E 450 
 .W69 
 Copy 1 
 
 / 
 
 GRAND ISSUE : 
 
 in 
 
 AN ETHICO-POLITICAL TRACT 
 
 SAMUEL WILLARD 
 
 BOSTON: 
 JOHN P. JEWETT & CO 
 
 Nos. 17 and 19 CornhiU 
 
 1851. 
 
THE 
 
 GRAND ISSUE: 
 
 AN ETHICO-POLITICAL TRACT, 
 
 SAMUEL WILLARD. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 JOHN P. JEWETT & CO., NOS. 17 & 19 CORNHILL. 
 1851. 
 

 Damrell & Moore, Printers, 16 Devonshire Street. 
 
 ^ transfer 
 
 U i2 '06 
 
THE GUAND ISSUE. 
 
 When human law comes, or appears to come, into direct 
 and inevitable conflict with the Divine law, which is to 
 control the conduct of good citizens 1 This, I think, is 
 emphatically the question of our day and country, under- 
 lying most of the discussions, which for years have agi- 
 tated the public mind ; and is the main issue between the 
 opponents and the abettors, or passive instruments, of 
 slavery. It is indeed denied that there is any such ques- 
 tion now pending. All, it is said, confess the supremacy 
 of the Divine law, even while they contend for implicit 
 and active obedience to tlrose human laws, which are 
 opposed to natural justice, and the revealed will of God. 
 The doctrine, and the argument by which it is sustained, 
 so far as I can understand them, may be thus stated : — 
 " Civil government is an appointment of heaven, for the 
 purpose of securing those social benefits for mankind, 
 which could not otherwise be secured ; and such govern- 
 ment cannot be maintained, without making implicit 
 obedience to all its edicts and commands a universal duty. 
 If disobedience were ever permitted, it would introduce 
 such a principle as would tend to demolish all govern- 
 ment, and lead to universal anarchy. Hence, it is the will 
 of God that the law of the land should be obeyed, even 
 when it contradicts his will." If this be not a ftxir state- 
 ment, I am wholly unable to understand what is meant 
 
by those who are ready to cry out, " Treason ! " agamst 
 such as contend that there is a law above the Constitution ; 
 and if it is a fair representation of their sentiments, and 
 the argument on which they are founded, it would seem 
 that an explicit statement should be in itself a sufficient 
 refutation. Still, it seems to be a lamentable fact, that, 
 for want of due attention, multitudes of good men, and 
 some whom we are accustomed to call greats are bewil- 
 dered and perverted by the sophism involved in the argu- 
 ment. I would therefore invite my reader to look atten- 
 tively at the subject, first in the perspective of reason, 
 and then in the light of Holy Scripture. 
 
 First, then, let us examme the argument for passive 
 obedience to unrightous and impious laws in the light 
 of reason. It is said, " We must obey the laws of the 
 land, without inquiring whether they be consistent or 
 inconsistent with the law of Heaven, or we shall estab- 
 lish a principle of disobedience, which will tend to the 
 destruction of all human government." There is in this 
 an assumption of something, which is neither self-evident, 
 nor capable of proof; something absolutely false ; viz.: 
 That obedience to all human laws, not excepting those 
 contradictory to the Divine law, or the subversion of all 
 human government, is a necessary alternative. This is the 
 sophism suggested above. In regard to this point, I 
 would put the question to the candid, and even to the 
 lyrcjudiced reader ; Is it not conceivable that a man 
 should refuse obedience to a civil law, which seems to 
 require of him disloyalty to Heaven, and still submit 
 so quietly to the severest penalties of that law, as to leave 
 the wheels of Government to roll on, with no other 
 obstructions or' frictions, than what are purely moral, and 
 consequently peaceful ? Still farther, I would ask, Would 
 such examples, connected, as of course they would be, 
 with prom]:)t and cheerful obedience to all human laws. 
 
which appear to be in harmony with the beneficent will 
 of God, tend either directly or indirectly to subvert all 
 human government, whether bad or good ] Would they 
 not, on the contrary, tend to strengthen and perpetuate 
 those which are most entitled to support, and exert 
 a reforming influence on those which are capable of 
 reformation, without a resort to those violent and bloody 
 commotions, which often aggravate, instead of correcting 
 inveterate and deep-rooted abuses ? 
 
