{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_44761/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_44761","id":"gutenberg_44761","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44761","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Slavery -- United States"],"text":"THE WAY TO ABOLISH SLAVERY.\n\nBY CHARLES STEARNS,\n\nAUTHOR OF\n\n\"FACTS IN THE LIFE OF GEN. TAYLOR, &C.,\" \"TAYLOR,\nCASS AND VAN BUREN COMPARED,\" AND \"ENCROACHMENTS\nOF THE SLAVE-POWER UPON THE RIGHTS\nOF THE NORTH.\"\n\nBOSTON:\nPUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.\n1849.\n\nFOR SALE BY BELA MARSH, NO. 25 CORNHILL.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nAfter the flood of light respecting the evils of the execrable system of\nchattel Slavery, thrown upon the minds of the community by eighteen\nyears of Anti-Slavery preaching; it would seem almost a work of\nsupererogation to attempt to cast any more light upon the subject;\ntherefore in this work, nothing will be said in reference to this part\nof the subject; but every effort will be made to convince the reader of\nthe efficacy of the remedy here proposed.\n\nIt will be necessary to say at the commencement of this work, that the\nauthor is no politician, and does not write for party purposes; neither\nis he the agent, or the organ of any Anti-Slavery society, but writes on\nhis own authority, and that of truth; being responsible to no man for\nwhat he shall assert.\n\nMy object is to present to the public mind, what I deem to be the only\ntrue and effectual remedy for the terrible disease of Slavery. If in\ndoing this, you are condemned, reader, judge not hastily that I am\nwrong; but give me a candid and impartial hearing. In the language of\nthe apostle, \"prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.\"\n\nI am not a disunionist, from any wish to see anarchy casting its direful\nshade over our land; but from a sincere desire to prevent \"confusion\nworse confounded\" from reigning in our midst, as most assuredly will be\nthe case if Slavery exists many years longer. Let us then \"give the\npull, the long pull, and the pull altogether,\" and drag this terrific\nmonster from his hiding place between the walls of the sanctuary, and\nthe halls of legislation, giving him no rest, until he flees from earth,\nback to perdition from whence he sprang.\n\nTHE AUTHOR.\n\n\n\n\nTHE WAY TO ABOLISH SLAVERY.\n\n\nSlavery is the medium through which the corrupt passions of men flow\nwith resistless power. Beneath its influence every plant of virtue\nsickens and dies. Its putrid form taints the air which we breathe, and\nexhales all manner of foul odors, which render it so obnoxious to truth\nand purity, that these angels would speedily end its existence, if it\nwere not for the support it derives from other sources than itself.\nAlthough coarse and brawny in its outward appearance, yet it is within\nfull of disease; and nothing but continual doses of medicine enable it\nto present the appearance of life. It is said that a celebrated\nmagnetiser, once preserved a dead body from putrefaction for a long\ntime, by the power of magnetism. At length he withdrew the magnetising\npower, and the body instantly crumbled to atoms. Thus with Slavery;\nwithdraw the enchantments from it, which priests, politicians, and\nspeculators have thrown around it, and it expires of its own corruption.\nIt lives only by this outward support, just as the virtue of some men is\ncaused only by their being paid or praised for it. Apply, then, the\nfinger of truth to its gigantic form; let but the mighty arm of\nrighteousness lay hold of these sustaining influences, and sweep them\nfrom it; and it will fall as quickly as a huge statue would, if the\npedestal on which it stands should be removed from under it.\n\nSlavery, to be sure, reaches mountain high, towering over all other\neminences in this nation; far above the highest steeple, or State-house\ncupola, (church and State;) yet tall and commanding as it is, it shall\nbe laid lowly in the dust, if but truth can reach the props and guards\nwhich keep it alive. Herculean though it may be in strength, it shall\nthen become powerless and impotent; the life that is in it being like\nthe light of the moon, not its own, but derived from a source\nindependent of itself.\n\nWhat then are the props of Slavery? They may be divided into two\nclasses, political, and religious ones; or in other words, both church\nand state may be regarded as sustaining the dreadful system. It is\nrecorded in history, that at one entrance to a certain island there was\nstationed an immense brazen statue astride the water which lay before\nthe island; and that there was no ingress to the city, except by sailing\nbetwixt the legs of this statue, each foot of which rested on a\npromontory of the island. Imagine, then, the great giant Slavery\nstanding with one foot on the American Church, and the other on the\nUnion, requiring all wishing to enter the port of popularity and renown,\nto run this gauntlet, and you have a faint idea of Slavery. It plants\nits right foot firmly on the government of the United States, and\nreceives its principal support from that; but to make its foothold firm\nand sure, it extends its left foot to the Church, and there finds\nadditional support. Without these two props, it cannot exist a moment.\n\nBut let us see if it is true that it exists by the power of these two\ninstitutions. 1st. Does the church give it any support? We would bring\nno railing accusations against the church; all we wish to know is, does\nit render any support to Slavery? It will not be questioned, that in the\nslave-holding States Slavery is sanctioned by the church. Every one\nknows that slave-holding is no disqualification for church membership,\nthroughout the entire South. Very few ministers refuse to hold Slaves,\nand neither ministers nor church members are ever censured for the act.\nThe author has resided several years in two Slave States, and knows this\nto be the fact. He travelled and preached constantly, and was therefore\nin the families of a large number of religious people; and he never knew\nof a case where slave-holding was spoken of as rendering a man unfit for\nchurch membership. He was at many revivals of religion, and never knew a\nword said to any of the converts about giving up their Slaves, except\nwhat he said himself. Slave-holding was considered no more inconsistent\nwith Christianity, than hiring servants is at the North. No man dreamed\nof giving up his Slaves because of his conversion. Slave-holders were\nthe most prominent men in the churches; elders, deacons, class-leaders,\nstewards, and ministers. Of course if the church consider it right, the\npeople generally will; for who ever heard of a purer public sentiment,\nthan what the church approves of. Streams never rise higher than their\nfountains; and, of course, as the fountain of morals in any community is\nalways its religion, never than the religion of that country. It is idle\nto expect the community to be better than its religious teachers;\ntherefore such teachers are always regarded as more pure than the mass\nof the people. And the very idea of a church, is a company of people\nprofessing more purity than others; of course whatever sin is practised\nin accordance with the will of the church, will be by the rest of the\ncommunity. If adultery was considered no disqualification for church\nmembership, how long would it be before the land would be full of\nadulterers? It is plain that whatever sin takes refuge in the bosom of\nthe church, will be practised by the world; therefore all attempts to\ncorrect any great evil are useless, as long as the church upholds them,\nand at the same time possesses any power. Take, for instance,\nintemperance. What a mighty argument it was in opposition to temperance,\nthat church members made, sold and drank rum? And if this practice was\nfollowed universally by church members now, as it once was, what hope\nwould there be of the progress of the temperance enterprise? As Christ\nsays, \"if the light that is in the world be darkness, how great is that\ndarkness.\" The church lays claim to being the representation of\nChristianity, the embodiment of virtue. It says, \"we are holy and\ninspired; if you speak against us you blaspheme God, for we are his\nchildren.\"\n\nThen, of course, if it upholds Slavery, it says that it is a good and\ndivine institution; perfectly adapted to promote the welfare of mankind.