be self-evident, that all men are created\nequal, endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life,\nliberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have here three millions of\nslaves: if things go on as now, there will be twelve millions before the\ncentury ends. We need not say we cannot help it. Slavery in America is\nas much our work as democracy, as free schools, as the Protestant form\nof religion. At the Declaration, we might have made the slaves free; at\nthe time of the Confederation; at the formation of the Constitution. But\nno! there was not righteousness enough in the people to resist the\ntemptation of eating the bread which others earn. American slavery has\nalways been completely in the power of the American people. We may\nabolish it any time we will. We might have restricted it to the old\nStates, which had it before, and so have kept it out of Kentucky,\nTennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and all that mighty\nrealm west of the great river. No! we took pains to extend it there. We\nfought with Mexico to carry slavery into the \"Halls of the Montezumas,\"\nwhence a half-barbarous people drove it away. We long to seize on Cuba,\nand yet other lands, to plant there our \"American institution.\" We are\nindignant when Austria unjustly seizes an American in Hungary, and hales\nhim to prison; but have nothing to say when slave States systematically\nconfine the colored freemen of the North, or when Georgia offers a large\nreward for the head of a citizen of Boston. We talk of the \"pauper labor\nof Europe.\" It is pauper labor, very much of it. I burn with indignation\nat the men who keep it so. But it is not slave labor. Paupers spin\ncotton at Manchester, and at Glasgow, say the whigs. Who raises cotton\nat South Carolina and Mississippi? The spoil of the slave is in our\nhouses. We are a republic, but the only nation of the Christian world\nwhose fields are tilled by chattel slaves. To such a degree has\ncovetousness blinded the eyes of the whole nation. In saying all this,\nI will not say that we are less righteous than other nations. No other\npeople has had the same temptation. It has been too great for America.\nSlavery is loved as well in Boston as in New Orleans. The love of\nliberty is strong with us; but it is liberty for ourselves we love, not\nfor our brother man whom we can oppress and enthrall. This vice is not\nconfined to the South. I look on some of the clergymen of the North as\nonly chaplains of the slave-driver.\n\nLook at the next safeguard of society. Setting aside the institution of\nslavery, and the statutes relating thereto, I think we have the most\nrighteous Establishments in the world. By no means perfect, they produce\nthe greatest variety of action in the individuals, the greatest unity of\naction in society, and afford an opportunity to achieve the purpose of\nsocial and individual life. Here is the great institution of democracy,\nthe government of all, by all, and for all, resting on the American\nidea, that all men have natural rights which only the possessor can\nalienate; that all are equal in their rights; that it is the business of\ngovernment to preserve them all for each man. Under this great\ninstitution of a free State, there naturally come the church, the\nschool, the press,--all free. In politics, and all depending thereon, we\nare coming to recognize this principle, that restraint is only to be\nexercised for the good of all, the restrainer and the restrained.\n\nLet me single out two excellent institutions, not wholly American,--The\ncontrivance for making laws, and that for executing them. To make laws,\nthe people choose the best men they can find and confide in, and set\nthem to this work. They aim to take all the good of past times, of the\npresent times, and add to it their private contribution of justice. Each\nState Legislature is a little political academy for the advancement of\njural science and art. They get the wisest and most humane men to aid\nthem. Then after much elaboration the law is made. If it works well in\none State it is soon tried in others; if not, it is repealed and ceases\nto be. The experience of mankind has discovered no better way than this\nof popular legislation, for organizing the ideal justice of the people\ninto permanent forms. If there is a man of moral and political genius in\nthe community, he can easily be made available to the public. The\nexperiment of popular legislation has been eminently successful in\nAmerica.\n\nThen, still further, we have Officers chosen by the people for a limited\ntime, to enforce the laws when made,--the Executive; others to expound\nthem,--the Judiciary. It is the official business of certain officers to\npunish the man who violates the laws. In due and prescribed form, they\narrest the man charged with the offence. Now, two things are desirable:\none to protect society, in all its members, from injury by any one\nacting against its just laws; the other is, to protect the man\ncomplained of from being hurt by government when there is no law\nagainst him, or when he has not done the deed alleged, or from an unjust\npunishment, even if it be legal. In despotic countries, little is\nthought of this latter; and it goes hard with a man whom the government\ncomplains of, even if there is no positive statute against the crime\ncharged on him, or when he is innocent of the deed alleged. Nothing can\nscreen him from the lawful punishment, though that be never so unjust.\nThe statute and its administration are a rule without mercy. But in\nliberal governments a contrivance has been devised to accomplish both\nthese purposes,--the just desire of society to execute its laws; the\njust desire of the individual to have justice done. That is the trial by\na jury of twelve men, not officers of the government, but men taken for\nthis purpose alone from the bosom of the community, with all their human\nsympathies and sense of responsibility to God about them. The jury are\nto answer in one word \"Guilty\" or \"Not guilty.\" But it is plain they are\nto determine three things: first, Did the prisoner do the deed alleged,\nand as alleged? next, if so, Is there a legal and constitutional statute\nforbidding it, and decreeing punishment therefor? and then, if so, Shall\nthe prisoner for that deed suffer the punishment denounced by that\nlaw?[34]\n\nHuman statutes partake of human imperfections. See the checks against\nsudden, passionate, or unjust legislation. We choose legislators, and\ndivide them into two branches, a Senate and a House of Representatives,\neach to aid and check the other. If a bill pass one house, and seem\nunjust to the other, it is set aside. If both approve of it, a third\nperson has still a qualified negative; and, if it seems unjust to him,\nhe sets it aside. If it passes this threefold ordeal, it becomes a\nstatute of the land. See the checks in the execution of the laws which\nrelate to offences. Before they can be brought against any man, in any\nmatter beyond a trifle, a jury of his peers indict him for the offence.\nThen, before he can be punished, twelve men of his peers must say with\none accord, \"You shall inflict the penalties of the statute upon this\nman.\"\n\nThis trial by jury has long been regarded as one of the most important\nof the secondary safeguards of society. It has served to defend the\ncommunity against bad citizens, and the citizens against an evil\nestablishment,--bad institutions, bad constitutions, bad statutes;\nagainst evil officers, bad rulers, bad judges, bad sheriffs. If the\ncommunity has much to fear from bad citizens, here is the offensive\narmor, and the jury do not bear the sword in vain. If its citizens have\nmuch to fear from a wicked government, oppressive, grasping, tyrannical,\ndesirous of pretending law where there is none, declaring \"ship-money\"\nand other enormities constitutional, or pressing a legal statute beyond\njustice, making it treason to tell of the wickedness of officers,--here\nis the defensive armor, and the jury do not bear in vain the shield of\nthe citizen. Sometimes the citizens have more to fear from the\ngovernment than from all other foes. Louis XIV. was a great robber, and\nplundered and murdered more of his subjects than all the other alleged\nfelons in the sixteen millions of Frenchmen. The honest burghers of\nParis had more to fear from the monarch in the Tuileries than from the\nmurderer in the Faubourg St. Antoine, or the cut-purse in the Rue St.\nJacob. Charles I. was a more dangerous enemy to our fathers in England\nand America than all the other thieves and murderers in the realm. What\nwere all the Indians in New England, for peril to its Christian\ncitizens, compared to Charles II. and his wicked brother? What was a\nfoot-pad to Henry VIII.? He plundered a province, while the robber only\npicked a pocket.\n\nThe trial by jury has done manly service. It was one of the first\nbulwarks of human society, then barbarous and feeble, thrown up by the\nGermanic tribe which loved order, but loved justice too. It is a line of\ncircumvallation against the loose, unorganized wickedness of the private\nruffian; a line of contravallation also against the organized wickedness\nof the public government. It began before there were any regular courts\nor written laws; and, ever since, it has done great service when\ncorrupt men in high places called a little offence \"treason\"; when\ncorrupt judges sought to crush down the people underneath oppressive\nlaws to advance themselves; and when corrupt witnesses were ready to\n\"enlarge\" their testimony so as to \"dispatch\" the men accused; yea, to\nswear black was black, and then, when the case seemed to require it,\nswear white was black. Any man who reads the history of England under\nthe worst of kings, the worst of ministers, the worst of judges, and\nwith the worst of witnesses, and compares it with other nations, will\nsee the value of the trial by jury as a safeguard of the people. The\nbloody Mary had to punish the jurors for their verdict of acquittal,\nbefore she could accomplish her purposes of shame. George III., wishing\nto collect a revenue in the American colonies, without their consent or\nany constitutional law, found the jury an obstacle he could not pass\nover. Attorneys might try John Hancock for smuggling in his \"sloop\nLiberty:\" no jury would convict. The tea, a vehicle of unjust taxation,\nwent floating out of Boston Bay in a most illegal style. No attempt was\nmade to try the offenders; the magistrates knew there was a jury who\nwould not convict men for resisting a wicked law. Men must be taken\n\"over seas for trial\" by a jury of their enemies, before the wicked laws\nof a wicked ministry could be brought upon the heads of the resolute men\nof America.\n\nIt is of great importance to keep this institution pure; to preserve its\nspirit, with such expansion as the advance of mankind requires.\nOtherwise, the laws may be good, the constitutions good, institutions\ngood, the disposition of the people good; but, with a wicked minister in\nthe cabinet, a wicked judge on the bench, a wicked attorney at the bar,\nand a wicked witness to forswear himself on the stand,--and all these\ncan easily be had; you can purchase your wicked witnesses; nay,\nsometimes one will volunteer and \"enlarge his testimony,\"--a man's life\nand liberty are not safe for a moment. The administration may grasp any\nman at will. The minister represents the government; the judge, the\nattorney, all represent the government. It has often happened that all\nthese had something to gain by punishing unjustly some noble man who\nopposed their tyranny, and they used their official power to pervert\njustice and ruin the State, that they might exalt themselves. The jury\ndoes not represent the government, but \"the country;\" that is, the\njustice, the humanity, the mercy of mankind. This is its great value.\n\nHave we the third safeguard, Righteous Officers? I believe no nation\never started with nobler officers than we chose at first. But I think\nthere has been some little change from Washington down through the\nTylers and the Polks to the present administration. John Adams, in\ncoming to the presidency, found his son in a high office, and asked his\npredecessor if it were fit for the President to retain his own son in\noffice. Washington replied, It would be wrong for you to appoint him;\nbut I hope he will not be discharged from office, and so the country be\ndeprived of his valuable services, merely \"because he is your son!\" What\na satire is this on the conduct of men in power at this day! We have had\nthree \"second General Washingtons\" in the presidential chair since 1829;\ntwo new ones are now getting ready, \"standing like greyhounds in the\nslips, straining upon the start,\" for that bad eminence. These three\npast and two future \"Washingtons\" have never displayed any very\nremarkable family likeness to the original--who left no descendant--in\nthis particular.[35] I pass over the general conduct of our executive\nand judicial officers, which does not seem to differ much from that of\nsimilar functionaries in England, in France, in Italy, Austria, Turkey,\nand Spain. But I must speak of some special things in the conduct of\nsome of these persons,--things which ought to be looked at on such a\nday as this, and in the light of religion. Attempts have lately been\nmade in this city to destroy the juror's power to protect the citizen\nfrom the injustice of government,--attempts to break down this safeguard\nof individual liberty. We have seen a judge charge the grand jury, that,\nin case of conflict between the law of God and the statutes made by men,\nthe people must \"obey both.\" Then we have seen an attempt made by the\ngovernment to get a partial jury, who should not represent the country,\nbut should have prejudices against the prisoner at the bar. We have seen\na man selected as foreman of the jury who had previously, and before\nwitnesses, declared that all the persons engaged in the case which was\nto come before him, \"ought to be hung.\" We have seen a man expelled from\nthe jury, after he had taken the juror's oath, because he declared that\nhe had \"a general sympathy with the down-trodden and oppressed here and\neverywhere,\" and so did not seem likely to \"dispatch\" the prisoner, as\nthe government desired. This is not all: the judge questions the jurors\nbefore their oath, and refuses to allow any one to be impanelled who\ndoubts the constitutionality of the fugitive slave law. Even this is not\nthe end: he charges the jury thus selected, packed, picked, and\nwinnowed, that they are to take the law as he lays it down; that they\nare only judges of the fact, he exclusively of the law; and, if they\nfind that the prisoner did the deed alleged, then they must return him\n\"Guilty\" of the offence charged.\n\nI am no lawyer: I shall not speak here with reference to usages and\nprecedents of the past, only with an eye to the consequences for the\nfuture. If the court can thus select a jury to suit itself, mere\ncreatures of its own, what is the use of a jury to try the fact? See the\nconsequences of this decision, that no man shall serve as juror who\ndoubts the constitutionality of a law, and that the jurors are not\njudges of the law itself, as well as the fact. Let me suppose some cases\nwhich may happen. The Constitution of the United States provides that\nCongress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Suppose that\nCongress should pass a law to punish any man with death who should pray\nto the \"Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.\" The government wishes to punish an\nobnoxious orthodox minister for violating this \"form of law.\" It is\nclearly unjust; but the judge charges the grand jury they are to \"obey\nboth\" the laws of God and the statutes of men. The grand jury indict the\nman. He is brought for trial. The law is obviously unconstitutional; but\nthe judge expels from the jury all who think the law is\nunconstitutional. He selects the personal enemies of the accused, and\nfinds twelve men foolish enough or wicked enough to believe it is\nconstitutional to do what the Constitution declares must not be done;\nand then proceeds to trial, selecting for foreman the man who has said,\n\"All men that thus pray ought to be hung!