0^ '^^^^^ "^^ « o •; »°-n^ -^^0^ L~ .r -^ c • •'•/ "*eech as President of your Society. You err, however, in supposing that my impressions of the character of that Societj^ were formed from the report in the Evening Post. Tt was not the source of my information, nor have I yet seen it. The existence and general design of the Society were subjects of current notoriety : and a wide-spread patriotic condemnation of that meeting and its objects may well exist, without being grounded on "the egregiously false and impudent representations of an unprincipled reporter in the Evening Post." I certainly did misconceive your opinions, for, in the exer- cise of a charity where "the wish w^as father to the thought," 1 supposed yonr unfriendly political action to be governed by the least objectionable reason — an abhorrence of war and a yearning desire for peace. But I find that you justify your actions frcnn positions so extreme that I was unwilling to be- lieve that yon could occupy them. I ^m not sure now that I should do you injustice, to deem you an admirer and advocate of slavery. Allow me to review, seriatim, some of the salient points of vour reply. Ml!, field's LETTEB. Mr. Field's letter needs no vindication a t my hands. It car- ries its own defence, and, I doubt not, has received the cordial Jipproval of many whose life-long politics have been antipodal to his. The two "clippings" you sent me will fail to damage the effect of the letter with any fair mind that will read them in connection with the letter itself One of the extracts, of Avhich I do not recognize the source, is nothing short of scurrilous, the j:)roduction of a trenchant pen held by a reckless cliaracter. It speaks of Mr. Field as "believing in the omnipotence of fanatical falsehood." Would it be right for me to draw the natural inference from your sending it, that you thereby en- dorse its language? The other, an extract from the National Intelligencer, though marked by less of discourtesy, is yet in 4 a spirit of captionsness below the dignity of that journal. The contradiction it spies out is only apjiarent, and would perplex no ingenuous person. The vcrv jiai't oI'Mr. Fields letter thus criticised admits "it may not always he easy to draw the exact line between jasi ci-iticisni and dangerous ca\il," and li-r tln^ evident reason that the appropriate courses and limits oL';iction may overlap each other under varying circumstances. A wiser man than the editor of tlic Intclligercor has said in two con secutivG sentences, "'Answer not a fool according to his lolly, and ''Answer a fool according to his folly." thus by their Jux- taposition braving this very spirit of cavil; and it is only ii shallow or a malignant mind tliat has e'X'cr taken olfence at tliat or similar seeming paradoxes. Ci 1 KISTl AX STAX 1 )1'0 1 XT. You say, •'Onl]il)le truth I am ready to plant every jiosition I take,"' and "This standponit will have to l)e estal)lishcd im- pregnably <)n thcBible ere the ])erverted Christian mind ol'thi^ country can 1)0 disabused of the ruinous fallacies which h;t\(' turned aside the incumbents (^f so many pul])its from their Ic gitimatc duty of allaying the fierce passions of men,"' &e. This language I would adopt in all its force, luit with the })ri\i]ege of giving it a dire(;tion exactly opposite to that you intended. It is theDabneys, the J'almers. the '^riioruwells, and particularly the Dr. Lords (of Dartmoutli), the Eaphalls and the Van Dykes, who have lefttheii- ••legitimate duty,"' and, forgetting the spint of that Gos])el which teaches ''good will to men," the ''loving our neighbor as ourselves,"' and the •'doing to others as we would that they should do unto us,"' have proclaimed a Bible commendation V)l' a system that has nurtured the "fierce pas- sions" of the southern slaveholders. For every evil passion — and their name is legion — which is gratified and fostered by the system of slavediolding, is most fierce when crossed or even criticised. It is especially these gratuitous apologists ibi' slavery, whose wi'ong-doing has not the extenuation of self- interest, winch may be accorded to the slave-holder— these eager champions of a blighting system, which all civilized nations are repudiating as a sin and shaking olf as an incubu.s — it is these "incumbents of the pulpit," whose talents have been used to "pervert the Christian mind of the countrj^ Avith ruinous falla- cies," and to "add fuel to the already raging tires of a ferocious and desolating"' system of slave-holding and slavery propagand- ism. The (piestion naturally arises here : Did "the harangues'" <:)f these "p(jlitical orators" excite in you and those with whom you politically fratei'nize, the same indignation against pulpit intei'ference in jjolitics? A frank answer to this cpiestion 5 would fitly illustrate the pithy old satire: ''You may preach orthodoxy, l>iit orthodoxy must he my doxy.'' The Bible has ever been made a staud[)oint lor the defence of errors of opposite extremes, for which not the Bible bat its differing in- terpreters are alone responsible. "The unstable"' may "wrest" it