\nIf the church forbade the practice of slave-holding, as it does those of\ndrunkenness, adultery, theft and murder, and excommunicated those\npractising it, as it does those guilty of the above sins, the case would\nbe far different, even if its members were in the habit secretly of\npractising it. If it even preached against Slavery, it would be a\ndifferent matter; but instead of that, we have ministers justifying it\nfrom the Bible, and exhorting Slaves to obey their masters, because God\nrequires it, and threatening them with hell, if they disobey them. Then\nwe have the spectacle of a large church at the South, seceding from its\nnorthern brethren, because the latter did not like to have a bishop hold\nSlaves! They would not remain in connection with a church at all opposed\nto Slavery.\n\nBut all this you may say does not apply to the northern churches. Well,\nif the northern churches countenance the southern in slave-holding, it\ncertainly does. If they recognize them as Christian churches, receive\ntheir ministers as Christian ministers, and forbear reproving them for\ntheir sins, then is the northern church guilty of upholding Slavery. And\nit gives a double sanction to it; for it says we believe Slavery is not\nincompatible with Christian character; and we have been brought up away\nfrom its influence. It does more to support the vile system, than even\nsouthern churches themselves; for southerners expect those brought up\nunder the influence of Slavery, will think it lawful; but when they see\nchurches living away from its place of existence, countenancing it and\nfellowshipping it, they conclude at once it cannot be wrong. Why the\nchurches of the North should countenance it, what motive they have in so\ndoing, is not for us to say now. The great and appalling fact stands out\nbefore the world, that there is scarcely a church throughout the whole\nof the free North, but what is in some way in fellowship with Slavery.\nIf they do not fellowship southern churches, they do northern churches,\nwhich give the right hand of fellowship to southern ones. And where is\nthe church at the North, the members of which are all out-spoken\nAbolitionists? Is there scarcely a church where \"no union with\nslave-holders\" is made a test of admission? We have never heard of but\none, and that the church of the Covenanters in Pennsylvania. To be sure,\nthe Wesleyans will not recognise the southern churches, as Christians;\nbut they will fellowship those that do; exchange with their ministers,\nand receive their members, and more than all, allow their members to\nvote for slave-holders, even for Gen. Taylor! Certainly, no church can\nbe Anti-Slavery which has members who voted for that king of southern\nslave-holders! That this is true, witness the case of Seth Sprague, of\nDuxbury, who is a Wesleyan, and made almost the first speech in favor of\nGen. Taylor made in the State. But all our churches contain such men,\nand certainly are upholding Slavery. Witness the great number of\nministers in this State, who voted for Gen. Taylor. Drs. of Divinity, as\nwell as those less honorable; and some illuminated their houses in honor\nof his election, as in the case of Dr. E., of Salem. Others preached\nsermons in favor of the act, as in the case of Dr. S., of North\nBrookfield. Probably there is scarcely a church throughout New England,\nall the members of which, who voted at all, voted against the extension\nof Slavery.\n\nBefore proceeding to comment upon the guilt of the church, in this\nrespect, let us for one moment consider the terrible situation of the\npoor Slave, as hurried from his family, he is transferred to the\nchain-gang of a negro driver, to be transported to California, or New\nMexico. \"Husband, where are you going?\" plaintively enquires the\nsorrow-stricken wife, as he is knocked off upon the auction block to the\nhighest bidder, and returns to bid farewell to his companion. \"Wife, I\nknow not! Farewell! farewell!\" responds the sobbing husband; and away he\nis hurried from her presence, and perhaps beaten for speaking to his\nwife. An eye witness of these scenes, and one who has himself been\nseparated from his mother, says he has known the driver beat with sticks\nthe husband and wife as they clung around each other's necks, just\nbefore parting. The author at one time, while travelling in Kentucky,\nmet a Slave who seemed very much dejected. He stopped and asked him what\nthe matter was. \"Oh,\" said he, \"I have been to take leave of my wife,\nwho has just been sent off to Missouri to live with my young mistress,\nlately married, and I never expect to see her again, as long as I live!\"\n\nWhat must be the humanity of these persons who cannot feel for the poor\nSlave in such conditions as these? No one denies that these things\ncontinually happen at the South; and yet but little sympathy is excited\nin consequence. The hearts of the people have become as hard as adamant.\nTheir sensibilities are totally blunted. They are destitute of all\nfeeling.\n\nWhat a picture has just been presented before this nation! A new\nterritory, free from Slavery, demands protection from its awful curse. A\nlarge majority of all the people in the United States, treat this prayer\nwith contempt, and virtually say it shall not be granted by voting for\ncandidates for the presidency, known to be in favor of its admission\nthere. Here the mangled victims of Slavery, have these 50 years, lain\nbleeding upon the plantations of the South, loudly calling upon our\ngovernment to desist from protecting their cruel masters; but their\ncries have been stifled by the clamor of noisy politicians, who have\ntalked of the necessity of preserving our glorious Union, at whatever\nexpense to the crushed and manacled Slave.\n\nA new era seemed about to commence. The question is obtruded upon the\nwhole country, and becomes the pivot upon which the presidential\nelection is made to turn. Shall these cries of three millions of Slaves\nbe made louder and more acute, or shall a barrier be interposed between\nthem, and all increase of their sufferings? Shall Mexico be the slough\nof despondency, into whose terrible mire shall be cast the gasping\nSlave, and a new mart be opened for the gratification of men who examine\nthe bodies of their victims, as a man does a horse he is about to\npurchase, and women as well as men; or shall a sword of cherubic power,\nguard all entrance to this country, as the angel's sword protected the\ngarden of Eden?\n\nThis was the question brought before the people of this country at the\nlast election, and how was it decided? Let history shrink back\nastonished as she pens the degrading fact, that the whole country was\nrocked with emotion, and reeled with the mighty efforts put forth, to\nplace a man in the presidential chair known to be in favor of this\nextension. It needs no argument to prove the turpitude of such a people.\nTheir guilt is self-evident, their hypocrisy glaring. It stares all the\nworld in its face, like the lurid flames of hell, ascending from their\nsubterranean enclosure. Guilt, did we say? There are no terms in the\nEnglish language sufficiently strong to describe the wickedness of this\ntransaction; and yet the _church participated in it_. No warning voice\nwas heard from her public bodies arousing her members to opposition to\nthis direful deed. On the contrary, many of her ministers volunteered to\nhelp forward the accursed transaction. The piety of Gen. Taylor was\nvouched for by reverend fathers in God; and saints of the most high,\nwere found bowing in reverential adoration before this Juggernaut. Few\nand far between were the voices of single ministers, in opposition to\nthis course; and now that the deed is done, who exclaims against it? Who\ncomes out from the churches where these guilty men rule? Who refuses to\nhear ministers preach or pray who voted for Gen. Taylor? What society\nhas yet dismissed its minister for so doing? What church has passed\nresolutions in opposition to the recognition of such men as Christian\nministers? Why, a highway robber has as good a claim to the character of\na Christian minister, as one has who voted for Gen. Taylor.