\" What is the value of your\nConstitution? The jury might convict, the judge sentence, the President\nissue his warrant, and the man be hanged in twenty-four hours, for doing\na deed which the Constitution itself allows, and Christendom daily\npractises, and the convictions of two hundred million men require!\n\nIt is alleged the jury must not judge of the law, but only of the fact.\nSee the consequences of this principle in several cases. The Secretary\nof State has declared the rescuing of Shadrach was \"treason,\" and, of\ncourse, punishable with death. Suppose the court had charged the jury,\nthat to rescue a man out of the hands of an incompetent officer--an\noffence which in Boston has sometimes been punished with a fine of five\ndollars--was \"levying war\" against the United States, and they were only\nto find if the prisoner did the deed; and, if so, return a verdict of\nguilty. Suppose the jury are wicked enough to accept his charge, where\nis the protection of the citizen? The government may say, to smuggle\ngoods into Boston harbor is \"levying war\" and hang a man for treason who\nbrings on shore an ounce of camphor in his pocket without paying duties!\nIs not the jury, in such a case, to judge what the law makes\ntreason?--to decide for itself?\n\nThere was once a law making it felony without benefit of clergy to read\nthe Bible in the English language. Suppose the government, wishing to\nmake away with an obnoxious man, should get him indicted next term for\nthis offence, and the judge should declare that the old law is still in\nforce. Is the jury not to judge whether we live under the bloody Mary,\nor the constitution of Massachusetts?--whether what was once law is so\nnow? If not, then the laws of King Darius or King Pharaoh may be revived\nwhenever Judge Hategood sees fit, and Faithful must hang for it.[36]\n\nSuppose the judge makes a law himself, declaring that, if any one speaks\nagainst the justice of the court, he shall be whipped with forty stripes\nsave one, and gets a man indicted under it and brought to trial--is the\njury not to judge if there be such a law? Then we might as well give up\nall legislation, and leave all to the \"discretion of the court.\"\n\nA judge of the United States Court was once displaced on account of\nmental imbecility. Was Judge Simpleton to determine what was law, what\nnot, for a jury of intelligent men?\n\nAnother judge, not long ago, in Boston, in his place in court, gave an\nopinion in a most important affair, and was drunk when he gave it. I do\nnot mean he was horizontally drunk, but only so that his friends feared\n\"he would break down in court, and expose himself.\" Was the opinion of a\ndrunken judge to be taken for law by sober men?\n\nSuppose the judge is not a simpleton nor a drunkard, but is only an\nordinary lawyer and a political partisan, and appointed to his office\nbecause he is a fawning sycophant, and will interpret the law to suit\nthe ambition of the government--a thing that has happened in this city.\nIs he to lay down the law for the jurors who aim only to live in\nhonorable morality, to hurt no one, and give every man his due?\n\nSuppose the attorneys at the bar know the law better than the attorney\non the bench,--a thing that daily happens,--are not the jurors to\ndecide for themselves?\n\nI have chosen fictitious cases to try the principle. Extreme cases make\nshipwreck of a wicked law, but are favoring winds to bring every just\nstatute into its happy harbor at the last. Will you say we are not\nlikely to suffer from such usurpation? You know what we have suffered\nwithin three months past. God only knows what is to come. But no man is\never to seek for a stick if he wishes to beat a dog, or for a cross if\nhe would murder his Saviour. The only way to preserve liberty is by\neternal vigilance: we must be jealous of every president, every\nminister, every judge, every officer, from a king to the meanest\ncommissioner he appoints to kidnap men. You have seen the attempts made\nto sap and undermine one of the most valuable safeguards of our social\nwelfare,--seen that it excited very little attention; and I wish to warn\nyou of the danger of a false principle. I have waited for this day to\nspeak on this theme. Executive tyranny, with soldiers at its command,\nmust needs be open in its deeds of shame. It may waste the money of the\npublic which cleaves to the suspected hands of its officers: it is not\nso easy to get the necks of those it hates; for we have no star-chamber\nof democracy, and here the executive has not many soldiers at command,\nmust ask before it can get them. It did ask, and got \"No\" for answer.\nLegislative tyranny must needs be public, and is easily seen. But\njudicial tyranny is secret, subtle, unseen in its action; and all\nexperience shows it is one of the most dangerous forms of tyranny. A\ncorrupt judge poisons the wells of human society.[37] Scroggs and\nJeffries are names deservedly hated by mankind, and there are some\nAmerican names likely to be added to them. The traditionary respect\nentertained here for an office which has been graced by some of the\nnoblest men in the land, doubles our danger.\n\nBut an attack is made on another safeguard of society, yet more\nimportant. We have been told that there is no law higher than a human\nstatute, no law of God above an act of the American Congress. You know\nhow this doctrine of the supremacy of the lower law has been taught in\nthe high places of the State, in the high places of the church, and in\nthe low places of the public press. You know with what sneers men have\nbeen assailed who appealed to conscience, to religion, and said, \"The\nlaw of God is supreme; above all the enactments of mortal men.\" You have\nbeen witness to attempts to howl down the justice of the Almighty. We\nhave had declamation and preaching against the law of God. It is said\nthe French Assembly, some fifty or sixty years ago, voted that there\nshould be no public worship of God; that there was no God to worship;\nbut it was left for politicians and preachers of America, in our time,\nto declare that there is no law above the caprice of mortal men. Did the\nFrench \"philosophers\" decree speculative atheism? the American \"wise\nmen\" put it in practice. They deny the function of God. \"He has nothing\nto do with mankind.\" This doctrine is one of the foulest ever taught,\nand tends directly to debauch the conscience of the people. What if\nthere were no law higher than an act of Parliament? what would become of\nthe Parliament itself? There is such a thing conceivable as personal,\nspeculative atheism. I think it is a very rare thing. I have never known\nan atheist: for, with all about us speaking of God; all within us\nspeaking of him; every telescope revealing the infinite Mind in nebulae\nresolved to groups of systems of suns; every microscope revealing the\ninfinite Father, yea, Mother of the world, in a drop of water, a grain\nof perishing wood, or an atom of stone; every little pendulum revealing\nhis unchanging law on a small scale; and this whole group of solar\nsystems, in its slow and solemn swing through heavenly space, disclosing\nthe same law on a scale which only genius at first can comprehend,--it\nis not easy to arrive at personal, speculative atheism. It would be a\ndreadful thing, the stark denial of a God. To say there is no infinite\nMind in finite matter, no order in the universe, in providence only a\nfate, no God for all, no Father for any, only an inextinguishable\nnothing that fills the desert and illimitable ether of space and time,\nthe whence and whither of all that are,--such a belief is conceivable;\nbut I do not believe that there is a single atheist living on the whole\nround world. There is no general danger of personal, speculative\natheism. When M. Lalande declared that he saw no God through his\ntelescope, though he meant not to deny the real God of nature, the world\nrang with indignation at an astronomer undevout and mad. But practical,\npolitical atheism has become a common thing in America, in New England.\nThis is not a denial of the essence of God and his being, but of his\nfunction as Supreme Ruler of the church, of the State, of the people, of\nthe universe. Of that there is danger. The devil of ambition tempts the\ngreat man to it; the devil of covetousness, the little man. Both strike\nhands, and say, \"There is no higher law;\" and low men lift up their mean\nforeheads in the pulpits of America and say, \"It is the voice of a God,\nand not of a man. There is no higher law.\" The greatest understanding of\nthis land, with haughty scorn, has lately said, \"The North Mountain is\nvery high; the Blue Ridge, higher still; the Alleghanies higher than\neither; and yet this 'higher law' ranges further than an eagle's flight\nabove the highest peaks of the Alleghanies.\"[38] The impious taunt was\nreceived with \"laughter\" by men who have long acted on the maxim that\nthere is no law of God, and whose State is impoverished by the attempt\nto tread His law under foot. I know men in America have looked so long\nat political economy that they have forgotten political morality, and\nseem to think politics only national housekeeping, and he the best ruler\nwho buys cheapest and sells dearest. But I confess I am amazed when\nstatesmen forget the lessons of those great men that have gone before\nus, and built up the social state, whose \"deep foundations have been\nlaid with prayer.\" What! is there no law above the North Mountain; above\nthe Blue Ridge; higher than the Alleghanies? Why, the old Hebrew poet\ntold us of One \"which removeth the mountains, and they know not; which\noverturneth them in his anger; which alone spreadeth out the heavens,\nand treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Lo! he goeth by me, and I see\nhim not; he passeth on also, but I perceive him not.\" Yes, there is\nOne--his law \"an eagle's flight above the Alleghanies\"--who humbleth\nhimself to behold the things that are in heaven, whose strong hand\nsetteth fast the mountains; yea, One who hath weighed the mountains in\nscales; before whom all nations are as a very little thing. Yes, Father\nin heaven! before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst\nformed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting,\nthou art God. Yea, thou hast been our dwelling-place in all generations.\nThy name alone is excellent; thy glory above the earth and heaven!\n\nNo higher law for States than the poor statutes they enact!\n\n    \"Among the assemblies of the great\n    A greater Ruler takes his seat;\n    The God of heaven as Judge surveys\n    These 'gods of earth' and all their ways:--\n    'Why will you frame oppressive laws?\n    Or why support the unrighteous cause?\n    When will you once defend the poor,\n    That foes may vex the saints no more?'\n    They know not, Lord, nor will they know;\n    Dark are the ways in which they go;\n    Their name of 'earthly gods' is vain,\n    For they shall fall and die like men.\"\n\nIt would be a great calamity for this nation to lose all of its mighty\nriches, and have nothing left but the soil we stand on. But, in seven or\neight generations, it would all be restored again; for all the wealth of\nAmerica has been won in less time. We are not two hundred and fifty\nyears from Jamestown and Plymouth. It would be a great misfortune to\nlose all the foremost families of the nation. But England lost hers in\nthe War of the Roses; France, in her Revolution. Nature bore great men\nanew, and fresh families sprung up as noble as the old. But, if this\ngeneration in America could believe that there was no law of God for you\nand me to keep,--say the acts of Congress what they might say,--no law\nto tame the ambition of men of mountain greatness, and curb the eagle's\nflight of human tyranny, that would be a calamity which the nation would\nnever recover from. No! then religion would die out; affection fall\ndead; conscience would perish; intellect give up the ghost, and be no\nmore. No law higher than human will! No watchmaker can make a long\npendulum vibrate so quick as a short. In this very body there is that\nlaw. I wake and watch and will; my private caprice turns my hand, now\nhere, now there. But who controls my breath? Who bids this heart beat\nall day long, and all the night, sleep I or wake? Whose subtle law holds\ntogether these particles of flesh, of blood, and bone in marvellous\nvitality? Who gives this eye its power to see, and opens wide the portal\nof the ear? and who enchants, with most mysterious life, this wondrous\ncommonwealth of dust I call myself? It is the same Hand whose law is\n\"higher than the Blue Ridge,\" an \"eagle's flight above the Alleghanies.\"\nWho rules the State, and, out of a few stragglers that fled here to New\nEngland for conscience sake, built up this mighty, wealthy State? Was\nit Carver and Winthrop who did all this; Standish and Saltonstall? Was\nit the cunning craftiness of mightiest men that consciously, well\nknowing what they did, laid the foundations of our New England State and\nour New England Church? Why, the boys at school know better. It was the\neternal God whose higher law the Pilgrim and the Puritan essayed to\nkeep, not knowing whereunto the thing would grow. Shall the fool say in\nhis heart there is no God? He cannot make a hair grow on his head but by\nthe eternal law of his Father in heaven. Will the politician say there\nis no law of God for States? Ask the sorrowing world; let Austria and\nHungary make reply. Nay, ask the Southern States of America to show us\ntheir rapid increase in riches, in civilization; to show us their\nschools and their scholars, their literature, their science, and their\nart! No law of God for States! It is writ on the iron leaf of destiny,\n\"Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a curse to any people.\" Let\nthe wicked hand of the South join with the Northern wicked hand,\niniquity shall not prosper. But the eye of the wicked shall fail; they\nshall not escape; their hope shall be as giving up the ghost, because\ntheir tongue and their doings are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes\nof his glory. Their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall\ngo up as dust, if they cast away the law of the Lord, and despise the\nword of the Holy One.\n\nIn America the people are strongly attached to the institutions,\nconstitutions, and statutes of the land. On the whole, they are just\nestablishments. If not, we made them ourselves, and can make them better\nwhen we will. The execution of laws is also popular. Nowhere in the\nworld is there a people so orderly, so much attached to law, as the\npeople of these Northern States. But one law is an exception. The people\nof the North hate the fugitive slave law, as they have never hated any\nlaw since the stamp act. I know there are men in the Northern States who\nlike it,--who would have invented slavery, had it not existed long\nbefore. But the mass of the Northern people hate this law, because it is\nhostile to the purpose of all just human law, hostile to the purpose of\nsociety, hostile to the purpose of individual life; because it is\nhostile to the law of God,--bids the wrong, forbids the right. We\ndisobey that, for the same reason that we keep other laws: because we\nreverence the law of God. Why should we keep that odious law which makes\nus hated wherever justice is loved? Because we must sometimes do a\ndisagreeable deed to accomplish an agreeable purpose? The purpose of\nthat law is to enable three hundred thousand slaveholders to retake on\nour soil the men they once stole on other soil! Most of the city\nchurches of the North seem to think that is a good thing. Very well: is\nit worth while for fifteen million freemen to transgress the plainest\nof natural laws, the most obvious instincts of the human heart, and the\nplainest duties of Christianity, for that purpose? The price to pay is\nthe religious integrity of fifteen million men; the thing to buy is a\nprivilege for three hundred thousand slaveholders to use the North as a\nhunting-field whereon to kidnap men at our cost. Judge you of that\nbargain.