 There is another point in the argument we are consid- 
 ering, which requires a momentary glance from the eye of 
 reason. It is assumed that, for certain purposes and to 
 a certain extent, the Supreme Lawgiver sanctions by his 
 own authority those human laws, which are directly 
 opposed to his authority. It seems, if I may be allowed 
 without impiety to state the doctrine in explicit terms, 
 that the infinite God finds such difficulty in regulating 
 the social interests of mankind, that he thinks it wise or 
 prudent to call in the aid of man to relieve him of his 
 embarrassments, although that aid may be at war with 
 the fundamental principles of his righteous government. 
 Alas ! for the infirmities, the perversity of the human 
 mind ! Is it possible for a man of any intelligence, who 
 is not blinded by prejudice, to look for a moment on this 
 assumption, without seeing that it is hard, very hard to 
 be reconciled either with sound reason, or with that rever- 
 ence, which is certainly due from finite, feeble creatures, 
 to their infinite Creator 1 
 
 The error, which appears so repugnant to reason, and 
 which is alike horrid in its aspect and its legitimate 
 effects, may, I think, be traced in many minds to a one- 
 sided view, and consequently to a misconstruction of 
 Scripture. I would, therefore, in the second place, invite 
 the reader to a candid examination of those Scriptures, 
 which have been supposed to favor a doctrine so much at 
 
variance with the rights of private judgment and the 
 duty of man as man ; and I hope to show clearly that 
 the argument in favor of this doctrine has no real support 
 from Scripture; that the Scriptures furnish no warrant 
 whatever for human government to interpose itself be- 
 tween the Supreme Ruler of the world and his individual 
 subjects on earth ; and, on the other hand, that it does 
 not allow, and much less require any individual to do 
 wrong, or refrain from doing what would otherwise be 
 right, because the law of the land commands or forbids. 
 I am perfectly aware that passages may be quoted, which, 
 separately viewed, seem to enjoin absolute and unreserved 
 submission to the laws of the land, be those laws what 
 they may. Some of these passages I shall bring to view 
 in the connections in which they stand, and by which 
 they must be interpreted. 
 
 My first citation is from 1 Peter, ii, 13, 14. "Submit 
 yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, 
 whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors, 
 as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of 
 evil doers, and for the praise of them that do w^ell." One 
 other passage will suffice, inasmuch as it is the strong- 
 hold of our opponents, their very citadel. It is found in 
 Romans, xiii, 1 — 5. " Let every soul be subject unto the 
 higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the 
 powers that be are ordamed of God. Whosoever, there- 
 fore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God ; 
 and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 
 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. 
 Wilt thou, then, not be afraid of the power ] Do that 
 which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same ; 
 for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if 
 thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not 
 the sword in vain ; for he is the minister of God, a 
 revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 
 
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, 
 but also for conscience' sake." 
 
 From several parts of these citations we learn the char- 
 acter of those rulers, who are warranted in calling in the 
 Divine authority in support of their own. According to 
 Peter, they are such as are " sent for the punishment of 
 evil doers, and the praise of those that do well." In the 
 descriptions of Paul, they are such as " are not a terror to 
 good works, but to the evil ; ministers of God for good, 
 who bear not the sword in vain." 
 
 Still it may be asked, Are we not required in the 
 quotation from Paul to obey rulers, or be subject to them, 
 whatever their character or laws 1 With the exception of 
 some extreme cases, I frankly answer. Yes. There is a 
 qualified obedience enjoined by Christian principle to the 
 laws of the land, however unreasonable or cruel those 
 laws may be. We are to obey them as far as we can, 
 without renouncing our allegiance to the King of kings 
 and Lord of lords ; and where we cannot do what is 
 required, or refrain from doing what is forbidden, w^e are 
 to maintain our allegiance to the Great Supreme, and 
 quietly suffer any penalties which man may inflict for 
 the violation of his law. In all such cases I conceive 
 the true doctrine is non-obedience and non-resistance 
 combined. To prove this, it is sufficient, I think, to bring 
 into view the examples of those holy men, who have 
 delivered to us the oracles of God. Plow did they carry 
 out their doctrine in their own practice % 
 
 What the apostle Peter meant by the injunction, 
 " Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the 
 Lord's sake," we may learn from what he said to the 
 Jewish Sanhedrim, which, to a certain extent, was the 
 legitimate government of Jerusalem and Judea, Acts, iv, 
 18, 19. "And they called them, and commanded them 
 not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus. But 
 
8 
 
 Peter and John answered and said unto them, "Whether it 
 be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more 
 than imto God, judge ye:" &c. Acts, v, 29 ; "Then Peter 
 and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to 
 obey God rather than men." On this principle Peter 
 and his brother apostles persisted in the violation of the 
 express commands of their constituted rulers ; and in all 
 this they were expressly supported by the authority of 
 Heaven, as appears from Acts, v, 19, 20. " The angel 
 of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought 
 them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to 
 the people all the words of this life." 
 