\n\nWe have yet to learn of the first church ejecting a member for this\nflagitious transaction; and yet voting for Taylor is as much worse than\ncommon stealing, as a man is of more value than a beast or a dollar. By\nvoting for a slave-holding warrior, you say that Slavery is right,\nreputable, and worthy of praise. Instead of frowning upon the\nslave-holder, as you would upon the horse-thief, you elevate him to the\nhighest office in your gift; thus doing all in your power to render\nslave-holding honorable. It is just as great a crime to aid in elevating\na slave-holder to the presidency, as it is to hold Slaves. It does\n_more_ to uphold Slavery; for it says we will heap the highest honors of\nsociety upon slave-holders. We will place them where all their influence\ncan be used to strengthen the system; and it serves to shut the mouths\nof Anti-Slavery men; for it will not do to cry out against slave-holders\nas robbers, when our President is a slave-holder.\n\nBesides this, a very large portion of the church cast their votes for a\nman pledged to go for the extension of Slavery, although not nominally a\nslave-holder. Gen. Cass justified the extension of Slavery, and argued\nin favor of the unconstitutionality of prohibiting its extension; and\nthousands of votes were cast for him, by church members. To their praise\nbe it said, many church members and ministers refused to vote for either\nof these men; but what action have they taken in their churches in\nreference to those who did? If such acts as these are to be passed\nover, in silence, then is the _sanction of the church_ given to\n_slave-holding_, and the _extension of Slavery_. Recollect that the\nquestion was not, should Slavery exist at all? On that question there\n_might_ have been some excuse for inaction; but it was should it be\n_extended_ over a territory nearly half as large as the whole of the\nUnited States? It would seem as if Christians could not have hesitated a\nmoment on this point; as if the whole host of God's elect, as the church\nclaims to be, would have been marshalled in battle array against the\nmyrmidons of the slave-power. But no, a death like silence pervades the\nentire church upon this point. It matters not to her whether Slavery\n\"covers the earth, as the waters cover the sea,\" or not. Her \"mission is\nto let it alone.\" To cry out against gambling, whoredom, Sabbath\nbreaking, and such unpopular sins, is her duty; but to advance before\npublic opinion, and create a purer one, is no part of her work. She is\nso engaged in saving souls, she has no time to attend to the bodies of\nthe people. But seriously, is it not a terrible state of things when the\nchurches of our land are asleep over such a dreadful evil? When the\nvoice of the watchman is but faintly heard, if at all, in rebuke of the\nmost heaven daring of crimes? We appeal to all who are in the habit of\nattending church. Does your minister every Sunday, exclaim against the\nhorrid enormities of extending Slavery, to say nothing of it where it\nnow is? Do you hear from his lips as severe denunciations of those\nengaged in this wicked business, as fell from the lips of Jesus Christ,\nas he reproved the oppressors of his day? No, you do not, only\noccasionally. It is considered a rare instance of courage if a minister\ndares to rebuke his people for having voted for Gen. Taylor?\n\nWhat, then, is to be done in the matter? That the church at the North\nupholds Slavery can no longer be denied, for she goes farther, and\nupholds its extension; yea, farther yet, she countenances _fighting_\nfor its increased power, murdering men, women and children, that it may\nexist, where it could not without this fighting. O, shame on a church\nhaving in its folds a single member who cast a vote for that most wicked\nof men--Gen. Zachary Taylor! But declamation will avail nothing without\naction. We propose a remedy for all this wickedness. We call upon all\ntrue friends of the Slave to leave those churches where ministers or\nmembers voted for Taylor or Cass. Further, we invite you all to make a\ncritical examination of your relations to Southern slave-holding\nchurches, and see if your associations, your conferences, or your\nconventions, are not in league with slave-holders, or with those who are\nallied with them. If you belong to a church not having a single member\nin it who voted for Taylor or Cass; yet if your church fellowships those\nchurches having such members, are you not a pro-slavery church? To\nfellowship the churches who retain pro-slavery voters, is to say that\nsuch voting is not wrong. But if you cut loose from all such relations,\ndo you not fellowship northern churches, who have slave-holders\nthemselves in their bounds; for instance the northern Methodist Church,\nhaving still slave-holding members?\n\nBut if you are clear from all such connections, there is still another\npoint we beg leave to submit to your serious consideration, which brings\nus to the second great pillar the statue of Slavery stands upon. You\nhave seen the influence given to the system by the church; now look at\nthe power given to it by the _Government_. This is the principal\nfoothold of the dreadful system. Destroy this prop, and Slavery falls;\nbut before advancing to this position in our argument, let us see for a\nmoment how Slavery is acknowledged by law; for it is in this relation we\nare about to contemplate it.\n\nThe Government of the United States creates no Slaves; it only\nrecognises as lawful the Slavery existing in the several States, or to\nuse the words of the Constitution, \"held to service or labor, under the\nlaws thereof.\" The _laws_ of the several slave-holding States are made\nthe standard for the general government's action upon this subject. No\nquibble can possibly evade this, for it is not necessary to prove that a\nrunaway Slave justly owes service to his master, but only if he does,\nunder the _the laws of his master_. The master has made certain laws,\nclaiming his Slaves as absolute property; the Constitution says,\n\"persons owing service under these laws,\" shall be returned, thus making\nthe most complete provision for the support of the system. The laws of\nthe State in which the claimant lives, are the rule to go by, not the\nfeelings of the judge, respecting the abstract question of the\npossibility of one human being owing compulsory service to another. It\nis just as much a violation of his oath, for a judge to refuse to\ndeliver a Slave proved to be such, under the laws of the State, without\n\"a bill of sale from the Almighty,\" as the Vermont judge did, as it\nwould be to refuse to deliver the Slave _with_ the bill of sale from the\nAlmighty. If it is the bond that we contend for so strictly, as the Jew\ndid for the pound of flesh, we must abide by the bond, which says, not\nif the _Almighty_ furnishes a bill of sale, shall the Slave be delivered\nup; but if the _laws of the State_ say he is a Slave. The recent\ndecision of judge Edmonds in behalf of Belt, the most favorable one on\nrecord, fully recognises this principle; and Belt owes his liberty not\nso much to the humanity of the judge, as to the absence of positive\nproof that the laws of Maryland uphold Slavery. A copy of the Slave laws\nof Maryland was produced, but it only said published by authority, and\nnot by the authority of the legislature, therefore Belt was allowed to\ngo free. The omission of one word in a book, saved Belt from the jaws of\nSlavery, more than any other thing. To be sure, it was proved that the\nmaster did not take legal steps after the seizure of Belt, and therefore\nhad no right to him; but the main reason for his discharge was, not the\nwrongfulness of delivering him up, not because God had given Lee no\n_bill of sale_, but because a lawyer could not swear that a certain\nbook was the laws of Maryland!\n\nFrom this decision there is no appeal, until a higher authority has\ndecided differently. All that a slave-hunter has to do, is merely to\nbring an attested copy of the laws of the State, in which he lives, and\nprove that in such a State he held the person claimed as his Slave, and\nthere is no redress for the panting fugitive. He _must be_ returned to\nhis former bondage, without any power to protect him from the punishment\nhis master may choose to inflict upon him in consequence of his escape.\nThus is Slavery legalized by our laws; and if we cannot expect a higher\nstandard of morality than what the church upholds, certainly we cannot\nexpect practices to cease, which the government pronounces lawful.