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut I must end this long discourse. The other day I spoke of the vices\nof passion: great and terrible evils they wrought. They were as nothing\nto the vices of calculation. Passion was the flesh, ambition the devil.\nThere are vices of democracy, vices of radicalism; very great vices they\nare too. You may read of them in Hume and Alison. They are painted black\nas night and bloody as battle in tory journals of England, and the more\nvulgar tory journals of America. Democracy wrought terrible evils in\nBritain in Cromwell's time; in France at her Revolution. But to the\nvices, the crimes, the sins of aristocracy, of conservatism,--they are\nwhat the fleeting lust of the youth is to the cool, hard, calculating,\nand indomitable ambition of the grown man. Radicalism pillaged Governor\nHutchinson's house, threw some tea into the ocean; conservatism set up\nits stamp act, and drove America into revolution. Radicalism helped\nShadrach out of court; conservatism enacted the fugitive slave bill.\nRadicalism sets up a republic that is red for six months; conservatism\nsets up a red monarchy covered with blood for hundreds of years. Judge\nyou from which we have the most to fear.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch are the safeguards of society; such our condition. What shall we\ndo? Nobody would dare pretend to build a church except on righteousness;\nthat is, the rock of ages. Can you build a state on any other\nfoundation--that house upon the sand? What should you think of a\nminister of the church who got his deacons together, and made a creed,\nand said, \"There is no higher law; no law of God. You, laymen, must take\nour word for your guidance, and do just as we bid you, and violate the\nplainest commands of conscience?\" What would be atheism in a minister of\nthe church,--is that patriotism in a minister of the state? A bad law is\na most powerful instrument to demoralize and debauch the people. If it\nis a law of their own making, it is all the worse. There is no real and\nmanly welfare for a man, without a sense of religious obligation to God;\nnone in a family, none in a church, none in a state. We want\nrighteousness in the people, in their establishments, in their officers.\nI adjure you to reverence a government that is right, statutes that are\nright, officers that are right; but to disobey every thing that is\nwrong. I entreat you by your love for your country, by the memory of\nyour fathers, by your reverence for Jesus Christ, yea, by the deep and\nholy love of God which Jesus taught, and you now feel.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[34] See note on Function of the Jury, above, p. 165.\n\n[35] In these times of political corruption, when a postmaster in a\ncountry village is turned out of office for voting for a representative\nto Congress who exposed the wickedness of a prominent member of the\ncabinet, it is pleasant to read such letters as those of Washington to\nBenjamin Lincoln, March 11, 1789, and to Bushrod Washington, July 27,\n1789, in Sparks's Writings of Washington, vol. ix. p. 477, _et seq._,\nand x. p. 73, _et seq._\n\n[36] In the Pilgrim's Progress, Bunyan gives a case which it is probable\nwas fictitious only in the names of the parties. Faithful was indicted\nbefore Lord Hategood for a capital offence. Mr. Envy testified. Then the\njudge asked him, Hast thou any more to say? Envy replied: \"My Lord, I\ncould say much more, only I would not be tedious to the court. Yet, if\nneed be, when the other gentlemen have given in their evidence, rather\nthan any thing should be wanting that will dispatch him, I will enlarge\nmy testimony against him.\"\n\nLord Hategood stated the law--there were three statutes against the\nprisoner: 1. The act of King Pharaoh, in 1 Exodus 22; 2. That of King\nNebuchadnezzar in 3 Daniel 6; and 3. That of King Darius in 6 Daniel 7.\nThe jury took \"the law from the ruling of the court,\" and, having been\ncarefully packed, to judge from the names, and all just men expelled\nfrom their number, they readily found such a verdict as the government\nhad previously determined upon.\n\nThe same thing, _mutatis mutandis_, has been attempted in America, in\nBoston, and we may fear that in some instances it will succeed.\n\n[37] Since the first publication of this sermon we have seen\neight-and-thirty men indicted for treason under the fugitive slave law,\nbecause they resisted the attempt to kidnap one of their number, and\nkilled one of the kidnappers. This indictment was found at the\ninstigation of an officer of the government, who adds new infamy to the\nname of the great first murderer.\n\n[38] Speech at Capon Springs.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\nTHE POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR.--AN ADDRESS DELIVERED\nAT WATERVILLE, AUGUST 8, 1849.\n\n\nMen of a superior culture get it at the cost of the whole community, and\ntherefore, at first owe for their education. They must pay back an\nequivalent, or else remain debtors to mankind, debtors forever; that is,\nbeggars or thieves, such being the only class that are thus perpetually\nin debt and a burden to the race.\n\nIt is true that every man, the rudest Prussian boor, as well as Von\nHumboldt, is indebted to mankind for his culture, to their past history\nand their existing institutions, to their daily toil. Taking the whole\nculture into the account, the debt bears about the same ratio to the\nreceipt in all men. I speak not of genius, the inborn faculty which\ncosts mankind nothing, only of the education thereof, which the man\nobtains. The Irishman who can only handle his spade, wear his garments,\ntalk his wild brogue, and bid his beads, has four or five hundred\ngenerations of ancestors behind him, and is as long descended, and from\nas old a stock, as the accomplished patrician scholar at Oxford and\nBerlin. The Irishman depends on them all, and on the present generation\nfor his culture. But he has obtained his development with no special\noutlay and cost of the human race. In getting that rude culture, he has\nappropriated nothing to himself which is taken from another man's share.\nHe has paid as he went along, so he owes nothing in particular for his\neducation; and mankind has no claim on him as for value received. But\nthe Oxford graduate has been a long time at school and college; not\nearning, but learning; living therefore at the cost of mankind, with an\nobligation and an implied promise to pay back when he comes of age and\ntakes possession of his educated faculties. He therefore has not only\nthe general debt which he shares with all men, but an obligation quite\nspecial and peculiar for his support while at study.\n\nThis rule is general, and applies to the class of educated men with some\napparent exceptions, and a very few real ones. Some men are born of poor\nbut strong-bodied parents, and endowed with great abilities; they\ninherit nothing except their share of the general civilization of\nmankind, and the onward impulse which that has given. These men devote\nthemselves to study; and having behind them an ancestry of\nbroad-shouldered, hard-handed, stalwart, temperate men, and\ndeep-bosomed, red-armed and industrious mothers, they are able to do the\nwork of two or three men at the time. Such men work while they study;\nthey teach while they learn; they hew their own way through the wood by\nsuperior strength and skill born in their bones, with an axe themselves\nhave chipped out from the stone, or forged of metal, or paid for with\nthe result of their first hewings. They are specially indebted to nobody\nfor their culture. They pay as they go, owing the academic ferryman\nnothing for setting them over into the elysium of the scholar.\n\nOnly few men ever make this heroic and crucial experiment. None but poor\nmen's sons essay the trial. Nothing but poverty has whips sharp enough\nto sting indolent men, even of genius, to such exertion of the manly\npart. But even this proud race often runs into another debt: they run up\nlong scores with the body, which must one day be paid \"with aching head\nand squeamish heart-burnings.\" The credit on account of the hardy\nfathers, is not without limit. It is soon exhausted; especially in a\nland where the atmosphere, the institutions, and the youth of the people\nall excite to premature and excessive prodigality of effort. The body\ntakes a mortgage on the spendthrift spirit, demands certain regular\nperiodic payments, and will one day foreclose for breach of condition,\nimpede the spirit's action in the premises, putting a very disagreeable\nkeeper there, and finally expel the prodigal mortgagor. So it often\nhappens, that a man, who in his youth scorned a pecuniary debt to\nmankind, and would receive no favor even to buy culture with, has yet,\nunconsciously and against his will, contracted debts which trouble him\nin manhood, and impede his action all his life; with swollen feet and\nblear eyes famous Griesbach pays for the austere heroism of his\npenurious and needy youth. The rosy bud of genius, on the poor man's\ntree, too often opens into a lean and ghastly flower. Could not Burns\ntell us this?\n\nWith the rare exceptions just hinted at, any man of a superior culture\nowes for it when obtained. Sometimes the debt is obvious: a farmer with\nsmall means and a large family sends the most hopeful of his sons to\ncollege. Look at the cost of the boy's culture. His hands are kept from\nwork that his mind may be free. He fares on daintier food, wears more\nand more costly garments. Other members of the family must feed and\nclothe him, earn his tuition-fees, buy his books, pay for his fuel and\nroom-rent. For this the father rises earlier than of old, yoking the\noxen a great while before day of a winter's morning, and toils till long\nafter dark of a winter's night, enduring cold and hardship. For this the\nmother stints her frugal fare, her humble dress; for this the brothers\nmust forego sleep and pastime, must toil harder, late and early both;\nfor this the sisters must seek new modes of profitable work, must wear\ntheir old finery long after it is finery no more. The spare wealth of\nthe family, stinted to spare it, is spent on this one youth. From the\nfather to the daughters, all lay their bones to extraordinary work for\nhim; the whole family is pinched in body that this one youth may go\nbrave and full. Even the family horse pays his tax to raise the\neducation fee.\n\nMen see the hopeful scholar, graceful and accomplished, receiving his\nacademic honors, but they see not the hard-featured father standing\nunheeded in the aisle, nor the older sister in an obscure corner of the\ngallery, who had toiled in the factory for the favored brother, tending\nhis vineyard, her own not kept, who had perhaps learned the letters of\nGreek to hear him recite the grammar at home. Father and sister know not\na word of the language in which his diploma is writ and delivered. At\nwhat cost of the family tree is this one flower produced? How many\nleaves, possible blossoms, yea, possible branches have been absorbed to\ncreate this one flower, which shall perpetuate the kind, after being\nbeautiful and fragrant in its own season? Yet, while these leaves are\ngrowing for the blossom's sake, and the life of the tree is directed\nthither with special and urgent emphasis, the difference between branch\nand blossom, leaf and petal, is getting more and more. By and by the two\ncannot comprehend each other; the acorn has forgotten the leaf which\nreared it, and thinks itself of another kin. Grotius, who speaks a host\nof languages, talking with the learned of all countries, and of every\nage, has forgot his mother tongue, and speech is at an end with her that\nbore him. The son, accomplished with many a science, many an art, ceases\nto understand the simple consciousness of his father and mother. They\nare proud of him--that he has outgrown them; he ashamed of them when\nthey visit him amid his scholarly company. To them he is a philosopher;\nthey only clowns in his eyes. He learns to neglect, perhaps to despise\nthem, and forgets his obligation and his debt. Yet by their rudeness is\nit that he is refined. His science and literary skill are purchased by\ntheir ignorance and uncouthness of manner and of speech. Had the\neducational cost been equally divided, all had still continued on a\nlevel; he had known no Latin, but the whole family might have spoken\ngood English. For all the difference which education has made betwixt\nhim and his kinsfolk he is a debtor.\n\nIn New England you sometimes see extremes of social condition brought\ntogether. The blue-frocked father, well advanced, but hale as an October\nmorning, jostles into Boston in a milk-cart, his red-cheeked\ngrand-daughter beside him, also coming for some useful daily work, while\nthe youngest son, cultured at the cost of that grand-daughter's sire and\nby that father's toil, is already a famous man; perhaps also a proud\none, eloquent at the bar, or powerful in the pulpit, or mighty in the\nsenate. The family was not rich enough to educate all the children after\nthis costly sort; one becomes famous, the rest are neglected, obscure,\nand perhaps ignorant; the cultivated son has little sympathy with them.\nSo the men that built up the cathedrals of Strasbourg and Milan slept in\nmean hutches of mud and straw, dirty, cold, and wet; the finished tower\nlooks proudly down upon the lowly thatch, all heedless of the cost at\nwhich itself arose.\n\nIt is plain that this man owes for his education; it is plain whom he\nowes. But all men of a superior culture, though born to wealth, get\ntheir education in the same way, only there is this additional mischief\nto complicate the matter: the burden of self-denial is not borne by the\nman's own family, but by other fathers and mothers, other brothers and\nsisters. They also pay the cost of his culture, bear the burden for no\nspecial end, and have no personal or family joy in the success; they do\nnot even know the scholar they help to train. They who hewed the\ntopstone of society are far away when it is hoisted up with shouting.\nMost of the youths now-a-days trained at Harvard College are the sons of\nrich men, yet they also, not less, are educated at the public charge;\nbeneficiaries not of the \"Hopkins' Fund,\" but of the whole community.\nSociety is not yet rich enough to afford so generous a culture to all\nwho ask, who deserve, or who would pay for it a hundred-fold. The\naccomplished man who sits in his well-endowed scholarship at Oxford, or\nrejoices to be \"Master of Trinity,\" though he have the estate of the\nWestminsters and Sutherlands behind him, is still the beneficiary of the\npublic, and owes for his schooling.\n\nIn the general way among the industrious classes of New England, a boy\nearns his living after he is twelve years old. If he gets the superior\neducation of the scholar solely by the pecuniary aid of his father or\nothers, when he is twenty-five and enters on his profession, law,\nmedicine, or divinity, politics, school-keeping, or trade, he has not\nearned his Latin grammar; has rendered no appreciable service to\nmankind; others have worked that he might study, and taught that he\nmight learn. He has not paid the first cent towards his own schooling;\nhe is indebted for it to the whole community. The ox-driver in the\nfields, the pavior in the city streets, the laborer on the railroad, the\nlumberer in the woods, the girl in the factory, each has a claim on him.\nIf he despises these persons, or cuts himself off from sympathy with\nthem; if he refuses to perform his function for them after they have\ndone their possible to fit him for it; he is not only the perpetual and\nungrateful debtor, but is more guilty than the poor man's son who\nforgets the family that sent him to college: for that family consciously\nand willingly made the sacrifice, and got some satisfaction for it in\nthe visible success of their scheme, nay, are sometimes proud of the\npride which scorns them, while with the mass of men thus slighted there\nis no return for their sacrifice. They did their part, faithfully did\nit; their beneficiary forgets his function.