 The conduct of Paul in regard to the point we are 
 considering is not so plain a commentary on his own pre- 
 cepts, as that of Peter. It is to be remembered, however, 
 that idolatry was blended with the fundamental laws of the 
 whole Roman empire, which was then spoken of as compris- 
 ing the whole civilized world. Of course it was impossible 
 to preach the doctrines of Christianity, without coming mto 
 immediate conflict with civil rulers, so far as they insisted 
 on the preservation of their fundamental laws. This Paul 
 did through the whole course of his apostleship, in Rome 
 itself, as well as in the provinces. 
 
 As the highest authority for the doctrine I am endeav- 
 oring to maintain, I make my last appeal to Him, " who 
 spake as never man spake," and always did the will of 
 Him that sent him. He did indeed enjoin obedience to 
 " the powers that be," Matt, xxiii, 2, 3. " The scribes 
 and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All, therefore, 
 whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do." 
 Still, our Pattern and Guide did not himself refrain 
 from miracles of mercy on the Sabbath-day, though the 
 priests and elders insisted on such an interpretation of 
 the Divine law, as would make these acts of mercy in the 
 highest degree penal. In support of this position, it is 
 
9 
 
 unnecessary to make any citations, as the fact is notorious 
 to every one that is acquainted with the Gospel history. 
 It is farther observable that our Saviour justified his disci- 
 ples in the non-observance of that traditionary law, which 
 required every man in all cases to wash his hands before 
 he eat. Matt, xv, 2, 11. 
 
 Having, as I trust, fully sustained and defended my first 
 position taken above, viz. : That human rulers are not 
 allowed to avail themselves of Divine authority in carry- 
 ing into effect any laws which are evidently opposed to 
 that authority, as manifested in nature or revelation, I 
 now proceed to the second proposition, under which I 
 shall endeavor to show, from the clearest expressions of 
 our Saviour himself, that no private individual can safely 
 allow any human ruler to interpose himself between him 
 and his God ; or, in other words, that he cannot do what 
 is forbidden by the Supreme Ruler, or neglect to do what 
 is required by him, without becoming personally responsi- 
 ble for the act or omission, whatever human law may 
 come in opposition to his supreme allegiance. No bribe, 
 no menace from " the powers that be," will furnish an 
 adequate excuse at the bar of the final Judge. Our 
 Saviour's admonition is awfully solemn, and should make 
 every one tremble at the thought of disobeying his su- 
 preme command in hope of gain, or fear of any earthly 
 loss. " Fear not them who kill the body, but are not 
 able to kill the soul ; but rather fear Him Avho is able to 
 destroy both soul and body in hell. Yea, I say unto you, 
 fear Him. He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he 
 that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it." Matt, x, 28, 
 39. If any suppose that these admonitions had reference 
 to the unauthorized persecutions to which the disciples of 
 Christ were exposed, I would observe that the whole, of 
 the 10th chapter appears to be closely connected, and I 
 would call their particular attention to the 18th verse; 
 
10 
 
 " Ye shall be brought before governors and kiyigs for my 
 sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles ; " 
 which plainly implies that those who would maintain their 
 allegiance to Christ would be brought into conflict with 
 national authorities, to which, on the peril of their salva- 
 tion, they were to pay no other obedience than that of 
 suffering any penalty which might be inflicted. 
 
 An argument to the same effect may, I think, be drawn 
 from Matt., vi, 24. " No man can serve two masters ; for 
 either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he 
 will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot 
 serve God and mammon." In view of these solemn decla- 
 rations, I would ask those who deny that there is any law 
 above the Constitution, How do you avoid the conclusion 
 that while you " love or hold to man," you either " hate or 
 despise GodT' 
 
 Again it appears from Acts, ix, 4, 5, that the Lord 
 Jesus, the constituted Governor of the world, holds all 
 men personally responsible to him, whatever human laws 
 may oppose: " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me % And 
 he said. Who art thou, Lord ? And the Lord said, I am 
 Jesus, whom thou persecutest." Saul had been commis- 
 sioned by the legitimate authorities of Judea, to inflict the 
 penalties of their commands on the disciples of Jesus ; 
 and still He regarded Saul as not only opposing, but 
 persecuting him. The same view was entertained by Paul 
 himself, who, as appears from several of his Epistles, ever 
 after considered it as a sin against God. 
 