\nPeople are not generally so much in advance of their laws and religion,\nas to refuse to perpetrate what those laws and that religion justify,\nand pronounce honorable. Thus the whole influence of jurisprudence, and\nchurch action, is thrown around Slavery. Is it any wonder, that it\nexists in so much power, and now seeks to extend its sway over new\nterritory? What then is necessary to be done to remove this prop from\nunder the colossal statue of Slavery? Plainly, to repeal all laws\nrecognising its existence. Do this, and refuse to obey any of the claims\nof the South in reference to this matter, and Slavery ceases as soon as\nthe earth would cease to turn upon its axis, if the Almighty should\nremove his hand from the crank of the mighty wheel. Or to drop all\nfigure, as soon as the Slaves should arise and assert their liberty;\nwhich would be almost instantly, if it were not for the North. We are so\nhemmed in now by compromises and promises, that even in the act of\nvoting not to extend Slavery, we unconsciously pledge ourselves to\nsustain it where it now exists.\n\nBut let us examine another point a few moments. What gives 250,000\nslave-holders power to hold 3,000,000 of Slaves in bondage? Not the\npower of non-slave-holders at the South, for they could not be relied\non, in case of an insurrection. They suffer so much now in consequence\nof the degradation Slavery attaches to labor, and are so impoverished by\nits influence, that few and faint would be the blows they would strike\nin behalf of slave-holders; as a body they are envious of the\nslave-holders, and would like to see him deprived of all his Slaves.\nThey gain nothing by the existence of Slavery, but on the contrary\nsuffer much; for the labor of Slaves is so cheap, that their services\nare not demanded; and they are not respected as a general thing, except\nin those sections of country where but a few slave-holders reside. What\nmotive have they to put down a Slave insurrection? There is not a man of\nthem but would be more independent than the present slave-holders, if\nSlavery was abolished; for there is so much land lying idle at the\nSouth, that the Slaves after emancipation would be under no necessity of\nworking for their former masters. It would not be with them as it is\nwith the free laborer of the North; for their power would be so great,\nthat they could take possession of the best plantations, and leave their\nmasters to look out for themselves; and the latter being unused to labor\nwould be miserably off, which would reduce them to a worse condition,\nthan that of the poor whites, who would immediately become the\naristocracy of the South. In fact, if an insurrection of the Slaves\nshould take place, there is not much doubt but it would be encouraged by\nthe non-slave-holders of the South. Who, then, give the 250,000\nslave-holders of the South their power? Let the winds of heaven answer,\nas they blow across the fertile fields of the South, and waft the scent\nof the cotton, rice and sugar plantations, to the nostrils of the\nmoney-loving northerners. Let the cargoes of bleached cottons and\nhandsome prints, slave-tools, hats, boots and shoes, whiskey, and all\nother northern goods, as they sail into southern ports, testify. Let the\nships freighted with produce from one southern port to another, the\ngreat carrying trade, for which our fathers bartered their virtue,\nloudly respond. There goes not a vessel from the North to Savannah,\nCharleston or New Orleans, but it carries within its timbers and on its\ndecks, proof to the slave-holder of northern readiness to sustain him in\nhis foul business. In proof of this, let me ask who voted for Taylor at\nthe recent election more than the great merchants of the North? Did not\ncapitalists universally cry out, \"Great is Zachary Taylor!\" Was not\nAbbott Lawrence, the prince of northern manufacturers, loudest in his\nprofessions of zeal for \"Old Zach?\" Go throughout our country, up and\ndown all its cities and villages, and enquire who in those places voted\nfor Taylor, and you will be told that the great manufacturers, the rich\nmerchants of those towns and cities did. That they poured out their\nill-gotten gains in behalf of Gen. Taylor's election; that the South\nmight be pleased, and northern industry protected! Perish the word\nindustry from the vocabulary of man, if this is the basis upon which it\nrests. What! northern industry only protected by electing the greatest\nof idlers to the presidential chair? Who feels less sympathy for\nnorthern workingmen than the man who drives three hundred laborers to\ntheir daily toil, with the crack of the whip sounding in their ears, and\nwho robs them of nearly all their earnings, and forces them to live in a\nstate of prostitution? Is such a man a friend to the rights of northern\nlaborers?\n\nBut it is these pretended friends of home industry, which means any\nthing but their own industry, who stand pledged to support the South. It\nis they who are so anxious to see Slavery extended, because they can\nsell as, they think, a few more goods for the use of the newly imported\nSlaves! Yes, they are ready, as one friend of the Slave has remarked,\n\"to annex themselves to perdition, if by so doing, they could sell\ncotton cloth to its inhabitants for six cents a yard.\" They are\nunwilling to have Slavery abolished, for that would open one of the\nfinest countries in the world, to the ingress of free laborers, who\ncould manufacture their own goods, and would not purchase so many of\nAbbott Lawrence & Co., as they at present send to the South. But they\nare short sighted even in this; for the abolition of Slavery would open\na market for many more goods than could be manufactured South, which\nwould enrich the North much more than her present losing trade with the\nSouth does. They do not comprehend this problem, for if they did, the\nCouriers, Daily Advertisers, and Atlases, would be filled to overflowing\nwith denunciations of Slavery, just as they were of the Mexican War,\nwhen political capital could be made out of such denunciations. Then the\ntariff must be upheld, or the North will go to ruin, and they hope to\nobtain the aid of the South in this matter, by assisting them to sustain\nSlavery. The great body of northern manufacturers, care as little for\nthe existence of Slavery, as they do for the sufferings of men perishing\non the scaffold, for crimes against law and order.\n\nThey are almost wholly selfish, as is evinced by the character of the\nmen they set up for office. They care not whether 3,000,000 of Slaves\nclank their chains in their hearing or not, so long as the busy hum of\ntheir cotton-mills at Lowell and Manchester, and the noise of their\ntrip-hammers in Pennsylvania, are heard to resound above these cries.\nThe music of silver dollars rattling in their vaults, as drawer after\ndrawer is deposited by their cashiers, is sufficiently beautiful to\nthem, to operate as an offset against the shrieks and wailings of the\nSlaves. What though the Lord of Sabbaoth lends a listening ear to the\nsobs of the bondmen, it matters not to them, as long as the gold clinks\nin their chests. All heaven may cease its songs of joy, to listen to the\nshrieks of the Slave; but worlds of Slaves might shriek and groan, until\nthe noise shook old earth from its foundations, and sounded in the ears\nof saints like the sound of \"many waters\" to the apostle John; and\nthese men would not turn from the dull music of their water-wheels, or\nthe clatter of their spinning-jennies. Indeed, it is a question, whether\nthey would turn from their tables of discount, and their columns of bank\nstock, if God himself should speak from heaven, and request sympathy\nfrom them. Sympathy! they have none! Their hearts are made of silver and\ngold, polished to an icy coldness. If the blood of the slave-driver's\nlash should increase until it flowed over the entire South, and turned\nto red the color of the element upon which their ships sailed; it would\nnot mar the harmony between them and the South, until it rusted the\nbottom of their vessels, and rendered them unfit for the carrying trade.