\n\nThe democratic party in New England does not much favor the higher\nseminaries of education. There has long been a suspicion against them in\nthe mass of the community, and among the friends of the public education\nof the people a serious distrust. This is the philosophy of that\ndiscontent: public money spent on the higher seminaries is so much taken\nfrom the humbler schools, so much taken from the colleges of all for the\ncollege of the few; men educated at such cost have not adequately repaid\nthe public for the sacrifice made on their account; men of superior\neducation have not been eminently the friends of mankind, they do not\neminently represent Truth, Justice, Philanthropy, and Piety; they do not\npoint men to lofty human life, and go thitherward in advance of mankind;\ntheir superior education has narrowed their sympathies, instead of\nwidening; they use their opportunities against mankind, and not in its\nbehalf; think, write, legislate, and live not for the interest of\nmankind, but only for a class; instead of eminent wisdom, justice,\npiety, they have eminent cunning, selfishness, and want of faith. These\ncharges are matters of allegation; judge you if they be not also matters\nof fact.\n\nNow there is a common feeling amongst men that the scholar is their\ndebtor, and, in virtue of this, that they have a right to various\nservices from him. No honest man asks the aid of a farmer or a\nblacksmith without intending to repay him in money; no assembly of\nmechanics would ask another to come two hundred miles and give them a\nmonth's work, or a day's work. Yet they will ask a scholar to do so.\nWhat gratuitous services are demanded of the physician, of the minister,\nof the man of science and letters in general! No poor man in Boston but\nthinks he has a good claim on any doctor; no culprit in danger of\nliberty or life but will ask the services of a lawyer, wholly without\nrecompense, to plead his cause. The poorest and most neglected class of\nmen look on every good clergyman as their missionary and minister and\nfriend; the better educated and more powerful he is, the juster and\ngreater do they feel their claim on him. A pirate in jail may command\nthe services of any Christian minister in the land. Most of the high\nachievements in science, letters and art, have had no apparent pay. The\npay came beforehand: in general and from God, in the greater ability,\n\"the vision and the faculty divine,\" but in particular also and from\nmen, in the opportunity afforded them by others for the use and culture\nthereof. Divinely and humanly they are well paid. Men feel that they\nhave this right to the services of the scholar, in part because they\ndimly know that his superior education is purchased at the general cost.\nHence, too, they are proud of the few able and accomplished men, feeling\nthat all have a certain property therein, as having contributed their\nmite to the accumulation, by their divine nature related to the men of\ngenius, by their human toil partners in the acquirements of the scholar.\nThis feeling is not confined to men who intellectually can appreciate\nintellectual excellence. The little parish in the mountains, and the\ngreat parish in the city, are alike proud of the able-headed and\naccomplished scholar, who ministers to them; though neither the poor\nclowns of the village nor the wealthy clowns of the metropolis could\nenter into his consciousness and understand his favorite pursuits or\nloftiest thought. Both would think it insulting to pay such a man in\nfull proportion to his work or their receipt. Nobody offers a salary to\nthe House of Lords: their lordship is their pay, and they must give\nback, in the form of justice and sound government, an equivalent for all\nthey take in high social rank. They must pay for their nobility by being\nnoble lords.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow shall the scholar pay for his education? He is to give a service for\nthe service received. Thus the miller and the farmer pay one another,\neach paying with service in his own kind. The scholar cannot pay back\nbread for bread, and cloth for cloth. He must pay in the scholar's kind,\nnot the woodman's or the weaver's. He is to represent the higher modes\nof human consciousness; his culture and opportunities of position fit\nhim for that. So he is not merely to go through the routine of his\nprofession, as minister, doctor, lawyer, merchant, schoolmaster,\npolitician, or maker of almanacs, and for his own advantage; he is also\nto represent truth, justice, beauty, philanthropy, and religion--the\nhighest facts of human experience; he must be common, but not vulgar,\nand, as a star, must dwell apart from the vulgarity of the selfish and\nthe low. He may win money without doing this, get fame and power, and\nthereby seem to pay mankind for their advance to him, while he rides\nupon their neck; but as he has not paid back the scholar's cost and in\nthe scholar's way, he is a debtor still, and owes for his past culture\nand present position.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch is the position of the scholar everywhere, and such his consequent\nobligation. But in America there are some circumstances which make the\nposition and the duty still more important. Beside the natural\naristocracy of genius, talent, and educated skill, in most countries\nthere is also a conventional and permanent nobility based on royal or\npatrician descent and immovable aristocracy. Its members monopolize the\nhigh places of society, and if not strong by nature are so by position.\nThose men check the natural power of the class of scholars. The\ndescendant of some famous chief of old time, takes rank before the\nBacons, the Shakspeares, and the Miltons of new families, born\nyesterday, to-day gladdened and gladdening with the joy of their genius,\nusurps their place, and for a time \"shoves away the worthy bidden guest\"\nfrom the honors of the public board. Here there is no such class: a man\nborn at all is well born; with a great nature, nobly born; the career\nopens to all that can run, to all men that wish to try; our aristocracy\nis movable, and the scholar has scope and verge enough.\n\nGermany has the largest class of scholars; men of talent, sometimes of\ngenius, of great working power, exceedingly well furnished for their\nwork, with a knowledge of the past and the present. On the whole, they\nseem to have a greater power of thought than the scholars of any other\nland. They live in a country where intellectual worth is rated at its\nhighest value. As England is the paradise of the patrician and the\nmillionnaire, so is Germany for the man of thought; Goethe and Schiller,\nand the Humboldts took precedence of the mere conventional aristocracy.\nThe empire of money is for England; that of mind is for Germany. But\nthere the scholar is positively hindered in his function by the power of\nthe government, which allows freedom of thought, and by education tends\nto promote it, yet not its correlative freedom of speech, and still\nless the consequent of that--freedom of act. Revelations of new thought\nare indeed looked for, and encouraged in certain forms, but the\ncorresponding revolution of old things is forbidden. An idea must remain\nan idea; the government will not allow it to become a deed, an\ninstitution, an idea organized in men. The children of the mind must be\nexposed to die, or, if left alive, their feet are cramped, so that they\ncannot go alone; useless, joyless, and unwed, they remain in their\nfather's house. The government seeks to establish national unity of\naction, by the sacrifice of individual variety of action, personal\nfreedom; every man must be a soldier and a Christian, wearing the livery\nof the government on the body and in the soul, and going through the\nspiritual exercises of the church, as through the manual exercise of the\ncamp. In a nation so enlightened, personal freedom cannot be wholly\nsacrificed, so thought is left free, but speech restricted by\ncensorship--speech with the human mouth or the iron lips of the press.\nNow, as of old, is there a controversy between the temporal and the\nspiritual powers, about the investiture of the children of the soul.\n\nThen, on the other side, the scholar is negatively impeded by the\ncomparative ignorance of the people, by their consequent lack of\nadministrative power and self-help, and their distrust of themselves.\nThere a great illumination has gone on in the upper heavens of the\nlearned, meteors coruscating into extraordinary glory; it has hardly\ndawned on the low valleys of the common people. If it shines there at\nall, it is but as the Northern Aurora with a little crackling noise,\nlending a feeble and uncertain light, not enough to walk with, and no\nwarmth at all; a light which disturbs the dip and alters the variation\nof the old historical compass, bewilders the eye, hides the stars, and\nyet is not bright enough to walk by without stumbling. There is a\nlearned class, very learned and very large, with whom the scholar\nthinks, and for whom he writes, most uncouthly, in the language only of\nthe schools, and, if not kept in awe by the government, they are\ncontented that a thought should remain always a thought; while in their\nown heart they disdain all authority but that of truth, justice, and\nlove, they leave the people subject to no rule but the priest, the\nmagistrate, and old custom, which usurp the place of reason, conscience,\nand the affections. There is a very enlightened pulpit, and a very dull\naudience. In America, it is said, for every dough-faced representative\nthere is a dough-faced constituency, but in Germany there is not an\nintelligent people for each intelligent scholar. So on condition a great\nthought be true and revolutionary, it is hard to get it made a thing.\nIdeas go into a nunnery, not a family. Phidias must keep his awful Jove\nonly in his head; there is no marble to carve it on. Eichhorn and\nStrauss, and Kant and Hegel, with all their pother among the learned,\nhave kept no boor from the communion-table, nor made him discontented\nwith the despotism of the State. They wrote for scholars, perhaps for\ngentlemen, for the enlightened, not for the great mass of the people, in\nwhom they had no confidence. There is no class of hucksters of thought,\nwho retail philosophy to the million. The million have as yet no\nappetite for it. So the German scholar is hindered from his function on\neither hand by the power of the government, or the ignorance of the\npeople. He talks to scholars and not men; his great ideas are often as\nidle as shells in a lady's cabinet.\n\nIn America all is quite different. There are no royal or patrician\npatrons, no plebeian clients in literature, no immovable aristocracy to\nwithstand or even retard the new genius, talent, or skill of the\nscholar. There is no class organized, accredited and confided in, to\nresist a new idea; only the unorganized inertia of mankind retards the\ncirculation of thought and the march of men. Our historical men do not\nfound historical families; our famous names of to-day are all new names\nin the State. American aristocracy is bottomed on money which no\nunnatural laws make steadfast and immovable. To exclude a scholar from\nthe company of rich men, is not to exclude him from an audience that\nwill welcome and appreciate.\n\nThen the government does not interfere to prohibit the free exercise of\nthought. Speaking is free, preaching free, printing free. No\nadministration in America could put down a newspaper or suppress the\ndiscussion of an unwelcome theme. The attempt would be folly and\nmadness. There is no \"tonnage and poundage\" on thought. It is seldom\nthat lawless violence usurps the place of despotic government. The chief\nopponent of the new philosophy is the old philosophy. The old has only\nthe advantage of a few years; the advantage of possession of the ground.\nIt has no weapons of defence which the new has not for attack. What\nhinders the growth of the new democracy of to-day?--only the old\ndemocracy of yesterday, once green, and then full blown, but now going\nto seed. Everywhere else walled gardens have been built for it to go\nquietly to seed in, and men appointed, in God's name or the States', to\nexterminate as a weed every new plant of democratic thought which may\nspring up and suck the soil or keep off the sun, so that the old may\nquietly occupy the ground, and undisturbed continue to decay and\ncontaminate the air. Here it has nothing but its own stalk to hold up\nits head, and is armed with only such spines as it has grown out of its\nown substance.\n\nHere the only power which continually impedes the progress of mankind,\nand is conservative in the bad sense, is Wealth, which represents life\nlived, not now a-living, and labor accumulated, not now a-doing. Thus\nthe obstacle to free trade is not the notion that our meat must be\nhome-grown and our coat home-spun, but the money invested in\nmanufactures. Slavery is sustained by no prestige of antiquity, no\nabstract fondness for a patriarchal institution, no special zeal for\n\"Christianity\" which the churches often tell us demands it, but solely\nbecause the Americans have invested some twelve hundred millions of\ndollars in the bodies and souls of their countrymen, and fear they shall\nlose their capital. Whitney's gin for separating the cotton from its\nblue seed, making its culture and the labor of the slave profitable, did\nmore to perpetuate slavery than all the \"Compromises of the\nConstitution.\" The last argument in its favor is always this: It brings\nmoney, and we would not lose our investment. Weapon a man with iron he\nwill stand and fight; with gold, he will shrink and run. The class of\ncapitalists are always cowardly; here they are the only cowardly class\nthat has much political or social influence. Here gold is the imperial\nmetal; nothing but wealth is consecrated for life: the tonsure gets\ncovered up or grown over; vows of celibacy are no more binding than\ndicers' oaths; allegiance to the State is as transferable as a cent, and\nmay be alienated by going over the border; church-communion may be\nchanged or neglected; as men will, they sign off from Church and State;\nonly the dollar holds its own continually, and is the same under all\nadministrations, \"safe from the bar, the pulpit and the throne.\"\nObstinate money continues in office spite of the proscriptive policy of\nPolk and Taylor; the laws may change, South Carolina move out of the\nnation, the Constitution be broken, the Union dissolved, still money\nholds its own. That is the only peculiar weapon which the old has\nwherewith to repel the new.\n\nHere, too, the scholar has as much freedom as he will take; himself\nalone stands in his own light, nothing else between him and the infinite\nmajesty of Truth. He is free to think, to speak, to print his word and\norganize his thought. No class of men monopolize public attention or\nhigh place. He comes up to the Genius of America, and she asks: \"What\nwould you have, my little man?\" \"More liberty,\" lisps he. \"Just as much\nas you can carry,\" is the answer. \"Pay for it and take it, as much as\nyou like, there it is.\" \"But it is guarded!\" \"Only by gilded flies in\nthe daytime; they look like hornets, but can only buzz, not bite with\ntheir beak, nor sting with their tail. At night it is defended by daws\nand beetles, noisy but harmless. Here is marble, my son, not classic and\nfamous as yet, but good as the Parian stone; quarry as much as you will,\nenough for a nymph or a temple. Say your wisest and do your best thing;\nnobody will hurt you!\"\n\nNot much more is the scholar impeded by the ignorance of the people, not\nat all in respect to the substance of his thought. There is no danger\nthat he will shoot over the heads of the people by thinking too high for\nthe multitude. We have many authors below the market; scarce one above\nit. The people are continually looking for something better than our\nauthors give. No American author has yet been too high for the\ncomprehension of the people, and compelled to leave his writings \"to\nposterity after some centuries shall have passed by.