in the cause of a supposed conservatism to imprison a Galileo, or in the cause of a ])retentious })rogress, by supplementing the Decalogue with an absolute prohibition of the use of wine. Truth is not always literally or immediately conservative. Its strength is often shown in "the 2^uUtn{/ down of strong- holds."' Where its power has been felt, it has pulled down iieathcn suttceism and iiffanticide. It has jadled down the Inquisition and tiial by torture. It has pulled down the slave trade, and is now pulling hard, and Avith wide success, at slave- liolding throughout the world. Truth has shown little con- servatism towards oppression. It is only remarkable that slave- holding should have maintained its ground so long after the prohibition of the slave trade^ — that when the theft of human beings has been so long under the ban of civilization, the hold- ing of ■'icrh stolen property should still retain a quasi respect- al)ility. T'his fact will appear still stranger in the dispassionate retrospect which a few rolling yeai's will enable us to take. The experience of the past on this subject might well suggest a caution to those who assume to hold a Bible standpoint in favor of slave-holding. Such persons may, with a moderate lease of life, find ocasion for recantation and self-reproach, as did those numerous Christians, both lay and clerical, who in tlie last century advocated the slave trade and denounced Wil- berforce and Clarkson, and their worth}^ associates, as fanatics. GOVEliXMKXT AND AD3IINIST11AT10N. I find two iliults with your treatment of this subject. But, first, let me disclaim having had any intention to fix upon ytni the same purpose of "undermining or 2:)aralyzing the govern - ment," which I believe attaches to your Society, though my words may admit of that construction. If I had assumed this to be your motive, I should hardly have asked, "What apj^ears to you the sufficient reason," &c. '? My language also intimated the belief that you had required some persuasion to induce you to become the President of such a Society. My meaning would have been less liable to misunderstanding if I had said "ally- ing yourself with others vho liare the extreme and radical purpose," &c. The first exception I take to your comparison of government and administration, is, that the latter term is so commonly re- stricted in meaning to the Executive that it does not present a 6 fail' antithesis. You thus virtually exclude Congress, wlio are suppsed to. represent tlie wishes and opinions of the people. In this fuller meaning of "the administration," the term "gov- ernment" is constantly used. In the next place, though you f4Uote from Webster's Dictionary an excellent definition oJ' "government," as meaning a constitution, &c., you are not warranted in calling this "///e ordinary meaning," as implying that the use is less ordinary in reference to those who at the time conduct the government. Wc speak constantly of vi;o\ - ernment action, government diplomacy, applications to govern ment, and a thousand other expressions, all pointing to persons administering, not to fundamental rulcB underlying the govern- ment. In an editorial in your nephew's journal, the New York Observer of March 26th, I find the following sentiment, whicli probably none of its many readers considered heresy, religious or political : "Our government is embodied in the officers appointed by the people to execute the laws, and re- sistance against them is resisting the ordinances of God." But there need have been no ambiguity in this matter, for a little further on, the same question is repeated in this varied form : "Should not a Christian conviction of duty to the powers that are ordained of God prevent any disposition to resist or thwart the government?" Permit me to say that in neither form do I consider the cpiestion satisfactorily answered. You limit your obedience to the constitutional measures of the gov- ernment. You then pronounce four of the government mea- sures — the Emancipation proclamation, the suspension of ha- beas corpus, the confiscation acts, and the summary imprison- ment of citizens — to be in direct and palpable contravention of the Constitution." If the United States Supreme Court so pronounce them, they will of course be void, and have no claim tt) our obedience. In the meantime, if Congress and a major- ity of the peo})lc sustain them, are you and others of appa- rently "slack allegiance" absolved from all obedience to them ? If these acts of the administration are in any way, as you say, "undernuning or paralyzing the government," permit me to sug- gest tliat it is mainly by furnishing a hollow pretext for com- plaint and opposition with those who have ever been disafl'ect- ed to the war and bitterly hostile to the party in power. "I yield to no man in hearty loyalty to the" Constitution, but it would bo simplicity or aft'ectation to claim for it the perfection or universality of inspiration. Many of the malcontents who now parade such an admiration and jealous solicitude for the letter of the Constitution, with characteristic