\n\nTo be sure all the people who vote aid these cotton lords in sustaining\nSlavery; but let them pursue a different course; let the leaders of the\ntwo great political parties of the North, adopt another principle than\nthat of subserviency to the slave-power, and the people would not long\nobject. The result of the last election has fully shown the willingness\nof the people to adopt the watch-word of their party, whatever it may\nbe, and it would be arguing a great amount of villany on their part to\nsuppose, that they would refuse to follow them in the paths of\nrighteousness, when they clung so closely to them, as they took the most\nconspicuous part of the broad road. Certainly the great body of the\nWhigs and Democrats, would not refuse to travel towards heaven, if their\nleaders should say so, when they have sprung with such alacrity to join\nthem in the road to hell. How it would be with the rank and file of the\nFree Soil party we know not. As they have shown a readiness to burst\nparty bonds, these would not operate upon them so much; but charity\nprompts us to believe, that if the leaders of this party were to propose\nthe measure of a secession from the Union, the Anti-Slavery feeling of\ntheir followers would willingly respond to the call. It is then to the\nleaders of both church and state, that the rebuke of Nathan to David\napplies, \"thou art the man.\" It is the prominent men in all parties who\nare to blame for the existence of Slavery.\n\nA word now respecting the abolition of the laws which uphold Slavery; or\nin other words in regard to the amendment of the Constitution. If this\ncan be carried out without dissolving the Union, we should like to know\nit; but how can it? What is it to alter the Constitution, but in fact to\ndissolve the Union? The Constitution is the _bond_ of Union; the\ninstrument which binds the North and South together. How, then, can you\nchange it, in its important features, without, for the time being,\ndissolving the Union between the North and South? Let us see. A proposal\nis made to Congress for an alteration of the Constitution, in respect to\nSlavery. That is, the North is tired of the bargain she made through her\nfathers with the South, and wishes a new one. Of course, if this new\nbargain is made, the old one must be declared no longer binding; and we\nhave virtually a dissolution of the Union, although a _re_-union may\nhave followed. This shows that the dissolution of the Union will not\nnecessarily create civil war, any more than the passage of any other law\nby Congress.\n\nThe great question is, how shall this alteration of the Constitution be\nbrought about? Of course, as long as we assert that it is good enough\nalready, we shall not wish to change it; therefore we must first be\nconvinced of its wicked character, which we hope all our readers are\nconvinced of by this time; but as some of them may not be, we will dwell\nawhile on this point. No intelligent man will deny that it was the\nintention of our fathers to sustain Slavery. Mr. Lysander Spooner\nhimself admits it. Sufficient proof exists of this fact to satisfy every\nreasonable mind. Almost all politicians admit it, certainly all honest\nones. No one doubts that our fathers meant to uphold Slavery, when they\nadopted the Constitution; and the question now with us is, not so much\nthe technical meaning of the Constitution, as its real import. We know\nthat honesty always leads us to decide upon the meaning of an author, by\nunderstanding the circumstances under which he wrote. For instance, if\nan editor speaks of \"fighting earnestly\" in the approaching campaign; he\nwould be deemed a very dishonest man, who should assert from the\nauthority of this language, that the editor recommended physical\nfighting, and was in favor of bloodshed; but he would be no more so, it\nseems to us, than one who knowing what our fathers were debating about,\nshould contend that they did not mean Slaves, because they said \"persons\nheld to service.\" Of course, being partners in the guilt of the\ntransaction, they did not wish to brand themselves with infamy, by\ninserting the word Slaves, any more than the duellist is willing to term\nhimself a murderer, instead of \"a gentleman of honor;\" or a lewd woman a\nharlot, instead of \"a lady of pleasure.\"\n\nIntoxication is alluded to, by its victims, in various genteel terms,\ninstead of the plain one--drunkenness; and robbing and stealing on the\nocean in time of war is termed by the mild name of privateering. So with\nall villany. Robbers are only lightening the pockets of their victims;\nthieves only picking up the crumbs of the rich; and slave-holders are\nonly masters; Slaves, \"persons held to service,\" or \"other persons,\" or\nsomething else, to hide the shame of the guilty ones. Go to the South,\nand you will never hear the word Slave spoken; but it is \"my people,\"\n\"my boy,\" \"my girl,\" &c. If you go so strictly by names, you might never\nknow by living at the South, that they consider their servants Slaves.\n\nWhat, then, did our fathers mean, by \"other persons?\" The clause reads\nas follows:\n\n\n     \"Representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned * * by\n     adding to the whole number of _free_ persons, including those bound\n     to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,\n     three-fifths of all _other persons_.\"\n\n\nOur enquiry is not what the Constitution can be made to mean, but what\nis the natural and fair import of its language? Of course, we can\npervert the meaning of any instrument, and by false reasoning and wordy\ncontroversy, make black appear white, and _vice versa_. When I say\n\"John, come to dinner,\" to a fair, impartial listener, my meaning would\nappear plain; but to a technical quibbler, I might be made to be a great\ntyrant. For instance, I assert authority. I utter a command. I do not\nask John to come to dinner, but I require him to come, and a long\nargument might be entered into to prove my tyrannical nature, such as\nthat I was forcing John to eat whether he wished to or not; that I\nrequired him to eat a good deal, a dinner, instead of a little, and\nabove all, that I was disposed to force him to _obey me_. By such\nreasoning, the kindest of parents might be proved to be severe and\nhardhearted. On the contrary, if I say \"dinner is ready, John,\" the same\nquibbler might accuse me of indifference to my child's welfare, that I\ndid not care whether he came or not, and so on.\n\nNow in all these cases, that sterling quality, common sense, is to be\nbrought into requisition. When I promise to carry my friend to ride\nto-morrow, unforeseen accidents are of course considered as an excuse\nfor the non-fulfilment of my promise; but Mr. Lysander Spooner, in\nbehalf of my friend, might enter an action in law against me; for there\nare my words in writing, \"I will take you to ride to-morrow;\" but common\nsense would excuse me, if my horse should be sick, or my carriage be\nstolen. Mr. Spooner argues like an earnest man, to prove that these\nexpressions do not mean Slaves, because they cannot be proved to have\nreference to such a class, by the exact meaning of the words. \"The word\nfree is not the correlative of Slavery; for a variety of reasons,\" he\nsays. He thinks \"all persons\" mean aliens. Now, what an absurdity. Who\never heard of three-fifths of the aliens in each State being added to\nthe naturalized citizens in making out the apportionment of\nrepresentatives? How many representatives have seats in Congress, in\nconsequence of aliens residing in their districts? Not one, and yet\ntwenty-five men are seated there, in consequence of Slaves residing in\ntheir districts. It is a burning shame for a man to prostitute such\nnoble powers of thought as Mr. Spooner possesses, to such a silly and\ncontemptible mode of reasoning. Why, if his arguments are correct, all\npoetry and figures of speech are wrong; all metaphorical language, and\npersonifications in writing are out of place; and nothing is left us but\nplain, straight forward words, which have a precise meaning, and can\nmean nothing else. If I say \"the wind blows,\" I lie, for wind is an\naction of something else, and, of course, it is absurd to talk of its\nblowing. If I say \"I am in pain,\" it is not true, for the pain is in me;\nand if I talk of God's moving the world by his arm, it is false, for he\nhas no arm. If I say \"the giant of Slavery stalks abroad, over our\nland,\" it is false, for there is no such moving thing as Slavery, for\nSlavery is merely the term applied to a particular act of a man; but who\naccuses me of falsehood in speaking of these things? To put the\nstrictest literal construction upon every word of the Constitution,\nwould involve us in some of J. C. Calhoun's criticisms, such as _men_\nnot being born, and not being born _equal_, &c.