\" If he has thought\nwith the thinkers and has something to say, and can speak it in plain\nspeech, he is sure to be widely understood. There is no learned class to\nwhom he may talk Latin or Sanscrit, and who will understand him if he\nwrite as ill as Immanuel Kant; there is not a large class to buy costly\neditions of ancient classics, however beautiful, or magnificent works on\nIndia, Egypt, Mexico--the class of scholars is too poor for that, the\nrich men have not the taste for such beauty--but there is an intelligent\nclass of men who will hear a man if he has what is worth listening to\nand says it plain. It will be understood and appreciated, and soon\nreduced to practice. Let him think as much in advance of men as he will,\nas far removed from the popular opinion as he may, if he arrives at a\ngreat truth he is sure of an audience, not an audience of\nfellow-scholars, as in Germany, but of fellow-men; not of the children\nof distinguished or rich men--rather of the young parents of such, an\naudience of earnest, practical people, who, if his thought be a truth,\nwill soon make it a thing. They will appreciate the substance of his\nthought, though not the artistic form which clothes it.\n\nThis peculiar relation of the man of genius to the people comes from\nAmerican institutions. Here the greatest man stands nearest to the\npeople, and without a mediator speaks to them face to face. This is a\nnew thing: in the classic nations oratory was for the people, so was the\ndrama, and the ballad; that was all their literature. But this came to\nthe people only in cities: the tongue travels slow and addresses only\nthe ear, while swiftly hurries on the printed word and speaks at once to\na million eyes. Thucydides and Tacitus wrote for a few; Virgil sang the\nlabors of the shepherd in old Ascraean verse, but only to the wealthy\nwits of Rome. \"I hate the impious crowd and stave them off,\" was the\nscholar's maxim then. All writing was for the few. The best English\nliterature of the sixteenth and seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is\namenable to the same criticism, except the dramatic and the religious.\nIt is so with all the permanent literature of Europe of that time. The\nsame must be said even of much of the religious literature of the\nscholars then. The writings of Taylor, of Barrow, and South, of Bossuet,\nMassillon and Bourdaloue, clergymen though they were, speaking with a\nreligious and therefore a universal aim, always presuppose a narrow\naudience of men of nice culture. So they drew their figures from the\nschoolmen, from the Greek anthology, from heathen classics and the\nChristian Fathers. Their illustrations were embellishments to the\nscholar, but only palpable darkness to the people. This fact of writing\nfor a few nice judges was of great advantage to the form of the\nliterature thus produced, but a disadvantage to the substance thereof, a\nmisfortune to the scholar himself, for it belittled his sympathies and\nkept him within a narrow range. Even the religious literature of the men\njust named betrays a lack of freedom, a thinking for the learned and not\nfor mankind; it has breathed the air of the cloister, not the sky, and\nis tainted with academic and monastic diseases. So the best of it is\nover-sentimental, timid, and does not point to hardy, manly life. Only\nLuther and Latimer preached to the million hearts of their\ncontemporaries. The dramatic literature, on the other hand, was for box,\npit and gallery; hence the width of poetry in its great masters; hence\nmany of its faults of form; and hence the wild and wanton luxuriance of\nbeauty which flowers out all over the marvellous field of art where\nShakspeare walked and sung. In the pulpit, excellence was painted as a\npriest, or monk, or nun, loving nothing but God; on the stage, as a\nsoldier, magistrate, a gentleman or simpleman, a wife and mother, loving\nalso child and friend. Only the literature of the player and the singer\nof ballads was for the people.\n\nHere all is changed, every thing that is written is for the hands of the\nmillion. In three months Mr. Macaulay has more readers in America than\nThucydides and Tacitus in twelve centuries. Literature, which was once\nthe sacrament of the few, only a shew-bread to the people, is now the\ndaily meat of the multitude. The best works get reprinted with great\nspeed; the highest poetry is soon in all the newspapers. Authors know\nthis, and write accordingly. It is only scientific works which ask for a\nspecial public. But even science, the proudest of the day, must come\ndown from the clouds of the academy, lay off its scholastic garb, and\nappear before the eyes of the multitude in common work-day clothes. To\nlarge and mainly unlearned audiences Agassiz and Walker set forth the\nhighest teachings of physics and metaphysics, not sparing difficult\nthings, but putting them in plain speech. Emerson takes his majestic\nintuitions of truth and justice, which transcend the experience of the\nages, and expounds them to the mechanics' apprentices, to the factory\ngirls at Lowell and Chicopee, and to the merchants' clerks at Boston.\nThe more original the speaker, and the more profound, the better is he\nrelished; the beauty of the form is not appreciated, but the original\nsubstance welcomed into new life over the bench, the loom, and even the\ndesk of the counting-house. Of a deep man the people ask clearness also,\nthinking he does not see a thing wholly till he sees it plain.\n\nFrom this new relation of the scholar to the people, and the direct\nintimacy of his intercourse with men, there comes a new modification of\nhis duty: he is to represent the higher facts of human consciousness to\nthe people, and express them in the speech of the people; to think with\nthe sage and saint, but talk with common men. It is easy to discourse\nwith scholars, and in the old academic carriage drive through the broad\ngateway of the cultivated class; but here the man of genius is to take\nthe new thought on his shoulders and climb up the stiff, steep hill, and\nfind his way where the wild asses quench their thirst, and the untamed\neagle builds his nest. Hence our American scholar must cultivate the\ndialectics of speech as well as thought. Power of speech without\nthought, a long tongue in an empty head, calls the people together once\nor twice, but soon its only echo is from an audience of empty pews.\nThought without power of speech finds little welcome here; there are not\nscholars enough to keep it in countenance. This popularity of\nintelligence gives a great advantage to the man of letters, who is also\na man. He can occupy the whole space between the extremes of mankind;\ncan be at once philosopher in his thought and people in his speech,\ndeliver his word without an interpreter to mediate, and, like King\nMithridates in the story, talk with the fourscore nations of his camp\neach in his own tongue.\n\nFurther still, there are some peculiarities of the American mind, in\nwhich we differ from our English brothers. They are more inclined to the\nmatter of fact, and appeal to history; we, to the matter of ideas, and\nhaving no national history but of a revolution, may appeal at once to\nhuman nature. So while they are more historical, fond of names and\nprecedents, enamoured of limited facts and coy towards abstract and\nuniversal ideas, with the maxim, \"Stand by the fixed,\" we are more\nmetaphysical, ideal, do not think a thing right because actual, nor\nimpossible because it has never been. The Americans are more\nmetaphysical than the English; have departed more from the old\nsensational philosophy, have welcomed more warmly the transcendental\nphilosophy of Germany and France. The Declaration of Independence and\nall the State Constitutions of the North begin with a universal and\nabstract idea. Even preaching is abstract and of ideas. Calvinism bears\nmetaphysical fruit in New England.\n\nThis fact modifies still more the function of the duty of the scholar.\nIt determines him to ideas, to facts for the ideas they cover, not so\nmuch to the past as the future, to the past only that he may guide the\npresent and construct the future. He is to take his run in the past to\nacquire the momentum of history, his stand in the present and leap into\nthe future.\n\nIn this manner the position and duty of the scholar in America are\nmodified and made peculiar; and thus is the mode determined for him, in\nwhich to pay for his education in the manner most profitable to the\npublic that has been at the cost of his training.\n\nThere is a test by which we measure the force of a horse or a\nsteam-engine: the raising of so many pounds through so many feet in a\ngiven time. The test of the scholar's power is his ability to raise men\nin their development.\n\nIn America there are three chief modes of acting upon the public,\nomitting others of small account. The first is the power which comes of\nNational Wealth; the next, that of Political Station; the third, power\nof Spiritual Wealth, so to say, eminent wisdom, justice, love, piety,\nthe power of sentiments and ideas, and the faculty of communicating them\nto other men, and organizing them therein. For the sake of shortness,\nlet each mode of power be symbolized by its instrument, and we have the\npower of the Purse, of the Office, and the Pen.\n\nThe Purse represents the favorite mode of power with us. This is natural\nin our present stage of national existence and human development; it is\nlikely to continue for a long time. In all civilized countries which\nhave outgrown the period when the sword was the favorite emblem, the\nPurse represents the favorite mode of power with the mass of men; but\nhere it is so with the men of superior education. This power is not\nwholly personal, but extra-personal, and the man's centre of gravity\nlies out of himself, less or more; somewhere between the man and his\nlast cent, the distance being greater or less as the man is less or\ngreater than the estate. This is wielded chiefly by men of little\neducation, except the practical culture which they have gained in the\nprocess of accumulation. Their riches they get purposely, their training\nby the way and accidentally. It is a singular misfortune of the country,\nthat, while the majority of the people are better cultivated and more\nenlightened than any other population in the world, the greater part of\nthe wealth of the nation is owned by men of less education and\nconsequently of less enlightenment than the rich men of any leading\nnation in Europe. In England and France the wealth of this generation is\nchiefly inherited, and has generally fallen to men carefully trained,\nwith minds disciplined by academic culture. Here wealth is new, and\nmainly in the hands of men who have scrambled for it adroitly and with\nvigor. They have energy, vigor, forecast, and a certain generosity, but\nas a class, are narrow, vulgar, and conceited. Nine tenths of the\nproperty of the people is owned by one tenth of the persons, and these\ncapitalists are men of little culture, little moral elevation. This is\nan accident of our position unavoidable, perhaps transient; but it is\ncertainly a misfortune that the great estates of the country, and the\nsocial and political power of such wealth, should be mainly in the hands\nof such men. The melancholy result appears in many a disastrous shape:\nin the tone of the pulpit, of the press, and of the national politics;\nmuch of the vulgarity of the nation is to be ascribed to this fact, that\nwealth belongs to men who know nothing better.\n\nThe Office represents the next most popular mode of power. This also is\nextra-personal, the man's centre of gravity is out of himself, somewhere\nbetween him and the lowest man in the State; the distance depending on\nthe proportion of manhood in him and the multitude, if the office is\nmuch greater than the man, then the officer's centre of gravity is\nfurther removed from his person. This is sought for by the ablest and\nbest educated men in the land. But there is a large class of educated\npersons who do not aspire to it from lack of ability, for in our form of\ngovernment it commonly takes some saliency of character to win the high\nplaces of office and use respectably this mode of power, while it\ndemands no great or lofty talents to accumulate the largest fortune in\nAmerica. It is true the whirlwind of an election, by the pressure of\nvotes, may, now and then, take a very heavy body up to a great height.\nYet it does not keep him from growing giddy and ridiculous while there,\nand after a few years lets him fall again into complete insignificance,\nwhence no Hercules can ever lift him up. A corrupt administration may do\nthe same, but with the same result. This consideration keeps many\neducated men from the political arena; others are unwilling to endure\nthe unsavory atmosphere of politics, and take part in a scramble so\nvulgar; but still a large portion of the educated and scholarly talent\nof the nation goes to that work.\n\nThe power of the Pen is wholly personal. It is the appropriate\ninstrument of the scholar, but it is least of all desired and sought\nfor. The rich man sends his sons to trade, to make too much of\ninheritance yet more by fresh acquisitions of superfluity. He does not\nsend them to literature, art or science. You find the scholar slipping\nin to other modes of action, not the merchants and politicians migrating\ninto this. He longs to act by the gravity of his money or station, not\ndraw merely by his head. The Office carries the day before the Pen; the\nPurse takes precedence of both. Educated men do not so much seek places\nthat demand great powers, as those which bring much gold. Self-denial\nfor money or office is common, for scholarship rare and unpopular. To\nact by money, not mind, is the ill-concealed ambition of many a\nwell-bred man; the desire of this colors his day-dream, which is less\nof wisdom and more of wealth, or of political station; so a first-rate\nclergyman desires to be razed to a second-rate politician, and some\n\"tall admiral\" of a politician consents to be cut down and turned into a\nmere sloop of trade. The representative in Congress becomes a president\nof an insurance office or a bank, or the agent of a cotton mill; the\njudge deserts his station on the bench and presides over a railroad; the\ngovernor or senator wants a place in the post-office; the historian\nlongs for a \"chance in the custom-house.\" The Pen stoops to the Office,\nthat to the Purse. The scholar would rather make a fortune by a balsam\nof wild cherry than write Hamlet or Paradise Lost for nothing; rather\nthan help mankind by making a Paradise Regained. The well-endowed\nminister thinks how much more money he might have made had he speculated\nin stocks and not theology, and mourns that the kingdom of heaven does\nnot pay in this present life fourfold. The professor of Greek is sorry\nhe was not a surveyor and superintendent of a railroad, he should have\nso much more money; that is what he has learned from Plato and Diogenes.\nWe estimate the skill of an artist like that of a peddler, not by the\npictures he has made, but by the money. There is a mercantile way of\ndetermining literary merit not by the author's books, but by his balance\nwith the publisher. No church is yet called after a man who is merely\nrich, something in the New Testament might hinder that; but the\nministers estimate their brother minister by the greatness of his\nposition, not of his character; not by his piety and goodness, not even\nby his reason and understanding, the culture he has attained thereby,\nand the use he makes thereof, but by the wealth of his church and the\nlargeness of his salary; so that he is not thought the fortunate and\ngreat minister who has a large outgo of spiritual riches, rebukes the\nsins of the nation and turns many to righteousness, but he who has a\nlarge material income, ministers, though poorly, to rich men, and is\nrichly paid for that function. The well-paid clergymen of a city tell\nthe professor of theology that he must teach \"such doctrines as the\nmerchants approve,\" or they will not give money to the college, and he,\nit, and \"the cause of the Lord\" will all come to the ground at the same\ntime and in kindred confusion. So blind Money would put out the heavenly\neyes of Science, and lead her also to his own ditch. It must not be\nforgotten that there are men in the midst of us, rich, respectable and\nhighly honored with social rank and political power, who practically and\nin strict conformity with their theory, honor Judas, who made money by\nhis treachery, far more than Jesus who laid down his life for men, whose\nmoney is deemed better than manhood. It must indeed be so. Any outrage\nthat is profitable to the controlling portion of society is sure to be\nwelcome to the leaders of the State, and is soon pronounced divine by\nthe leaders of the church.