 In the 25th chapter of Matthew, near the close, our 
 Saviour has taught us that our final acquittal or condem- 
 nation will depend on the fulfilment or non-fulfilment 
 of that great law of love between man and man, that 
 universal neighborhood among all the nations, and tribes, 
 and individuals of mankind, which he came to establish 
 on earth ; for which he lived, labored, and died. " I was 
 
11 
 
 a stranger, and ye took me in." " I was a stranger, and 
 ye took me not in." " Inasmuch as ye did it, or did it 
 not, to one of the least of these my brethren," — and in his 
 view there is no difference between the bond and the free, 
 — " ye did it, or did it not, unto me." 
 
 To bring the argument to bear with its full force on the 
 particular point which I have had in view in all that 
 I have said, I now ask, "What real Christian can pay 
 any other regard to the recent law for the restoration of 
 fugitive slaves, than that of quietly submitting to its 
 penalties 1 If we have the slightest faith in Christ as the 
 present Governor and final Judge of the world, we cannot 
 without infinite presumption shut our doors against him, 
 when he comes pleading for shelter, as he may do in the 
 person of a fugitive slave. For myself, I will not boast of 
 an invincible resolution. The example of Peter should 
 teach us not to presume on our own strength. But, if 
 sustained by Almighty grace, I will perform toward the 
 fugitive slave all the acts of kindness that I should do if 
 there were no prohibition against it ; and I will quietly 
 endure the consequences, though enormous fines or exac- 
 tions should deprive me of my last cent, and though I be 
 thrown into prison for six months, or six years, or all the 
 residue of life ; and I will not put the Government of my 
 country to the expense of a single lock and key for my 
 safe keeping. Though the doors be open day and night, 
 I will not come out, till the magistrates come themselves 
 and bring me out. I do not say that all this submissive- 
 ness to human authority is clearly required by any Divine 
 principle. I am not now deciding a question of casuistry 
 for others, nor even for myself; but so important in my 
 view is the maintenance of civil order, that I am willing, 
 so far as I alone am involved in the consequences, to 
 make all the concessions expressed above. 
 
 Still it was the direction of our Saviour to his disciples. 
 
12 
 
 "When they persecute you in one city, ilee ye to an- 
 other ; " and none but a fanatic will court persecution, or 
 expose himself to penal sufferings or privations, any 
 farther than the unchangeable laws of piety and univer- 
 sal love may seem to require. It becomes, therefore, a 
 most interesting question, how the tremendous alternative, 
 into which myriads of sober and conscientious men are 
 brought by the Fugitive Slave law, may best be removed. 
 Doubtless it would contribute much to this object, if 
 a majority of our National Legislators, or of their con- 
 stituents, could be reasonably convinced that the Consti- 
 tution, rightly and consistently interpreted, neither re- 
 quires nor permits any action of Congress on the subject 
 of recovering fugitive slaves. This, though it may seem a 
 chimerical and hopeless undertaking, I shall attempt, 
 leaving the issue with Him who, and who alone, is able 
 to give a favorable result to any good endeavor. I know 
 I am entering on very delicate ground, and, that I may 
 hope for a candid hearing, I must first dispose of two or 
 three objections, which will doubtless be thrown in my way. 
 First, it will be regarded as arrogant for a person, who 
 has no pretensions to extraordinary talents, or any legal 
 science, to offer an opinion at variance with those of the 
 profoundest lawyers and statesmen, and especially to 
 question the decisions of that supreme tribunal, whose 
 special duty it is to decide on all matters of this kind. 
 In reply to this objection, I would say that I should be 
 among the last to withhold from that august bench a 
 single iota of the respect which the good order of the 
 community requires, while I would leave to legal and 
 political science the settlement of all intricate questions 
 relating to the subject. But still I would ask. Is it 
 unreasonable to suppose that there are some points of 
 paramount importance in the Constitution, of which 
 ordinary minds are as competent judges, as the most 
 
13 
 
 gigantic and profound 1 In natural history there may be 
 questions, which require the greatest learning to settle 
 correctly ; but the simplest peasant in the land is as com- 
 petent to say that a wolf is not a sheep, though they be 
 in contiguous pens, or in the same pen, as the most 
 thorough anatomist, or the most erudite zoologist. 
 
 The second objection that will probably be offered is, 
 that these sentiments are radical ; and this with many a 
 conservative will be a sufficient reason why they should 
 receive no attention. But is it not frequently recom- 
 mended that in political discussions and transactions we 
 often recur to first principles, in order to prevent or 
 correct abuses % This is all I wish for, provided that 
 what we call first principles be really such. Many 
 maxims, that have been called by that name in almost 
 every science and profession, have, in the progress of 
 light and investigation, been proved to be not only not first 
 principles, but no principles at all ; perhaps utterly false ; 
 and the history of the past should teach us not to regard 
 anything as a first prmciple, which is not self-evident. 
 