\n\nLet us follow Mr. Spooner's idea a little, in relation to free persons,\nmeaning naturalized citizens. Mr. Spooner says that all the State\nConstitutions, at the time of the adoption of the U. S. Constitution,\nused this word in no other sense than the one signified in the English\nlaw, and of course that the U. S. Constitution used the word in that\nsense only. This argument, if it proves anything, proves too much; and\nwe apprehend will operate fully as much against Mr. S.'s idea, as in\nfavor of it. According to this law, the word _free_, Mr. S. assures us,\nmeans \"persons possessing citizenship, or some other franchise or\npeculiar privilege, as distinguished from aliens, and persons not\npossessed of such franchise or privilege.\" Then the word free in this\ninstance, must mean only the opposite of aliens. Aliens are those not\nentitled to vote, or to hold office. These are, I believe, the only\nprivileges which they are debarred from. Then as the word free, means\nthose possessing the privileges which aliens do not possess, it cannot\nmean either women or children, for they do not possess either of these\nprivileges.\n\nThus, according to this definition, free persons are only voters and\napprentices, and \"all other persons,\" are foreigners not naturalized,\nand women and children. But Slaves do not possess, and never have\npossessed these \"peculiar privileges,\" always having been debarred from\nthe right of voting and holding office, and surely cannot rank as the\nopposites of aliens, any more than women and children, and therefore\ncome under the head of \"all other persons.\" If free persons are the\nopposite of aliens, and aliens are those deprived of peculiar\nprivileges, then none can be free persons who do not possess these\nprivileges. But Slaves never have been known to possess them, therefore\nthey cannot be free persons. Free persons, Mr. Spooner says, are those\npossessing some franchise or privilege which aliens do not. Now, in the\nname of common sense, we ask what privileges have Slaves ever possessed,\nwhich aliens do not? Let their scarred backs, gaping wounds, and broken\nlimbs answer. Slaves possessing privileges! and yet this is the\ndefinition Mr. Spooner chooses to give to the word _free_: \"Persons\npossessing citizenship, or some other franchise or privilege, _not\npossessed by aliens_.\"\n\nBut a few words from the original adopters of the Constitution will\nsettle this whole difficulty. Says Alexander Hamilton in the New York\nconvention:\n\n\n     \"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a\n     representation for three-fifths of the negroes. * * Without this\n     indulgence no union could possibly have been formed.\"\n\n\nIn Virginia, Mr. Madison said:\n\n\n     \"Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess.\n     At present, if any Slave elopes to any of those States where Slaves\n     are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the\n     States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this\n     Constitution, 'no person held to service or labor in one State,\n     under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence\n     of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service,\n     or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom\n     such service or labor may be due.' This _clause was expressly\n     inserted to enable owners of Slaves to reclaim them_. This is a\n     better security than any that now exists.\"\n\n\nGen. Pinkney in the South Carolina convention, observed:\n\n\n     \"We have obtained a right to recover our Slaves in whatever part of\n     America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before.\"\n\n\nBut the great question after all, is not what the Constitution says in\nwords, but what use is made of it? If it is a suitable one for a free\nnation, it could not be capable of such an awful perversion as has been\nmade of it by the legislation of the country ever since its adoption,\nMr. Spooner's idea being correct. If it is Anti-Slavery, it is the first\nAnti-Slavery document, and the only one, Calhoun &. Co. were ever known\nto cherish and swear by. How remarkably keen-sighted must these wily\nsoutherners be, not to detect the Anti-Slavery spirit of the\nConstitution; and be hugging an abolition monster, when they fancy they\nare pressing to their bosoms their own bill of rights to hold Slaves.\nThe southerners are not generally duped this way, and it is strange they\nshould be so much so, in this case. For our own part, the very fact that\nthe Constitution is valued so highly by the South, casts a shadow of\nsuspicion over it, and induces us to reject it as an Anti-Slavery\ninstrument. The South excludes even Sunday school books, tainted with\nAnti-Slavery, and poems alluding to freedom, are hardly allowed a\ncirculation there; how strange then, that this great _magna charta_ of\nhuman liberty should be so eulogised by them. The fact is, it suits them\nwell. They never have complained of its not being pro-slavery enough,\nbut have always rested satisfied with it, as their supporter and guide;\nand yet northern Anti-Slavery men will talk of its being an Anti-Slavery\ninstrument. As well might the robber press to his bosom the precepts of\nJesus Christ, or the gambler and drunkard, works on morality, as the\nslave-holder the Constitution, if he believed it Anti-Slavery.\n\nWe are aware of all that can be said in favor of independence of mind;\nwe would by no means wish to bind any man down to the opinions of the\npast, or to say to any bold departure from established usages and\nopinions, \"You are wrong, because you differ from great and learned\nmen;\" but still we would ask, if the Constitution is as Anti-Slavery as\nMr. Spooner asserts it to be, how happens it that such egregious\nmistakes have been made concerning it? Can a real Anti-Slavery document\nbe so misconstrued, as to satisfy slave-holders, who dread the least\nappearance of Anti-Slavery, as Satan does the truth of God? We will\ngrant for the sake of argument, that it does not directly sanction\nSlavery; still we assert that it is a pro-slavery document for the\nfollowing reason. Anti-Slavery is a bold, outspoken, and unmistakable\nthing. It is \"known and read of all men, a living epistle,\" and can be\nno more mistaken for pro-slavery, than the shining of the sun, for total\ndarkness. The difference between the two is so great, that they can\nnever be mistaken, the one for the other; or at least genuine\nAnti-Slavery can never be regarded as pro-slavery to the full\nsatisfaction of slave-holders. We cast our eyes over the history of our\ncountry, and from the commencement of its political existence until the\npresent time, we see Slavery justified by the Constitution. From the\nPresident seated in the chair of State, to the representative of the\nsmallest village in the most insignificant State of the Union; from the\nChief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the petty\nlawyer and esquire of the country village; from the wisest statesman,\nto the most ignorant politician; from all who ever filled the\npresidential chair, down to him who hopes to fill it soon; from\npoliticians of all parties, to men who abjure politics; we hear but one\nvoice respecting the character of the Constitution, excepting a few\npersons like our friend Spooner, who seem to be disposed, for want of\nbetter employment, to test the power of their minds in arguing its\nAnti-Slavery character; as the philosophers of olden times, polished\ntheir logical weapons in discussing such questions, as \"Whether God\nloved a possible unexisting angel, better than an existing insect;\" or\n\"whether an angel in travelling from point to point, passed through the\nintermediate points;\" and \"whether more than one can exist in the same\nspace, at the same moment.\" Those mighty enquiries were the intellectual\njousts and tournaments of the age of chivalry and knight errantry. Happy\nwill it be for us, if a moral Don Quixotism does not intrude itself into\nour efforts for true reform. There is to us a great similarity between\nthat celebrated genius's battle with the wind-mill, and our friend's\nlong and laborious fight, to prove the Anti-Slavery character of the\nConstitution; for after he has made good his arguments, and proved, to\nthe demonstration of all, that technically the Constitution does not\nuphold Slavery, what good has he accomplished? He has indeed fought the\nletter, and perhaps come off victorious; but does he invalidate its\n_spirit_? He rests like the knight of olden time, upon the field of\nchivalric combat, with a deep sense of having been engaged in mortal\nwarfare; he has fought hard and valiantly; but alas, his foe still\nstands as powerful as ever, and not at all disposed to yield the field.