inconsistency claim that its text has been much improved by the wisdom of "our misi-uided brethren." The Constitution iiever contem- l)lutecl, in reicvencc to our navy, the use of its most vahiablf sliip for laying an Atlantic telegraph cable between two British ports. Yet, how would you and the whole eounti-y cliaraeter- ize such a cavil against the proceeding? You will li;iidl\ suj)- pose that itsframers had in view and provided for just such a rebellion as this. If an unprecedented danger threatens the existence of our nationality, the peo^ile might well mistrust the tidelity of those in power, if, in the failure of ordinary means, tliey did not, as the emergency required, resort to some unpre- eedented and extra constitutional measures. Tlir Gonstitutinv ■wan formed for the Nation, not the A^ation for tic (.hnfitilrUion. It has become very evid-ent to the public mind that tliis fear of federal encroachment and government tyranny is in all oases either grossly exaggerated or wholly insincere and hypo- critical. It is the straw which a drowning, des]ierate partisan- ship clutches as its last lio]ic. CHARACTER OF ABOLITIOX, Under this head you draw a picture which, to say the least, is highly colored. The description seems entirely too imagin- ative and impassioned to be diffused as sound "political know- ledge." One example will illustrate this: "Breathing Ibrtli threatenings and slaughter against all those who venture fi dif- fei'cnce of opinion from them, murderous," &c. Now, there is little doubt that any member of your Society, with all his "difference of opinion," would, without any body-guard, not only be perfectly safe in one of their "dark conclaves" against both slaughter and murder, but also escape with perhaps less invective than they have received at your hands. But ex- travagant as is this description of extreme abolitionists, it is less surprising than your next step, when yoir pronounce ■•DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS IMPOSSIBLE." It is a familiar lact, if several persons combine to shout very earnestly that a dog is mad, his life would be as hopeless as if he had communicated hydrophobia to a whole neighbor hood. This has been with party leaders considei'cd their shrewdest and most successful method for traducing the prin- ciples and party now in power. I did sincerely hope to find you less closely afdliated with such. Without taking the space to repeat and answer them separatel}', to each question you ask under this head, commencing with, "Did not the Republican party," &c. ? I return a respectful V)ut emphatic "NO !" Did space allow, I would substantiate that negative in each instance. As the best general reply to your un wan-anted confusion of the whole Republican party with the extreniest radicals that may mix among ^liem, I quote your own language further on: "Every one of any experience in political movements, is aware that on both sides, in party excitements, there is every possible variety of character associated together. * * * It is not safe, therefore, to characterize a cause by the character of some few who may be loud and forward in advocating it. Bad men may promote a good cause for bad ends.'' As confirmatory of your general views you ask me "to look at the state of the country." I do look at it most intently, as I have for years past, and I will toll you what I have seen : I have seen in the slave-holding states a race of men — ("among whom 1 recognize many excellent, intelligent, conscientious men"— the exceptions) — who Hao chiefly in the atmosphere of politics, who, from the habit of dominating all their life-time an oi)pressed people, have be- come im})e]-ious and arrogant, and manifest these feelings to- wards us in many ways, speaking in contempt of all our indus- trious classes as the "greasy mechanics," "filthy operatives." and "mudsills of the north" — a race of men Avho, from the prevalent excessive use of stimulants and the common prac- tice of gambling, duelling and street brawls, have become impatient and revengeful, — I have seen these men following out the false ideas of manhood thus fostered, and envious at the superior prosperity and progress of their neighbors in the free states, at one time resort to lillibustering raids upon the neighboring territories of friendly nations, at another time making an armed incursion into a part of our national territory to preoccupy and control a new state. Failing in these and many other efforts to retain apolitical power beyond their due, they finally settled upon the principle of "Rule or ruin." The wicked strife begun at Fort Sumter was its natural fruit. But you may ask, has not the north been in any way i-esponsible for this state of things ? I confess with shame they have. There has been for long years a party here, who have, for selfish political ends, sympathized with their discontent and co-operated in their schemes. To- gether they elected Polk, pledged to consummate the Texas iniquity for southern aggrandizement, at the expense of our weak neighbor Mexico. Together they elected the pliant Pierce, who eagerly