\n\nIt would seem as if the Pen ought to represent the favorite mode of\npower at a college; but even there the waters of Pactolus are thought\nfairer than the Castalian, Heliconian spring, or \"Siloa's brook that\nflowed fast by the oracle of God.\" The college is named after the men of\nwealth, not genius. How few professorships in America bear the names of\nmen of science or letters, and not of mere rich men! Which is thought\nthe greatest benefactor of a college, he who endows it with money or\nwith mind? Even there it is the Purse, not the Pen that is the symbol of\nhonor, and the University is \"up for California,\" not Parnassus.\n\nEven in politics the Purse turns the scale. Let a party wrestle never so\nhard it cannot throw the dollar. Money controls and commands talent, not\ntalent money. The successful shopkeeper frowns on and browbeats the\naccomplished politician, who has too much justice for the wharf and the\nboard of brokers; he notices that the rich men avert their eye, or keep\ntheir beaver down, trembles and is sad, fearing that his daughter will\nnever find a fitting spouse. The Purse buys up able men of superior\neducation, corrupts and keeps them as its retained attorneys, in\ncongress or the church, not as counsel but advocate, bribed to make the\nworse appear the better reason, and so help money to control the State\nand wield its power against the interest of mankind. This is perfectly\nwell known; but no politician or minister, bribed to silence or to\nspeech, ever loses his respectability because he is bought by\nrespectable men,--if he get his pay. In all countries but this the\nOffice is before the Purse; here the State is chiefly an accessory of\nthe Exchange, and our politics only mercantile. This appears sometimes\nagainst our will, in symbols not meant to tell the tale. Thus in the\nHouse of Representatives in Massachusetts, a codfish stares the speaker\nin the face--not a very intellectual looking fish. When it was put there\nit was a symbol of the riches of the State, and so of the Commonwealth.\nWith singular and unconscious satire it tells the legislature to have an\neye \"to the main chance,\" and, but for its fidelity to its highest\ninstincts and its obstinate silence, might be a symbol good enough for\nthe place.\n\nNow after the Office and the Purse have taken their votaries from the\neducated class, the ablest men are certainly not left behind. Three\nroads open before our young Hercules as he leaves college, having\nrespectively as finger-post, the Pen, the Office, and the Purse. Few\nfollow the road of Letters. This need not be much complained of; nay it\nmight be rejoiced in, if the Purse and the Office in their modes of\npower did represent the higher consciousness of mankind. But no one\ncontends it is so.\n\nStill there are men who devote themselves to some literary callings\nwhich have no connection with political office, and which are not\npursued for the sake of great wealth. Such men produce the greater part\nof the permanent literature of the country. They are eminently scholars;\npermanent scholars who act by their scholar-craft, not by the\nstate-craft of the politician, or the purse-craft of the capitalist. How\nare these men paying their debt and performing their function? The\nanswer must be found in the science and the literature of the land.\n\nAmerican Science is something of which we may well be proud. Mr. Liebig\nin Germany has found it necessary to defend himself from the charge of\nfollowing science for the loaves and fishes thereof, and he declares\nthat he espoused Chemistry not for her wealthy dower, not even for the\nservices her possible children might render to mankind, but solely for\nher own sweet sake. Amongst the English race, on both sides of the\nocean, science is loved rather for the fruit than the blossom; its\nservice to the body is thought of more value than its service to the\nmind. A man's respectability would be in danger, in America, if he loved\nany science better than the money or fame it might bring. It is\ncharacteristic of us that a scholar should write for reputation and\ngold. Here, as elsewhere, the unprofitable parts of science fall to the\nlot of poor men. When the rich man's son has the natural calling that\nway, public opinion would dissuade him from the study of nature. The\ngreatest scientific attainments do not give a man so high social\nconsideration as a political office or a successful speculation--unless\nit be the science which makes money. Scientific schools we call after\nmerely rich men, not men of wealthy minds. It is true we name streets\nand squares, towns and counties after Franklin, but it is because he\nkeeps the lightning from factories, churches, and barns; tells us not\n\"to give too much for the whistle,\" and teaches \"the way to make money\nplenty in every man's pocket.\" We should not name them after Cuvier and\nLa Place.\n\nNotwithstanding this, the scientific scholars of America, both the\nhome-born and the adopted sons, have manfully paid for their culture,\nand done honor to the land. This is true of men in all departments of\nscience,--from that which searches the deeps of the sky to that which\nexplores the shallows of the sea. Individuals, States, and the nation\nhave all done themselves honor by the scientific researches and\ndiscoveries that have been made. The outlay of money and of genius for\nthings which only pay the head and not the mouth of man, is beautiful\nand a little surprising in such a utilitarian land as this. Time would\nfail me to attend to particular cases.\n\nLook at the Literature of America. Reserving the exceptional portion\nthereof to be examined in a moment, let us study the instantial portion\nof it, American Literature as a whole. This may be distributed into two\nmain divisions: First comes the Permanent Literature, consisting of\nworks not designed merely for a single and transient occasion, but\nelaborately wrought for a general purpose. This is literature proper.\nNext follows the Transient Literature, which is brought out for a\nparticular occasion, and designed to serve a special purpose. Let us\nlook at each.\n\nThe Permanent Literature of America is poor and meagre; it does not bear\nthe mark of manly hands, of original, creative minds. Most of it is\nrather milk for babes than meat for men, though much of it is neither\nfresh meat nor new milk, but the old dish often served up before. In\nrespect to its form, this portion of our literature is an imitation.\nThat is natural enough, considering the youth of the country. Every\nnation, like every man, even one born to genius, begins by imitation.\nRaphael, with servile pencil, followed his masters in his youth, but at\nlength his artistic eye attracted new-born angels from the calm\nstillness of their upper heaven, and with liberal, free hand, with\nmasterly and original touch, the painter of the newness amazed the\nworld.\n\nThe early Christian literature is an imitation of the Hebrew or the\nclassic type: even after centuries had passed by, Sidonius, though a\nbishop of the church, and destined to become a saint, uses the old\nheathen imagery, referring to Triptolemus as a model for Christian\nwork, and talks about Triton and Galatea, to the Christian Queen of the\nGoths. Saint Ambrose is a notorious imitator of pagan Cicero. The\nChristians were all anointed with Jewish nard; and the sour grapes they\nate in sacrament have set on edge their children's teeth till now. The\nmodern nations of Europe began their literature by the driest copies of\nLivy and Virgil. The Germans have the most original literature of the\nlast hundred years. But till the middle of the past century their\npermanent literature was chiefly in Latin and French, with as little\noriginality as our own. The real poetic life of the nation found vent in\nother forms. It is natural therefore, and according to the course of\nhistory, that we should begin in this way. The best political\ninstitutions of England are cherished here, so her best literature, and\nit is not surprising that we are content with this rich inheritance of\nartistic toil. In many things we are independent, but in much that\nrelates to the higher works of man, we are still colonies of England.\nThis appears not only in the vulgar fondness for English fashions,\nmanners and the like, which is chiefly an affectation, but in the\nservile style with which we copy the great or little models of English\nliterature. Sometimes this is done consciously, oftener without knowing\nit.\n\nBut the substance of our permanent literature is as faulty as its form.\nIt does not bear marks of a new, free, vigorous mind at work, looking at\nthings from the American point of view, and though it put its thought\nin antique forms, yet thinking originally and for itself. It represents\nthe average thought of respectable men, directed to some particular\nsubject, and their average morality. It represents nothing more; how\ncould it while the ablest men have gone off to politics or trade? It is\nsuch literature as almost anybody might get up if you would give him a\nlittle time to make the preliminary studies. There is little in it that\nis national; little individual and of the writer's own mind; it is\nground out in the public literary mill. It has no noble sentiments, no\ngreat ideas, nothing which makes you burn; nothing which makes you much\nworse or much better. You may feed on this literature all your days, and\nwhatsoever you may gain in girth, you shall not take in thought enough\nto add half an inch to your stature.\n\nOut of every hundred American literary works printed since the century\nbegan, about eighty will be of this character. Compare the four most\nconspicuous periodicals of America with the four great quarterlies of\nEngland, and you see how inferior our literature is to theirs--in all\nthings, in form and in substance too. The European has the freedom of a\nwell-bred man--it appears in the movement of his thought, his use of\nwords, in the easy grace of his sentences, and the general manner of his\nwork; the American has the stiffness and limitations of a big, raw boy\nin the presence of his schoolmaster. They are proud of being English,\nand so have a certain lofty nationality which appears in their thought\nand the form thereof, even in the freedom to use and invent new words.\nOur authors of this class seem ashamed that they are Americans, and\naccordingly are timid, ungraceful and weak. They dare not be original\nwhen they could. Hence this sort of literature is dull. A man of the\naverage mind and conscience, heart and soul, studies a particular\nsubject a short time--for this is the land of brief processes--and\nwrites a book thereof, or thereon; a critic of the same average makes\nhis special study of the book, not its theme, \"reviews\" the work; is as\nready, and able to pass judgment on Bowditch's translation of La Place\nin ten days after its appearance as ten years, and distributes praise\nand blame, not according to the author's knowledge, but the critic's\nignorant caprice, and then average men read the book and the critique\nwith no immoderate joy or unmeasured grief. They learn some new facts,\nno new ideas, and get no lofty impulse. The book was written without\ninspiration, without philosophy, and is read with small profit. Yet it\nis curious to observe the praise which such men receive, how soon they\nare raised to the House of Lords in English literature. I have known\nthree American Sir Walter Scotts, half a dozen Addisons, one or two\nMacaulays, a historian that was Hume and Gibbon both in one; several\nBurnses, and Miltons by the quantity, not \"mute,\" the more is the pity,\nbut \"inglorious\" enough; nay, even vain-glorious at the praise which\nsome penny-a-liner, or dollar-a-pager foolishly gave their cheap\nextemporary stuff. In sacred literature it is the same: in a single\nwinter at Boston we had two American Saint Johns, in full blast for\nseveral months. Though no Felix trembles, there are now extant in the\nUnited States not less than six American Saint Pauls, in no manner of\nperil except the most dangerous--of idle praise.\n\nA living, natural, and full-grown literature contains two elements. One\nis of mankind in general; that is human and universal. The other is of\nthe tribe in special, and of the writer in particular. This is national\nand even personal: you see the idiosyncracy of the nation and the\nindividual author in the work. The universal human substance accepts the\nauthor's form, and the public wine of mankind runs into the private\nbottle of the author. Thus the Hebrew literature of the Old Testament is\nfresh and original in substance and in form; the two elements are plain\nenough, the universal and the particular. The staple of the Psalms of\nDavid is human, of mankind, it is trust in God; but the twist, the die,\nthe texture, the pattern, all that is Hebrew--of the tribe, and\npersonal--of David, shepherd, warrior, poet, king. You see the pastoral\nhill-sides of Judea in his holy hymns; nay, \"Uriah's beauteous wife\"\nnow and then sidles in to his sweetest psalm. The Old Testament books\nsmell of Palestine, of its air and its soil. The Rose of Sharon has\nHebrew earth about its roots. The geography of the Holy Land, its fauna\nand its flora both, even its wind and sky, its early and its latter\nrain, all appear in the literature of historian and bard. It is so in\nthe Iliad. You see how the sea looked from Homer's point of view, and\nknow how he felt the west wind, cold and raw. The human element has an\nIonian form and a Homeric hue. The ballads of the people in Scotland and\nEngland are national in the same way; the staple of human life is\nwrought into the Scottish form. Before the Germans had any permanent\nnational literature of this character, their fertile mind found vent in\nlegends, popular stories, now the admiration of the learned. These had\nat home the German dress, but as the stories travelled into other lands,\nthey kept their human flesh and blood, but took a different garb and\nacquired a different complexion from every country which they visited,\nand, like the streams of their native Swabia, took the color of the soil\nthey travelled through.\n\nThe permanent and instantial literature of America is not national in\nthis sense. It has little that is American; it might as well be written\nby some book-wright in Leipsic or London, and then imported. The\nindividuality of the nation is not there, except in the cheap, gaudy\nbinding of the work. The nationality of America is only stamped on the\nlids, and vulgarly blazoned on the back.\n\nIs the book a History? it is written with no such freedom as you should\nexpect of a writer, looking at the breadth of the world from the lofty\nstand-point of America. There is no new philosophy of history in it. You\nwould not think it was written in a democracy that keeps the peace\nwithout armies or a national jail. Mr. Macaulay writes the history of\nEngland as none but a North-Briton could do. Astonishingly well-read,\nequipped with literary skill at least equal to the masterly art of\nVoltaire, mapping out his subject like an engineer, and adorning it like\na painter, you yet see, all along, that the author is a Scotchman and a\nwhig. Nobody else could have written so. It is of Mr. Macaulay. But our\nAmerican writer thinks about matters just as everybody else does; that\nis, he does not think at all, but only writes what he reads, and then,\nlike the good-natured bear in the nursery story, \"thinks he has been\nthinking.\" It is no such thing, he has been writing the common opinion\nof common men, to get the applause of men as common as himself.