 Another objection is likely to be urged against some of 
 the arguments I have to offer ; viz. : That they reflect 
 on the wisdom or the virtue of our fathers, who framed 
 or adopted the Constitution. Such a reflection I would 
 be one of the last to throw on the memory of those great 
 and good men, did not truth and the best interests of our 
 country and the world seem to require it. Many of them 
 I have always regarded as pre-eminent for wisdom and 
 disinterested virtue, faithful in the discharge of what they 
 believed to be their duty to posterity, and consequently 
 worthy of the love and veneration of their descendants. 
 But the history of the world demonstrates that great and 
 good men are not always exempt from intellectual and 
 moral errors ; and perhaps our fathers, to whom we are 
 so much indebted for their generous labors and sacrifices, 
 
14 
 
 may have been misled by political maxims, which the 
 experience of succeeding ages may prove to be not only 
 unsound, but fallacious ; and I think we may do them 
 higher honor by imitating their independent spirit, than 
 we should do by blindly following their footsteps, when, 
 through the infirmities of human nature, they wandered 
 from the right course. 
 
 With these preliminaries, I am prepared to enter on the 
 discussion proposed above; and my first position is the one 
 which is taken by some of our first lawyers: that the 
 article of the Constitution on which the Fugitive Slave 
 law is grounded, gives no such power to Congress as that 
 which is claimed, either expressly or tacitly, and of course 
 that no warrant for Congress to legislate on this subject 
 can be inferred from that provision of the Constitution, 
 which authorizes them to pass any law which may be 
 necessary, in order to carry into effect the powers which 
 are given to them ; while it is expressly said that those 
 powers, which are not vested in Congress, are reserved to 
 the several States. A plausible answer may, perhaps, be 
 given to this argument ; but it does appear to me that it 
 must involve some fallacy, though it may be deeply hidden. 
 Let the Constitution be read a hundred times over, and I 
 think it will be difficult to find anything like a clear 
 warrant for Congress to act on the subject. If any suppose 
 that the oath taken by members of Congress, implies either 
 obligation or power in them to provide for the recovery of 
 those who have fled from slavery, I would request them to 
 consider the consequences of such a claim or admission. 
 That oath must be limited to the peculiar powers and 
 duties assigned to those by whom it is taken. There are 
 different departments of government, on which different 
 duties are imposed ; and one cannot in all instances com- 
 pel another to discharge its obligations to the full intention 
 of the Constitution. Many duties, fbr instance, are re- 
 
15 
 
 quired of the President, which may either be neglected, 
 or inadequately discharged, without giving Congress a 
 right to interfere, either by impeachment, or otherwise ; 
 and so it must be in regard to the duties of States. I 
 know that a different decision has once been given by a 
 majority of our Supreme Court ; but, although a decision 
 of that august bench is to be treated with great respect, 
 the doctrine of infallibility, in Church or State, is no part 
 of our creed. We need not question the competency or 
 integrity of our Supreme Judges. " To err is human." 
 Constituted as that Court is, to suppose it impossible that 
 from self-interest, or some unbalanced influence of educa- 
 tion or association, the majority of them may have taken 
 different views of this peculiar subject from what they 
 otherwise would have done, is to suppose them something 
 more than men ; something more than great and good 
 men are generally found to be. 
 
 My second position against the power of Congress to 
 legislate on the subject of restoring fugitive slaves, is 
 founded on the following prohibition of the Constitution : 
 " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
 of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." "Why 
 this prohibition'? On what principle was it founded'? 
 Doubtless on this : — that human government cannot 
 rightfully interpose its authority between the individual 
 soul and that Infinite Being, to whom every soul is 
 responsible for every word and deed. And, if it be an 
 intolerable grievance to be required to attend, or not to 
 attend on a set of mere forms, which may or may not have 
 a moral effect on tbe man, is it less grievous to be required 
 to disobey the express commands of Him, who has an 
 exclusive right to command 1 It appears to me that this 
 provision of the Constitution, and the evident reason on 
 which it is founded, would alone be decisive against the 
 competency of Congress to pass such a law as that we are 
 
u 
 
 considering. It was on this paramount reason that the 
 colonies of New England were founded. It was this 
 which gave birth to all our institutions, which have the 
 least title to be considered free ; the grand purpose for 
 which our fathers braved the dangers of an unknown sea, 
 and all the hardships of a wilderness, that they might be 
 free to serve their God according to the dictates of their 
 own minds. Can it be supposed that our fathers in New 
 England, who ratified the Constitution, intended to aban- 
 don that most precious of all our birthrights, liberty of 
 conscience ? I think not. 
 