recognized the pseudo-government of Fil- libuster Walker in Central- America. Together they clectetl the more abject Buchanan, who had recently proved his quali ty and established his claim to their united favor, by Aithei'ing the infamous Ostend Manifesto — tlie blackest blot, by far, on our whole diplomatic histor}^ It is su|)ernuous to speak of the consequences of this com-se of unmanly, unpatriotic subservi- 9 ency. Tlie_y are now upon us, and it is Heaven's mercy iithe}- do not crush us. IMiis is a burned glance, and jfeaves out of yiew many important facts belonging to the true history of tliis epoch. As your remarks have, by seeking to criminate the wliole Eepublican party, given to this discussion the direction of old i>arty politics, which I could wish were hushed to silence through this sad crisis, I could not say less than I have with any proper regard to sound political knowledge. It is a high satislaction, that of those who thus, as a party, heedlessly — in many cases ignorantly — nourished the germ of this very rebel- lion ; thousands upon thousands, probably an immense majori- ty, have nobly "come out from among them,'' and cleared their skirts of all complicity with it as a develophd fact, though still cherishing their old name of Democrats. I^he remainder still cringe to the slave power and obsefpiionsly crave a hearing in favor of further concessions to it. Spurned away in that quarter, they confer clandestinely and traitorously w^itli a foreign Minister as to the way in which Biitish interests and their own, can be best advanced at thc^ ox]^ense of their ruined country and degraded citizenshi}\ But you may ask, "Have the extremists of the Garrison stum}) had nothing to do with all this ?"' I admit they have said and done many intemperate, and some very wicked, things. But putting- it altogether, it has been as "the dust of the balance" in the great results we see before us. Moreover, every censurable word and act of theirs has been far outdone by their antago- nists, the ultra exponents of slavery. And yet these two classes of extremists have not been treated with an equal share of obloquy by those who assume to "disabuse a perverted pub- lic sentiment of ruinous fallacies.'' The pet phrase applied (and justly too) to one class is "fanatics." Webster defines fanaticism to be an "excessive enthusiasm.'' Now, if the alternative were unavoidable that we must choose the side of one of these extremes, far better would it be for our whole nation, and for humanity at large, that we should feel the fixnaticism df anti- slavery, than that our souls should be darkened and our coun- try doomed by the dreadful fanaticism of pro-slavery. Hap- pily, no such choice of extremes is necessary. There is, on the contrary, a temperate, intelligent, yet deep-seated and earn- est feeling of opposition to slavery — and that as much in be- half of the dominant as of the servile race — the nature and extent of which, I have sanguine hopes you will live long enough to find you have greatly underrated. This opposition to sktA'c- ry does not merit the odium of an ofiicious and meddlesome fanaticism. For as long as the institution existed in the Dis- trict of Columbia and the govei-nment dockvards — prevented 10 the recognition of Hayti antl Lil)eria, our own fbster-cliild — claimed the sanctity of a state right, and yet the pati-onage of the Federal government and the privilege of the public domain — tind imposed the abhorrent duty of slave-catching on twenty million of freemen, — it was certainly a matter of national con- cern. Clay, and even Calhoun, testified to this opinion of it, and they are not commonly accused of "abolitionism." The former said, ''With my consent, slavery sliall never occupy an- other foot of the national territory now free." And Calhoun, long years ago, tooh the lead in measures, instituted but never completed, for removing slavery from the District of Columbia. Although the cry of "abolition" has been long, and, in a party sense, successfully used as a bugbear, the agitation of the times has thrown a searching light upon the phantom, that has strip- ped it of its terrors. xVny further use of it for party purposes north of Mason & Dixon's line, however effectively Beauregai'd may employ it further south, will prove a vain effort to keej) alive a public sentiment that is fast becoming obsolete and fos- silized. I hesitate not to characterize the hatred of aholitiou per se as unreflecting and prejudiced where it is sincere, and in all other cases pei*verse and unscrupulous. I would, with all respect, ask. Have you felt none of its warping influence, when you are led in your inaugural to speak of the Declaration of Independence as "a mixture of truths, qualified truths, and ''fallacious maximsV This calls to mind that Eufus Choate damaged not a little his great reputation by the use of a much more moderate expression, in calling it "a collection of glitter ing generalities." This unreasoning and unreasonable hostility (with perhaps an admixture of "the cohesive attraction of spoils" in prospect) has, at a