\n\nIs the book of Poetry? the substance is chiefly old, the form old, the\nallusions are old. It is poetry of society, not of nature. You meet in\nit the same everlasting mythology, the same geography, botany, zooelogy,\nthe same symbols; a new figure of speech suggested by the sight of\nnature, not the reading of books, you could no more find than a fresh\nshad in the Dead Sea. You take at random eight or ten \"American poets\"\nof this stamp, you see at once what was the favorite author with each\nnew bard; you often see what particular work of Shelley, or Tennyson, or\nMilton, or George Herbert, or, if the man has culture enough, of Goethe,\nor Uhland, Jean Paul, or Schiller, suggested the \"American Original.\"\nHis inspiration comes from literature, not from the great universe of\nnature or of human life. You see that this writer has read Percy's\nReliques, and the German Wunderhorn; but you would not know that he\nwrote in a republic--in a land full of new life, with great rivers and\ntall mountains, with maple and oak trees that turn red in the autumn,\namongst a people who hold town-meetings, have free schools for\neverybody, read newspapers voraciously, who have lightning rods on their\nsteeples, ride in railroads, are daguerreotyped by the sun, and who talk\nby lightning from Halifax to New Orleans, who listen to the whippoorwill\nand the bobolink, who believe in Slavery and the Declaration of\nIndependence, in the devil and the five points of Calvinism. You would\nnot know where our poet lived, or that he lived anywhere. Reading the\nIliad, you doubt that Homer was born blind; but our bard seems to have\nbeen deaf also, and for expressing what was national in his time, might\nlikewise have been dumb.\n\nIs it a volume of Sermons? they might have been written at Edinburgh,\nMadrid, or Constantinople as well as in New England; as well preached to\nthe \"Homo Sapiens\" of Linnaeus, or the Man in the Moon, as to the special\naudience that heard, or heard them not, but only paid for having the\nthings preached. There is nothing individual about them; the author\nseems as impersonal as Spinoza's conception of God. The sermons are like\nan almanac calculated for the meridian of no place in particular, for no\ntime in special. There is no allusion to any thing American. The author\nnever mentions a river this side of the Jordan; knows no mountain but\nLebanon, Zion, and Carmel, and would think it profane to talk of the\nAlleghanies and the Mississippi, of Monadnock and the Androscoggin. He\nmentions Babylon and Jerusalem, not New York and Baltimore; you would\nnever dream that he lived in a church without a bishop, and a state\nwithout a king, in a democratic nation that held three million slaves,\nwith ministers chosen by the people. He is surrounded, clouded over, and\nhid by the traditions of the \"ages of faith\" behind him. He never thanks\nGod for the dew and snow, only for \"the early and the latter rain\" of a\nclassic sacred land; a temperance man, he blesses God for the wine\nbecause the great Psalmist did so thousands of years ago. He speaks of\nthe olive and the fig-tree which he never saw, not of the apple-tree and\nthe peach before his eyes all day long, their fruit the joy of his\nchildren's heart. If you guessed at his time and place, you would think\nhe lived, not under General Taylor, but under King Ahab, or Jeroboam;\nthat his audience rode on camels or in chariots, not in steam-cars; that\nthey fought with bows and arrows against the children of Moab; that\ntheir favorite sin was the worship of some graven image, and that they\nmade their children pass through the fire unto Moloch, not through the\ncounting-house unto Mammon. You would not know whether the preacher was\nmarried or a bachelor, rich or poor, saint or sinner; you would probably\nconclude he was not much of a saint, nor even much of a sinner.\n\nThe authors of this portion of our literature seem ashamed of America.\nOne day she will take her revenge. They are the parasites of letters,\nand live on what other men have made classic. They would study the Holy\nLand, Greece, Etruria, Egypt, Nineveh, spots made famous by great and\nholy men, and let the native races of America fade out, taking no pains\nto study the monuments which so swiftly pass away from our own\ncontinent. It is curious that most of the accounts of the Indians of\nNorth America come from men not natives here, from French and Germans;\nand characteristic that we should send an expedition to the Dead Sea,\nwhile wide tracts of this continent lie all untouched by the white man's\nfoot; and, also, that while we make such generous and noble efforts to\nchristianize and bless the red, yellow, and black heathens at the\nworld's end, we should leave the American Indian and Negro to die in\nsavage darkness, the South making it penal to teach a black man to write\nor read.\n\nYet, there is one portion of our permanent literature, if literature it\nmay be called, which is wholly indigenous and original. The lives of the\nearly martyrs and confessors are purely Christian, so are the legends of\nsaints and other pious men: there was nothing like this in the Hebrew or\nheathen literature; cause and occasion were alike wanting for it. So we\nhave one series of literary productions that could be written by none\nbut Americans, and only here: I mean the Lives of Fugitive Slaves. But\nas these are not the work of the men of superior culture, they hardly\nhelp to pay the scholar's debt. Yet all the original romance of America\nis in them, not in the white man's novel.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNext is the Transient Literature, composed chiefly of speeches,\norations, state papers, political and other occasional pamphlets,\nbusiness reports, articles in the journals, and other productions\ndesigned to serve some present purpose. These are commonly the work of\neducated men, though not of such as make literature a profession. Taking\nthis department as a whole, it differs much from the permanent\nliterature; here is freshness of thought and newness of form. If\nAmerican books are mainly an imitation of old models, it would be\ndifficult to find the prototype of some American speeches. They \"would\nhave made Quintilian stare and gasp.\" Take the State Papers of the\nAmerican government during the administration of Mr. Polk, the speeches\nmade in Congress at the same time, the State Papers of the several\nStates--you have a much better and more favorable idea of the vigor and\noriginality of the American mind, than you would get from all the bound\nbooks printed in that period. The diplomatic writings of American\npoliticians compare favorably with those of any nation in the world. In\neloquence no modern nation is before us, perhaps none is our equal. Here\nyou see the inborn strength and manly vigor of the American mind. You\nmeet the same spirit which fells the forest, girdles the land with\nrailroads, annexes Texas and covets Cuba, Nicaragua, all the world. You\nsee that the authors of this literature are workers also. Others have\nread of wild beasts; here are the men that have seen the wolf.\n\nA portion of this literature represents the past, and has the vices\nalready named. It comes from human history and not human nature; as you\nread it, you think of the inertia and the cowardliness of mankind;\nnothing is progressive, nothing noble, generous or just, only\nrespectable. The past is preferred before the present; money is put\nbefore men, a vested right before a natural right. Such literature\nappears in all countries. The ally of despotism, and the foe of mankind,\nit is yet a legitimate exponent of a large class of men. The leading\njournals of America, political and commercial, or literary, are poor and\nfeeble; our reviews of books afford matter for grave consideration. You\nwould often suppose them written by the same hand which manufactures the\nadvertisements of the grand caravan, or some patent medicine; or when\nunfavorable, by some of the men who write defamatory articles on the eve\nof an election.\n\nBut a large part of this transient literature is very different in its\ncharacter. Its authors have broken with the traditions of the past; they\nhave new ideas, and plans for putting them in execution; they are full\nof hope; are national to the extreme, bragging and defiant. They put the\nmajority before institutions; the rights of the majority before the\nprivilege of a few; they represent the onward tendency and material\nprophecy of the nation. The new activity of the American mind here\nexpresses its purpose and its prayer. Here is strength, hope,\nconfidence, even audacity; all is American. But the great idea of the\nAbsolute Right does not appear, all is more national than human; and in\nwhat concerns the nation, it is not justice, the point where all\ninterests are balanced, and the welfare of each harmonizes with that of\nall, which is sought; but the \"greatest good of the greatest number;\"\nthat is, only a privilege had at the cost of the smaller number. Here is\nlittle respect for universal humanity; little for the Eternal Laws of\nGod which override all the traditions and contrivances of men; more\nreverence for a statute, or constitution, which is indeed the\nfundamental law of the political State, but is often only an attempt to\ncompromise between the fleeting passions of the day and the Immutable\nMorality of God. Amid all the public documents of the nation and the\nseveral States, in the speeches and writings of favorite men, who\nrepresent and so control the public mind, for fifty years, there is\nlittle that \"stirs the feelings infinite\" within you; much to make us\nmore American, not more manly. There is more head than heart; native\nintellect enough; culture that is competent, but little conscience, or\nreal religion. How many newspapers, how many politicians in the land go\nat all beyond the whig idea of protecting the property now accumulated,\nor the democratic idea of ensuring the greatest material good of the\ngreatest number? Where are we to look for the representative of justice,\nof the unalienable rights of all the people and all the nations? In the\ntriple host of article-makers, speech-makers, lay and clerical, and\nmakers of laws, you find but few who can be trusted to stand up for the\nunalienable rights of men; who will never write, speak, nor vote in the\ninterests of a party, but always in the interest of mankind, and will\nrepresent the justice of God in the forum of the world.\n\nThis literature, like the other, fails of the high end of writing and of\nspeech: with more vigor, more freedom, more breadth of vision, and an\nintense nationality, the authors thereof are just as far from\nrepresenting the higher consciousness of mankind, just as vulgar as the\ntame and well-licked writers of the permanent literature. Here are the\nmen who have cut their own way through the woods, men with more than the\naverage intelligence, daring and strength, but with less than the\naverage justice which is honesty in the abstract, less than the average\nhonesty which is justice concentrated upon small particulars.\n\nExamine both these portions of American literature, the permanent and\nthe fleeting--you see their educated authors are no higher than the rest\nof men. They are the slaves of public opinion, as much as the gossip in\nher little village. It may not be the public opinion of a coterie of\ncrones, but of a great party; that makes little odds, they are\nworshippers of the same rank, idolaters of the same wealth; the\ngossiping granny shows her littleness the size of life, while their\ndeformity is magnified by the solar microscope of high office. Many a\npopular man exhibits his pigmy soul to the multitude of a whole\ncontinent, idly mistaking it for greatness. They are swayed by vulgar\npassions, seek vulgar ends, address vulgar motives, use vulgar means;\nthey may command by their strength, they cannot refine by their beauty\nor instruct by their guidance, and still less inspire by any eminence of\nmanhood which they were born to or have won. They build on the\nsurface-sand for to-day, not on the rock of ages forever. With so little\nconscience, they heed not the solemn voice of history, and respect no\nmore the prophetic instincts of mankind.\n\nTo most men the approbation of their fellows, is one of the most\ndesirable things. This approbation appears in the various forms of\nadmiration, respect, esteem, confidence, veneration and love. The great\nman obtains this after a time, and in its highest forms, without seeking\nit, simply by faithfulness to his nature. He gets it, by rising and\ndoing his work, in the course of nature, as easily and as irresistibly\nas the sun gathers to the clouds the evaporation of land and sea, and\nlike the sun to shed it down in blessings on mankind. Little men seek\nthis, consciously or not knowing it, by stooping, cringing, flattering\nthe pride, the passion, or the prejudice of others. So they get the\napprobation of men, but never of Man. Sometimes this is sought for by\nthe attainment of some accidental quality, which low-minded men hold in\nmore honor than the genius of sage or poet, or the brave manhood of some\ngreat hero of the soul. In England though money is power, it is\npatrician birth which is nobility, and valued most; and there,\naccordingly, birth takes precedence of all, of genius and even of gold.\nMen seek the companionship or the patronage of titled lords, and social\nrank depends upon nobility of blood. The few bishops in the upper house\ndo more to give conventional respectability to the clerical profession\nthere, than all the solid intellect of Hooker, Barrow, and of South, the\nvaried and exact learning of philosophic Cudworth, the eloquence and\naffluent piety of Taylor, and Butler's vast and manly mind. In America\nsocial rank depends substantially on wealth, an accident as much as\nnoble birth, but movable. Here gold takes precedence of all,--of genius,\nand even of noble birth.\n\n                              \"Though your sire\n    Had royal blood within him, and though you\n    Possess the intellect of angels too,\n    'Tis all in vain;--the world will ne'er inquire\n    On such a score:--Why should it take the pains?\n    'Tis easier to weigh purses, sure, than brains.\"\n\nWealth is sought, not merely as a means of power but of nobility. When\nobtained, it has the power of nobility: so poor men of superior\nintellect and education, powerful by nature, not by position, fear to\ndisturb the opinion of wealthy men, to instruct their ignorance or\nrebuke their sin. Hence the aristocracy of wealth, illiterate and\nvulgar, goes unrebuked, and debases the natural aristocracy of mind and\nculture which bows down to it. The artist prostitutes his pencil and his\nskill, and takes his law of beauty from the fat clown, whose barns and\npigs and wife he paints for daily bread. The preacher does the same; and\nthough the stench of the rum-shop infests the pulpit, and death hews\ndown the leaders of his flock, the preacher must cry \"Peace, peace,\" or\nelse be still, for rum is power! But this power of wealth has its\nantagonistic force--the power of numbers. Much depends on the dollar.\nNine tenths of the property is owned by one tenth of all these men--but\nmuch also on the votes of the million. The few are strong by money, the\nmany by their votes. Each is worshipped by its votaries, and its\napprobation sought. He that can get the men controls the money too. So\nwhile one portion of educated men bows to the rich, and consecrates\ntheir passion and their prejudice, another portion bows, equally\nprostrate, to the passions of the multitude of men. The many and the\nrich have each a public opinion of their own, and both are tyrants. Here\nthe tyranny of public opinion is not absolutely greater than in England,\nGermany or France, but is far greater in comparison with other modes of\noppression. It seems inherent in a republic; it is not in a republic of\nnoble men. But here this sirocco blows flat to the ground full many an\naspiring blade. Wealth can establish banks, or factories; votes can lift\nthe meanest man into the highest political place, can dignify any\npassion with the name and force of human law; so it is thought by the\nworshippers of both, seeking the approbation of the two, that public\nopinion can make truth of lies, and right even out of foulest wrong.