 My third and principal argument against the power of 
 Congress to enforce by law the restoration of fugitive 
 slaves, is drawn from the utter repugnance of such a 
 power to the declared intention or design of the Constitu- 
 tion, which in the Preamble is thus stated : — " To form a 
 more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic 
 tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the 
 general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
 ourselves and our posterity." 
 
 Such were the purposes and intentions of those who 
 framed and ratified the Constitution ; and it seems to me 
 very questionable, whether the article we are considering, 
 executed as proposed in the recent law, would eventually 
 conduce to any one of these several objects ; while, on the 
 other hand, it seems to be at variance with most of them, 
 if not absolutely subversive of them. 
 
 It is one of the declared purposes of the Constitution, 
 as may be seen above, "to establish justice;" and as the 
 term is unlimited, I think we must in all fairness suppose 
 that such an authority or influence was to be exerted by 
 the Constitution, as would be conducive to impartial and 
 universal justice. Now, if I had the necessary books and 
 documents at hand, I suppose I might prove by ample 
 authorities, so far as human authority can prove anything 
 
17 
 
 of this kind, that the imposition of involuntary slavery 
 on those who have not, by some misdemeanor, forfeited 
 their natural rights, is incompatible with the law of 
 nature, as well as the common law of civilized nations. 
 My argument, however, will be more brief and direct. 
 
 If those who signed our Declaration of Independence 
 were correct in holding that every man has, by the im- 
 mediate gift of God, a "self-evident" right to be free, it 
 seems an inevitable consequence that the principle of the 
 recent Fugitive Slave law cannot be reconciled with the 
 establishment of justice ; and this conclusion has been so 
 deeply felt by some of our great men at the South, that 
 they have resorted to the conclusion that what was said in 
 the Declaration about the universality of equal rights, was 
 nothing more than a " rhetorical flourish." The occasion 
 was too grave, however, to admit this supposition, con- 
 nected as it was with a direct appeal to the Omnipotent 
 and Infinitely Just, for the sincerity of their professions, 
 and the support of their cause. But whatever the sincerity 
 or insincerity of those who made this Declaration, it is 
 not the final ground on which I would rest this grand 
 principle of natural justice. I would appeal to the con- 
 sciousness and candor of every man on the face of the 
 earth, who has not lost the grand characteristics of man : 
 "Would you not think it unjust for any man to enslave 
 you, and for others, whatever their claims to possession 
 might be, to hold your descendants, without any fault of 
 theirs, in perpetual bondage % The whole human race, in 
 all ages and all countries, would answer. Yes; and what 
 is this universal consent, but a self-evident law of nature 
 against involuntary slavery, where the natural right has 
 not been forfeited by some great oflfence against the law 
 of nature] If every one thinks it morally wrong for 
 another to enslave him, he must, by an immediate and 
 inevitable consequence, think it morally wrong for him to 
 
18 
 
 hold any other man in perpetual bondage ; and this is 
 such a glaring truth, that if mankind had not been blinded 
 by selfishness and moral corruption, they could never have 
 overlooked it, nor, as we have reason to believe, would 
 it have been necessary for the Prince of Peace and 
 Uighteousness to have re-enacted or re-published this 
 eternal, immutable law, as he has done in those memora- 
 ble words : " Whatsoever ye would that men should do 
 unto you, do ye even so unto them." 
 
 How vain, then, is the attempt to evade the demonstra- 
 ble truth, that all involuntary slavery, imposed on those 
 who have not forfeited their natural right to freedom, is a 
 sin against the law of nature, and the God of nature, by 
 asserting that slavery was warranted by the law of Moses, 
 and was sanctioned by the authority of God himself! 
 Without discussing the question, what was the nature and 
 extent of that slavery or servitude, I would remark, that 
 all the involuntary slavery, which was authorized by the 
 law of Moses, without limitation of time, falls under the 
 exception, which in the preceding argument has been kept 
 in constant view. It was inflicted on those who had 
 forfeited their natural rights by sin ; by disobedience to 
 the Supreme Kuler of the world, which was the state of 
 all the heathen nations at that day. They had renounced 
 their allegiance to Him, and sunk into the grossest idolatry 
 and corruption, and consequently deserved and required 
 a severe disciplme, to bring them back to duty. Further- 
 more, it is to be observed and remembered, that the 
 political institutions of the ancient Hebrews, established 
 through the agency of Moses, were essentially diverse 
 from those of all other nations, from the creation of man 
 to the present time. It was a Theocraci/. God was the 
 political Head,* as well as the moral Governor of that 
 
 *1 Sam., viii, 7. 
 