\n\nIf the Constitution, as we sail across the waters of political life,\naffords us no sure and certain guide, but is like a chart, which has\nalways misled the mariner, and instead of pointing the way to a city of\ncivilization and virtue, has directed him to the rocky shores of some\ncannibal island, of what earthly use is it to us? We are sailing over a\ntroublesome ocean. Dark and ominous clouds hang over our vessel. The sky\nbegins to gather blackness. The red lightning shoots its lurid flashes\nbefore our eyes. The thunder utters its dismal groan in our ears. The\nwaves begin to lash and foam against each other. Our course is\nuncertain; but amid the gathering darkness, we discern a light-house,\ndimly visible in the distance. We look upon our chart, not knowing where\nwe are. That describes our past route, and asserts that a light-house is\nerected at the entrance of the harbor we wish to enter. We consult our\ncompass. It indeed agrees not with the delineations of the chart; but a\nlawyer stands at our side and proves the correctness of the chart. We\naccordingly steer our vessel towards the light, but to our dismay find\nthat it is but a false one, held out by miserable wreckers. Our chart\nwas wrong. It had misled us. We tacked about and escaped the snare. We\nwere not quite wrecked. Other seamen have experienced the same danger,\nbut we still cling to the chart. We refuse to cast it from us, and even\nhearken to the suggestions of one who would tell us, that the _chart_ is\nright enough. It is only our wrong way of reading it that has led us\ninto danger. We resume our voyage, confident that we shall this time\navoid all harm, for we now know what our chart means. Accordingly we\nhoist all our sails, and proceed in confidence to our destined haven.\nBut a blacker cloud than before casts its dismal shadow over our vessel.\nWe can hardly discern the words of our chart. The efforts to correct its\nfalse interpretations, have so marred its surface, that we can get no\nlight from it. At one moment it seems to direct us as we are now\nsailing, then immediately in an almost totally opposite course, so that\nbewildered and confused, we drop it entirely. We then look to the\nunerring needle of our compass, and by its undeviating direction to the\nstar of hope to the mariner, as well as to the fugitive Slave, we are\nable to keep from destruction, until a correct chart is procured--one\nwhich admits of no evasion, nor contradiction, and by which we are able\nto steer our course, until we reach the haven desired.\n\nThus with the Constitution. It has misled us until we were well nigh\nwrecked on the shores of southern oppression. We now are not able to\ndiscover what it does mean. Its literal meaning conflicts with its real\none. Shall we continue to trust the safety of the ship of State to such\na Constitution; one which has misdirected us long, and the meaning of\nwhich all its interpreters have decided erroneously; or shall we abandon\nit, and trust temporarily to the northern star of hope; to the light\nwhich gleams from the hearts of those Anti-Slavery men, who are living\nAnti-Slavery epistles, and true apostles of liberty; to the faithful\npointing of the needle of principle, as it ever inclines in an opposite\ndirection from the South, and thus preserve our liberties until a true\nand safe Constitution can be adopted? Shall we trust to the dubious and\ncontradictory readings of a bit of parchment, composed by men like\nourselves; or shall we cut loose from all connexion with the dangerous\nislands of human oppression lying southward, surrendering our profitable\ntrade with worse than cannibals; and launch our vessel upon the high sea\nof freedom and liberty, away from the rocky shores of these islands of\ndeath, steering with an undeviating course for some northern harbor,\nwhere we may moor our vessel, and safely land our passengers? What is\nthere in the Constitution, after all, so much in favor of liberty, as to\nsatisfy the sons of freemen? It may, indeed, do for such freemen as\ncould fight for themselves, and yet bind chains upon their brethren; but\nfor those who wish to abjure all oppression it will not answer. The\nconstitutions of the true sons of liberty must be like their hearts,\npolished brightly; and free from the _dust_ of pro-slavery, as well as\nfrom its grosser filth.\n\nBut Constitution or no Constitution, it is human liberty we are\ncontending for. We cannot stop in our labors for the oppressed, to\nprove the truthfulness of our enemies' weapons. We cannot step aside\namid the heat and dust of the conflict between light and darkness, to\nread lessons upon legal technicalities. The cries of the bleeding\nbondman sound too loudly in our ears, to allow us to deviate from our\ncourse so much as to descend to arguing for the sanctity of human\nconstitutions. As we hear the noise of the wailings of the Slave, and\nevery breeze wafted from the South is laden with the cries of 3,000,000\nof stricken ones, how can we care whether constitutions or churches, are\nin the way of their emancipation, any more than a mother would care for\nthe flames around her, while endeavoring to rescue her child from a\nburning dwelling? The fires of Slavery, tended by northern priests, and\nfed by northern politicians, have burnt fiercely these many years,\nscorching and blistering even those who stood by and watched over them;\nthe Slave's form has become almost a blackened corpse; the little ones\nof a fond mother's love, are already gasping in the agonies of death;\nand the shrieks of the living are reaching heaven, while the glaring\nflames, have illuminated the firmament, like the flames of burning\nMoscow; and shall we turn the streams of the water of life away from\nthese terrible flames, because forsooth sacred idols block the wheels of\nour engines? No, let us rather flood them all, Slavery, pro-slavery,\nchurches and constitutions, with such a deluge of celestial waters, as\nshall as effectually sweep from the land all these supporters of\nSlavery, as Noah's flood, removed from the earth the sinners of his day.\nIf we would abolish Slavery, we must be destructionists. The word has\ngone forth from the mouth of the Almighty, that Slavery shall be\ndestroyed. The advancing spirit of the age in which we live, has decreed\nits overthrow; its fate is even now registered on the scroll of destiny,\nwhich contains the end of all oppression, and we cannot thwart this\ninevitable tendency. Reform has commenced to ride triumphantly across\nour earth. Error is fleeing to its native dwellings, in the rocks and\ncaves of the earth; and truth with her holiday dress, is ascending the\nthrone of the hearts of mankind. Truth, too long hidden in the\nfastnesses of the forests, almost afraid to exhibit its face, although\nthickly veiled, is removing her garb of concealment; is stepping from\nher wilderness retreat, and is boldly disputing the reign of the earth,\nwith the monsters who have so long ruled it, but to curse it, and reign\nover it, but to mar its life. Henceforward, although many a long and\nbloody battle is to be fought, between the enemies of God and man; yet\ntruth shall conquer. Man is arousing himself to noble deeds. Slavery,\nthat giant of despair, so long planted in the road pursued by the\npilgrims of truth, like Bunyan's gloomy giant of Doubting Castle, is\nretreating from all its former strongholds. There is scarcely a country\nwithin the bounds of this green earth, upon which the warm sun of heaven\nsheds its benignant rays, but what is delivering itself from this foul\nblot, _America only excepted_! Britons and French, Danes and Norwegians,\nRussians and Turks, Seminole Indians and Mexicans, Algerines and\nTunisites, themselves, are all casting the execrable system from them,\nas a reproach to their fair names; but young America, loudest in her\nboasts of purity, freedom and piety, is lagging behind. She only, of all\nthe nations of the earth, seems unwilling to let the captive go free.\nShe who fought for her own liberty, the greatest of tyrants, almost the\nonly Pharoah of the earth!\n\nBut thanks to a few in her borders, even her proud heart begins to grow\nfaint; her limbs tremble slightly, and like the mariners in a storm, who\nrush to the bottle to drink their fill for the last time, she is growing\ndesperate, and drinking more deeply than ever of the cup of Slavery, as\nthe last draught she can obtain from its noisome fountain.