time when patriotism is fearfully tasked lor the salvation of the country, made friends of such men as Fernando Wood and James Brooks, recalling, thougli reverenth', a time when Pilate and Herod were made friends. TITE president's PROCLAMATION AND THE CORNER STONE. The only quality of this Proclamation that my remarks de- fended, was its legality. I held that it was right and justifiable, as between our government and the rebels, and that this was made the more evident by an avowal of their own. I said notliing on the question of its expediency, although, as a mili- tary measure, I have always inclined in its favor ; the more so since it was adopted in some sense — especially in view of our precarious foreign relations — as a last resort, after twenty months of unsuccessful use of other means, and even then with one hundred days of grace to the parties most directly aggriev- ed. Its final results will be a more satisfactory comment on 11 its ■influence than any speculation we may now induloe in. And now, as to your treatment of "the corner stone,"' I cannot avoid the c:onviction that you have somewhat damaged the cause you intended to serve. Whether or not our government will accomplish the removal of the corner stone, yon certainly have succeeded in turning that stone around so as to expose its hardest side to the gaze of the public. For if your labor- ed analysis discovers any distinction, it is of this purport — that the corner stone of the so-called Confederacy is shown by one of its principal founders to rest, not on slavery incidentally, as a pre-existing, inherited and de facto institution, but on the desiraliility, the excellency, the very necessity of slavery, as the chief good. Now, if this is an escape for Mr. Stephens and his defenders from the shame and odium of making slavery the corner-stone, it is very like that other escape with which our minds have been familiarized from childhood — the escape "out of the frying-pan into the fire.'' It is not strange that "a great multitude both in Em'ope and America entertain" the opinion that the cause is so bad, when its most strenuous apol- ogists make it out EVEN WOKSE. A ]nind that not only fails to see any distinction bctweeji the most radical and infidel ab- olitionists and the great Kepublican party, but is so sure of the negative as to pronounce any such distinction impossible, and yet can discover such a redeeming difference between Mr. Ste- j)hens' real sentiments and those generally ascribed to him, such a mind must have reasoning and perceptive faculties with which few other men are favored. I wonder not that opinions so much at variance with tlie humane spirit of the Gospel, as those of Mr. Stephens, should be accompanied by such irrever- ence to its Divine Author as he betrays in course of the same speech, when he blasphemously applies to hnman slaver}^ the language first used in regard to the Son of God — " This stone, which was rejected of the [first] builders, is become the head- stone of the corner.'' But you not only interpret Mr. Stephens' language ; 3- ou also defend his ai'guments. You say "the error on one side which he combats, is the assumed equality of the races.''' This, too, is perhaps the principal of those "fallacious maxims'' which you discover in the Declaration of Independ- ence. Now, is this not a "man of straw," only set up for a valiant display of wasted argument ? Does any one suppose that the Fathers of the Eepublic declared that men of all races were equal in physical and mental endowments? As well make them declare that all men are equal in stature, weight and color. Who does not well know that they are only declared to be equal in the rights then enunciated — such as life, libert}- and the pursuit of happiness ? Let us now look at Mr. Ste- 12 phens" Hr.uiiiiiLMit. I lis prcjiuse is: The two races are vinec|nal. From tins iirciiti-r Kc and vourself eoiiie to the conrldsin)} that this inequality detenniiies the status of the iiii'erior raee to be slavery. It has seldom been my h)t t(; iind a mc)re ])crfeet noii sequUur, or a more "fallacious maxim' tlian this. How is it falsified in every coitntry, community and family, where sim- ilar inequality may be found, and still no slavery is "the neces- sary resultant liict."" And yet it is this condasion — not the fact bat the groundless inference — that is to support the corner- stone of the would-be Confederacy. Not. however, fully ccni- iiding in the stability of your vonrjiisinii you go back to the premise, or fact, and say : "'Tht plvijslcal iimjuaUly of tht rao-^ then is this corner-stone." You then, a little further on, change again and directly imply that ycnir conclaaioa (the '•necessary re- sultant," davcrij) is the corner-stone. For you say that slave- ry in America can be removed only by a separation of the races, and then inquire, "Is it worth while to attempt to remove a corner-stone which God has planted ?" Now, this logic is a strange confusion of j^ostulates and predicates ; but it is sur- jiassed l^y the stranger confusion of moral principles it evinces. It is a very thin an