19 
 
 peculiar people. He was constantly present ^vith them, 
 and provided an oracle for the interpretation of his law, 
 which could be consulted and safely followed on all 
 emergencies ; and, if he saw fit to employ his political 
 subjects in punishing or reclaiming his disobedient 
 subjects of other nations, even by reducing them to 
 slavery, it was no suspension nor limitation of that natural 
 law, which forbids involuntary slavery. So far as I can 
 see, it has no bearing on the subject. This, though a 
 brief, is, I think, a competent reply to all the arguments 
 which have been, or can be drawn from the Mosaic law, 
 in defence of American slavery. 
 
 Undeniable, however, as the foregoing conclusions may 
 be, many attempt to evade the practical force of them by 
 means of a commonplace argument, which seems, indeed, 
 to be the best apology for our fathers in making the con- 
 cessions they did to the spirit of slavery. The argument, 
 if I rightly understand it, is substantially this : * a firm 
 bond of union among the several States was indispensable 
 to their safety and well-being. That union could not 
 be effected without the concessions which were actually 
 made ; and, as they were in fact made, we are bound in 
 good faith to fulfil them. Now in my apprehension, there 
 are two grand defects in this argument, which render it 
 no better than two broken links of a chain, which must 
 be too weak to sustain a conclusion of such infinite 
 weight as many are disposed to hang upon them. In the 
 first place, it is not self-evident, and, I think, not very 
 easy to be proved, that a competent union might not have 
 been formed without any such abandonment of the sacred 
 and eternal principle avowed in the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence; without any concession whatever to slavery, 
 and especially that which forms the basis of the law 
 
 * See the letter of Hon. S. A. Eliot. 
 
20 
 
 recently passed. South Carolina and Georgia would, in 
 all probability, have refused for a time to join such a 
 confederacy. North Carolina, too, might perhaps have 
 taken the same ground with South Carolina and Georgia. 
 I have not the documents, nor a distinct recollection of 
 facts which would warrant any confident assertions in 
 regard to this subject, but the unanimity with which the 
 ordinance of 1787 was passed, and the notorious fact that 
 the leading men of Virginia, and, I think, of INIaryland 
 too, were anti-slavery in their views and feelings, leave, it 
 would seem, no reasonable doubt that they would have 
 joined with the more northern States in a Constitution 
 which made no concessions to slavery. Let it, however, be 
 granted that the five Southern States would for a time have 
 refused all participation in a general form of government, 
 which did not guaranty to them the continuance of slavery, 
 and other immunities connected with it, still there were 
 nine other States which probably would, and certainly 
 might have formed such a union ; and this, it ought to be 
 remembered, though it seems to have been forgotten or 
 overlooked by Mr. Eliot, was the precise number named 
 in the Constitution, as competent to establish it as a per- 
 manent law of those States by whom it should be rati- 
 fied and accepted. May I not add, that, considering 
 the strong anti-slavery feelings and convictions of the 
 North, there was more reason to apprehend that the 
 introduction of those concessions into the Constitution 
 would procure its rejection at the North, than that the 
 omission of them would have had the same effect at the 
 South I The fact is, that the adoption of the Constitution 
 was strongly contested in several of the Northern States, 
 and was for a considerable time doubtful, on the ground, 
 I believe, of its pro-slavery tendencies. Had the nine, and 
 still more the eleven Northern States joined in a common 
 bond of union, what advantage would the other States 
 
21 
 
 have gained by refusing to come in 1 Could they have 
 pursued their fugitive slaves into any State and forced 
 them back again into bondage"? Could they, in conse- 
 quence of holding a multitude of human beings in chains, 
 have given to one man as much political influence as now 
 belongs to fifty or a hundred freemen at the North 1 It 
 is evident they would have had no such immunities. And 
 if those States had formed a union by themselves, what 
 competition could they have maintained with the greater 
 Republic on their borders, endangered and enfeebled as they 
 would have been by the slavery they were endeavoring to 
 maintain 1 The shipping would have been almost entirely 
 at the North. One third of it, if my information and 
 remembrance be correct, was owned by Massachusetts 
 alone, including the District of Maine ; and where the 
 shipping was, there were the seamen by whom it was to 
 be manned, and a great proportion of the eff'ective soldiers. 
 There, too, were the elements of manufacture, and espe- 
 cially that condition of laborers which is necessary to 
 create such establishments, and render them eflacient and 
 profitable. Why, then, should those States have persisted 
 in a refusal to unite in a form of government which re- 
 quired no sacrifice of moral principle on the part of the 
 North ^ Who can reasonably suppose that they would 
 have done it, after they found by their experience that 
 they could not bring the North to their terms ^ So 
 groundless, I conceive, is the assumption, that, without the 
 concessions we are considering, no union could have been 
 formed. 
 