\n\nCourage, friends of your race! Let the breath of the Almighty inspire\nyou, let his fiat strengthen you! Clothe yourselves in the panoply of\ntruth afresh; gird on the gospel armor anew, and make a bolder attack\nthan ever upon the Bastile of Slavery. This gloomy castle, which has so\nlong frowned upon our liberties, shall be razed to the ground, and its\npining inmates set free, to breathe the pure air of liberty.\n\nOnward, friends of reform! Remember that \"the battle is not to the\nstrong, nor the race to the swift only, but that stronger is the armor\nof the Almighty, than all the weapons of your enemies.\" Gird on, not the\nclumsy armor of King Saul, but the \"breastplate of righteousness, the\nhelmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit,\" the weapons which are\nnot \"carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down the strong\nholds of Satan.\"\n\nOne enquiry more remains for us to answer, which is, how shall we\ndissolve the Union? It was asserted that if the Constitution could be\naltered without dissolution, such a step would be unnecessary; but be it\nremembered, that this event can never take place, until the South is\npartly Anti-Slavery. The consent of the legislatures of three-fourths of\nthe several States, is necessary to accomplish this, and we leave it to\nall candid persons to judge whether there is any hope of such consent\never being given. The only remedy plainly is for us to abjure the\nConstitution, proclaim ourselves free and independent of the South, and\norganize a new and separate government at the North.\n\nThe steps necessary are briefly these. Let a convention of the people of\nthe Free States in favor of this movement be called; let the\nlegislatures of the several States withdraw their Representatives and\nSenators from Congress, and let them meet together, and send delegates\nto this general convention, as our fathers did to the convention where\nthe Declaration of Independence was adopted. Let them meet, and adopt a\nConstitution, fix upon some conspicuous place for a seat of government,\nBuffalo for instance, send home the constitution to be ratified by the\nseveral northern States, and having thus formed their own government,\nlet them withdraw their portion of the Army and Navy from the South,\nrefuse to pay duties to the general government, and send a minister to\nthe southern government for the adjustment of all claims between the\ntwo. Of course the South would be too busy in settling their own affairs\nto disturb us for awhile; and if war come at last, it is easy to see who\nwould be victorious; the North with all her resources, or the South with\nher 3,000,000 of Slaves in her borders. The whole territory north of\nMason and Dixon's line would then be open to the fleeing fugitive. No\nSlave hunter would dare to venture on our soil, to recover his lost\nvictim. Thus Slave property would be useless in Virginia, Maryland,\nKentucky and Missouri, and probably those States would soon knock at our\ndoors for admission to our union. That would destroy the value of Slaves\nstill farther South, and eventually the whole country would become free.\nBut there is another view of it. The Slaves could then arise and demand\ntheir freedom, and nought could prevent them from attaining it. \"At the\nfirst tap of the drum, there are 10,000 northern bayonets, ready to be\nthrust into the bosoms of the Slaves, should they attempt an\ninsurrection,\" says Mr. Underwood of Kentucky, on the floor of Congress.\nThis danger would have vanished. No northern foe could then be ready to\nstrike down the Slave fighting for liberty, but millions would\nsympathize with and assist him. Of course the people of the North must\nbe converted before this change can take place, but come it must. It is\nthe only remedy for Slavery that we have any confidence in, and there is\nno time to be lost.\n\nCome it must, did we say? It has already come in one sense. The people,\nthe bone and sinew of the country, are nearly ready for the change. The\nworkingmen of the North can perceive the disadvantage Slavery is to\nthem; how it degrades labor, and prevents the exaltation of the laborer;\nbut their leaders are wily, and will endeavor to persuade them, that\nthe Union is of more consequence than the abolition of Slavery. There\ncan be no question, if it were not for the leaders in church and state,\nthat a dissolution of the Union would be speedily brought about; but\nthese men, always the curses of society, stand in the way of all\nimprovement in this respect. If the people had been allowed to act\naccording to their own impulses, would Zachary Taylor have been elected\nPresident of this nation? Witness the mighty gathering of freedom's\nhosts at Buffalo; and see to what a pitch popular feeling arose, when\nthe nomination of men known to be thoroughly opposed to slavery\nextension was made known! The noise of acclamation, arising from nearly\n50,000 hearts, sounded throughout this nation, like a thunder-clap in\nthe ears of selfish and unprincipled leaders. No event ever produced\nsuch a change in the policy of corrupt men, as this demonstration of the\nfirst fruits of the spirit of freedom. Politicians as corrupt as\nputridity itself, trembled and cried aloud for help. A universal howl of\ndespair went up from the hell of Slavery; but the faces of the sons of\nfreedom every where grew bright, as the countenance of the mother is lit\nup with joy when she beholds her first-born child lying in her arms. If\nsuch a mighty change took place as the result of this, the morning light\nof freedom, what will be the howlings of the wicked, and the rejoicings\nof the good, when the sun of emancipation, shall shine in all the\nbrightness of its meridian splendor, upon the dark and gloomy caverns of\nSlavery, as will be the case when a similar convention shall nominate a\nman for the presidency of the _Northern Union_?\n\nIf the faces of the southerners and their allies were elongated then,\nwhat will be their length when the news of such a convention shall reach\ntheir ears? We repeat it, the people are nearly ready for this change;\nand only need the word of command from their leaders, to adopt as their\nwatchword, \"No more union with slave-holders.\" But unprincipled leaders\nnever will be converted only by the people advancing before them;\ntherefore our work lies with the people.\n\nMen and women of America, descendants of those pioneers of freedom, who\nbraved the vicissitudes of fortune in a new and wilderness land, that\nliberty might be bestowed upon their children; sons and daughters of the\nwarriors of Lexington and Bunker Hill; children of the patriots of the\nrevolution; is there none of that spirit of liberty which actuated your\nfathers, remaining within your hearts? Have the fires of freedom become\nso nearly extinct in your breasts, as to leave no spark of liberty\nthere, which can be made to ignite the hearts of cotton which surround\nyou? Burns there no flame of indignation in your souls, at the\nremembrance of the insults you have received at the hands of the South?\nSay, ye children of proud and tyranny-hating parents, are ye sunk in\nsuch abject submission to your oppressors, that no trampling under foot\nyour own and the Slave's rights, can arouse ye from your stupor? O, is\nthere no portion of that hatred of tyranny, which prompted your fathers\nto say, \"resistance to tyrants is obedience to God,\" left within your\nbosoms? Then, indeed, are you recreant to the principles your fathers\nstruggled with adversity's power to establish, the base and degenerate\nsons of noble and energetic sires.\n\nOne word more, and our task is finished. What is the South, that ye\nshould cling so closely to her? Is she not a polluting harlot, deceiving\nyou by her gay attire, and attempting to seduce you from the path of\nvirtue by her blandishments? Yea, has she not already beguiled your\nsimple hearts, and now that she has bewitched you, and obtained power\nover you, seeking but to insult and cast contempt upon you? O, let us\nbreak away from her polluting embraces, and return to virtue and\nintegrity. \"Come out from her, my people, and be not partakers of her\nsins, that ye receive not of her plagues.\"","title":"The Way to Abolish Slavery","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":11737}