\nPoliticians begin to say, There is no law of God above the ephemeral\nlaws of men.\n\nThere are few American works of literature which appeal to what is best\nin men; few that one could wish should go abroad and live. America has\ngrown beyond hope in population, the free and bond, in riches, in land,\nin public material prosperity, but in a literature that represents the\nhigher elements of manliness far less than wise men thought. They looked\nfor the fresh new child; it is born with wrinkles and dreadfully like\nhis grandmother, only looking older and more effete. Our muse does not\ncome down from an American Parnassus, with a new heaven in her eye, men\nnot daring to look on the face of anointed beauty, coming to tell of\nnoble thought, to kindle godlike feelings with her celestial spark, and\nstir mankind to noble deeds. She finds Parnassus steep and high and hard\nto climb; the air austere and cold, the light severe, too stern for her\neffeminate nerves. So she has a little dwelling in the flat and\nclose-pent town, hard by the public street; breathes its Boeotian\nbreath; walks with the money-lenders at high change; has her account at\nthe bank, her pew in the most fashionable church and least austere; she\ngets approving nods in the street, flattery in the penny-prints,\nsweetmeats and sparkling wine in the proper places. What were the\ninspirations of all God's truth to her? He \"taunts the lofty land with\nlittle men.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere still remains the Exceptional Literature; some of it is only\nfugitive, some meant for permanent duration. Here is a new and different\nspirit: a respect for human nature above human history, for man above\nall the accidents of man, for God above all the alleged accidents of\nGod; a veneration for the eternal laws which He only makes and man but\nfinds; a law before all statutes, above all constitutions, and holier\nthan all the writings of human hands. Here you find most fully the\nsentiments and ideas of America, not such as rule the nation now, but\nwhich, unconsciously to the people, have caused the noble deeds of our\nhistory, and now prophesy a splendid future for this young giant here.\nThese sentiments and ideas are brought to consciousness in this\nliterature. Here a precedent is not a limitation; a fact of history does\nnot eclipse an idea of nature; an investment is not thought more sacred\nthan a right. Here is more hope than memory; little deference to wealth\nand rank, but a constant aspiration for truth, justice, love and piety;\nlittle fear of the public opinion of the many or the few, rather a scorn\nthereof, almost a defiance of it. It appears in books, in pamphlets, in\njournals, and in sermons, sorely scant in quantity as yet. New and\nfresh, it is often greatly deficient in form; rough, rude and uncouth,\nit yet has in it a soul that will live. Its authors are often men of a\nwide and fine culture, though mainly tending to underrate the past\nachievements of mankind. They have little reverence for great names.\nThey value the Greek and Hebrew mind for no more than it is worth. With\nthem a wrong is no more respected because well descended, and supported\nby all the riches, all the votes; a right, not less a right because\nunjustly kept out of its own. These men are American all through; so\nintensely national, that they do not fear to tell the nation of the\nwrong it does.\n\nThe form of this literature is American. It is indigenous to our soil,\nand could come up in no other land. It is unlike the classic literature\nof any other nation. It is American as the Bible is Hebrew, and the\nOdyssey is Greek. It is wild and fantastic, like all fresh original\nliterature at first. You see in it the image of republican\ninstitutions--the free school, free state, free church; it reflects the\ncountenance of free men. So the letters of old France, of modern\nEngland, of Italy and Spain reflect the monarchic, oligarchic, and\necclesiastic institutions of those lands. Here appears the civilization\nof the nineteenth century, the treasures of human toil for many a\nthousand years. More than that, you see the result of a fresh contact\nwith nature, and original intuitions of divine things. Acknowledging\ninspiration of old, these writers of the newness believe in it now not\nless, not miraculous, but normal. Here is humanity that overleaps the\nbounds of class and of nation, and sees a brother in the beggar, pirate,\nslave, one family of men variously dressed in cuticles of white or\nyellow, black or red. Here, too, is a new loveliness, somewhat akin to\nthe savage beauty of our own wild woods, seen in their glorious splendor\nan hour before autumnal suns go down and leave a trail of glory\nlingering in the sky. Here, too, is a piety somewhat heedless of\nscriptures, liturgies, and forms, and creeds; it finds its law written\nin nature, its glorious everlasting Gospel in the soul of man; careless\nof circumcision and baptismal rites, it finds the world a temple, and\nrejoices everywhere to hold communion with the Infinite Father of us\nall, and keep a sacrament in daily life, conscious of immortality, and\nfeeding continually on angel's bread.\n\nThe writers of this new literature are full of faults; yet they are\noften strong, though more by their direction than by native force of\nmind; more, by their intuitions of the first good, first perfect and\nfirst fair, than through their historical knowledge or dialectic power.\nTheir ship sails swift, not because it is sharper built, or carries\nbroader sails than other craft, but because it steers where the current\nof the ocean coincides with the current of the sky, and so is borne\nalong by nature's wind and nature's wave. Uninvited, its ideas steal\ninto parlor and pulpit, its kingdom coming within men and without\nobservation. The shoemaker feels it as he toils in his narrow shop; it\ncheers the maiden weaving in the mill, whose wheels the Merrimac is made\nto turn; the young man at college bids it welcome to his ingenuous soul.\nSo at the breath of spring new life starts up in every plant; the\nsloping hills are green with corn, and sunny banks are blue and fragrant\nwith the wealth of violets, which only slept till the enchanter came.\nThe sentiments of this literature burn in the bosom of holy-hearted\ngirls, of matrons and of men. Ever and anon its great ideas are heard\neven in Congress, and in the speech of old and young, which comes\ntingling into most unwilling ears.\n\nThis literature has a work to do, and is about its work. Let the old man\ncrow loud as he may, the young one will crow another strain, for it is\nwritten of God, that our march is continually onward, and age shall\nadvance over age forever and forever.\n\nAlready America has a few fair specimens from this new field to show. Is\nthe work History? The author writes from the stand-point of American\ndemocracy; I mean philanthropy, the celestial democracy, not the\nsatanic; writes with a sense of justice and in the interest of men;\nwrites to tell a nation's purpose in its deeds, and so reveal the\nuniversal law of God, which overrules the affairs of States as of a\nsingle man. You wonder that history was not before so writ that its\nfacts told the nation's ideas, and its labors were lessons, and so its\nhard-won life became philosophy.\n\nIs it poetry the man writes? It is not poetry like the old. The poet has\nseen nature with his own eyes, heard her with his own mortal, bodily\nears, and felt her presence, not vicariously through Milton, Uhland,\nAriosto, but personally, her heart against his heart. He sings of what\nhe knows, sees, feels, not merely of what he reads in others' song.\nCommon things are not therefore unclean. In plain New England life he\nfinds his poetry, as magnets iron in the blacksmith's dust, and as the\nbee finds dew-bright cups of honey in the common woods and common weeds.\nIt is not for him to rave of Parnassus, while he knows it not, for the\nSoul of Song has a seat upon Monadnock, Wachusett, or Katahdin, quite as\nhigh. So Scottish Burns was overtaken by the muse of poetry, who met him\non his own bleak hills, and showed him beauty in the daisy and the\nthistle, and the tiny mouse, till to his eye the hills ran o'er with\nloveliness, and Caledonia became a classic land.\n\nIs it religion the author treats of? It is not worship by fear, but\nthrough absolute faith, a never-ending love; for it is not worship of a\nhowling and imperfect God, grim, jealous and revengeful, loving but a\nfew, and them not well, but of the Infinite Father of all mankind,\nwhose universal providence will sure achieve the highest good of all\nthat are.\n\nThese men are few; in no land are they numerous, or were or will be.\nThere were few Hebrew Prophets, but a tribe of priests; there are but\nfew mighty bards that hover o'er the world; but here and there a sage,\nlooking deep and living high, who feels the heart of things, and utters\noracles which pass for proverbs, psalms and prayers, and stimulate a\nworld of men. They draw the nations, as conjoining moon and sun draw\nwaters shore-ward from the ocean-springs; and as electrifying heat they\nelevate the life of men. Under their influence you cannot be as before.\nThey stimulate the sound, and intoxicate the silly, but in the heart of\nnoble youths their idea becomes a fact, and their prayer a daily life.\n\nScholars of such a stamp are few and rare, not without great faults. For\nevery one of them there will be many imitators, as for each lion a\nhundred lion-flies, thinking their buzz as valiant as his roar, and\nwondering the forest does not quake thereat, and while they feed on him\nfancy they suck the breasts of heaven.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch is the Scholars' position in America: such their duty, and such the\nway in which they pay the debt they owe. Will men of superior culture\nnot all act by scholar-craft and by the Pen? It were a pity if they\ndid. If a man work nobly, the Office is as worthy, and the Purse as\nblessed in its work. The Pen is power; the Office is power; the Purse is\npower; and if the purse and office be nobly held, then in a high mode\nthe cultivated man pays for his bringing up, and honors with wide\nsympathies the mass of men who give him chance to ride and rule. If not;\nif these be meanly held, for self and not for man, then the scholar is a\ndebtor and a traitor too.\n\nThe scholar never had so fair a chance before; here is the noblest\nopportunity for one that wields the Pen; it is mightier than the Sword,\nthe Office, or the Purse. All things concede at last to Beauty, Justice,\nTruth and Love, and these he is to represent. He has what freedom he\nwill pay for and take. Let him talk never so heroic, he will find fit\naudience, nor will it long be few. Men will rise up and welcome his\nquickening words as vernal grass at the first rains of spring. A great\nnation which cannot live by bread alone, asks for the bread of life;\nwhile the State is young, a single great and noble man can deeply\ninfluence the nation's mind. There are great wrongs which demand\nredress; the present men who represent the Office and the Purse will not\nend these wrongs. They linger for the Pen, with magic touch to abolish\nand destroy this ancient serpent-brood. Shall it be only rude men and\nunlettered who confront the dragons of our time which prowl about the\nfolds by day and night, while the scholar, the appointed guardian of\nmankind, but \"sports with Amaryllis in the shade, or with the tangles of\nNeaera's hair?\" The nation asks of her scholar better things than ancient\nletters ever brought; asks his wonders for the million, not the few\nalone. Great sentiments burn now in half-unconscious hearts, and great\nideas kindle their glories round the heads of men. Unconscious\nelectricity, Truth and Right, flashes out of the earth, out of the air.\nIt is for the scholar to attract this ground-lightning and this\nlightning of the sky, condense it into useful thunder to destroy the\nwrong, then spread it forth a beauteous and a cheering light, shedding\nsweet influence and kindling life anew. A few great men of other times\ntell us what may be now.\n\nNothing will be done without toil--talent is only power of work, and\ngenius greater power for higher forms of work--nothing without\nself-denial; nothing great and good save by putting your idea before\nyourself, and counting it dearer than your flesh and blood. Let it hide\nyou, not your obesity conceal the truth God gave you to reveal. The\nquality of intellectual work is more than the quantity. Out of the\ncloudy world Homer has drawn a spark that lasts three thousand years.\n\"One, but a lion,\" should be the scholar's maxim; let him do many things\nfor daily need; one great thing for the eternal beauty of his art. A\nsingle poem of Dante, a book for the bosom, lives through the ages,\nsurrounding its author with the glory of genius in the night of time.\nOne Sermon on the Mount, compact of truths brought down from God, all\nmolten by such pious trust in Him, will stir men's hearts by myriads,\nwhile words dilute with other words are a shame to the speaker, and a\ndishonor to men who have ears to hear.\n\nIt is a great charity to give beauty to mankind; part of the scholar's\nfunction. How we honor such as create mere sensuous loveliness! Mozart\ncarves it on the unseen air; Phidias sculptures it out from the marble\nstone; Raphael fixes ideal angels, maidens, matrons, men, and his triple\nGod upon the canvas, and the lofty Angelo, with more than Amphionic\nskill, bids the hills rise into a temple which constrains the crowd to\npray. Look, see how grateful man repays these architects of beauty with\nnever-ending fame! Such as create a more than sensuous loveliness, the\nHomers, Miltons, Shakspeares, who sing of man in never-dying and\ncreative song--see what honors we have in store for such; what honor\ngiven for what service paid! But there is a beauty higher than that of\nart, above philosophy and merely intellectual grace: I mean the\nloveliness of noble life; that is a beauty in the sight of man and God.\nThis is a new country, the great ideas of a noble man are easily spread\nabroad; soon they will appear in the life of the people, and be a\nblessing in our future history to ages yet unborn. A few great souls can\ncorrect the licentiousness of the American press, which is now but the\ntype of covetousness and low ambition; correct the mean economy of the\nState, and amend the vulgarity of the American church, now the poor\nprostitute of every wealthy sin.\n\nOh ingenuous young maid or man, if such you are,--if not, then let me\ndream you such; seek you this beauty, complete perfection of a man, and\nhaving this, go hold the Purse, the Office, or the Pen, as suits you\nbest; but out of that life, writing, voting, acting, living in all\nforms, you shall pay men back for your culture, and in the scholar's\nnoble kind, and represent the higher facts of human thought. Will men\nstill say, \"This Wrong is consecrated; it has stood for ages and shall\nstand for ever!\" Tell them, \"No. A wrong, though old as Sin, is not now\nsacred, nor shall it stand!\" Will they say, \"This Right can never be;\nthat excellence is lovely but impossible!\" Show them the fact, who will\nnot hear the speech; the deed goes where the word fails, and life\nenchants where rhetoric cannot persuade.\n\nPast ages offer their instruction, much warning and a little guidance,\nmany a wreck along the shore of time, a beacon here and there. Far off\nin the dim distance, present as possibilities, not actual as yet, future\ngenerations, with broad and wishful eyes, look at the son of genius,\ntalent, educated skill, and seem to say, \"A word for us; it will not be\nforgot!\" Truth and Beauty, God's twin daughters, eternal both, yet ever\nyoung, wait there to offer each faithful man a budding branch, in their\nhands budding, in his to blossom and mature its fruit, wherewith he sows\nthe field of time, gladdening the millions yet to come.\n\nEND OF VOL. III.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Speeches, Addresses, and Occasional Sermons, Volume 3 (of 3)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":104911}