 The other defect in the argument we are canvassing, 
 lies in the tiature and limitation of that necessity which 
 required a union of States, in order to relieve their present 
 embarrassments and provide for their well-being in future. 
 I freely acknowledge that the gloomy picture drawn by 
 Mr. Eliot, of the condition and prospects of that time, is 
 
22 
 
 correct in every feature. The sufferings of the people 
 were great and various, and the aspect of the future 
 appalling. A union of States ivas undoubtedly a most 
 desirable object, indispensable to a happy result of the 
 Revolution. Still I contend that the necessity of the case 
 was not that which knows or should acknowledge no law. 
 There is a necessity infinitely higher and stronger than 
 any, which can affect individual or national happiness in 
 this transitory world, the moral necessity of obeying that 
 Power, which is able either to prosper or defeat the 
 designs and most strenuous efforts of man for the attain- 
 ment of earthly good. The preservation of life is 
 certainly one of the strongest and most imperious of 
 physical necessities ; and yet it will not do for us to kill 
 and eat a fellow-man, certainly not Avithout his consent, 
 in order to save ourselves from the agonizing death of 
 starving ; nor should we be justified in throwing a fellow- 
 creature out of a life-boat, for the purpose of securing 
 to ourselves a safe passage to land. Supposing, therefore, 
 what is not only not certain, but hardly probable, that no 
 effectual union would have been formed without the con- 
 cessions which were made to slavery, it appears to me very 
 certain that our fathers could not be justified in giving 
 their aid to hold those in perpetual bondage, who, as they 
 acknowledged, had a self-evident right to freedom ; and if 
 they could not hind themselves by such a compact, it is 
 hardly necessary to say that they could not impose on 
 their jwsteritj/ any moral obligation to fulfil the compact. 
 Thus I have endeavored to show that the principle of 
 the Fugitive Slave law is irreconcilably opposed to the 
 declared intention of the Constitution, so far as relates to 
 the establishment of justice. It is unjust to the slave, 
 and still more unjust to the conscientious citizen, who 
 cannot comply with its requirements, without the sacrifice 
 
23 
 
 of those moral convictions and feelings, which are a 
 thousand times more valuable to him than life itself. 
 
 Another declared purpose of the Constitution is to 
 " secure the blessings of freedom to ourselves and our 
 posterity." That this purpose would be in a great 
 measure frustrated by carrying into effect the Fugitive 
 Slave law, or the principle on which it is founded, would 
 follow as a necessary consequence from what has been 
 said in the preceding pages. Exposure to the greatest 
 injustice most certainly is not freedom. Those, indeed, 
 who obey the calls and injunctions of that law may enjoy 
 the liberty of going where they please, and doing what 
 they please, spending their money according to the 
 dictates of their own will, and many other things of the 
 like kind. But do these things constitute that liberty, 
 which should be most precious to immortal beings 1 Can 
 a man, Avhile he is a man, surrender the right of acting 
 out the strongest convictions of his mind, and the deepest 
 feelings of a just and generous heart ? and will you still 
 mock him by calling him a freeman, a citizen of the 
 freest country in the world ? On me, who am only one, 
 perhaps, of myriads and millions who are in the same 
 predicament, is imposed the sad dilemma of either dis- 
 obeying the law of the land, or renouncing my allegiance 
 to the God of heaven, and all my hopes of salvation. If 
 I do not disobey that universal and most intelligible com- 
 mand of our Saviour, " Do unto others as ye would have 
 them do unto you," I am liable to be stripped of the last 
 cent of property which is to support my declining years ; 
 and not only that, but to be confined in prison, which, 
 beside all other hardships, may terminate my life ; and, 
 worse than all, if I open my door to my Saviour himself 
 in the person of his declared representative, a fugitive 
 slave, my wife and children are liable to be turned into 
 the streets, and thenceforth to have " not where to Lay their 
 
24 
 
 heads." If this be freedom, if this be a legitimate result 
 of our " glorious Constitution," I can form no conception 
 what is meant by tyranny or usurpation. 
 
 The imposition I am endeavoring to expose would be 
 sufficiently odious, if it fell on very few; but in the 
 course of ages, should this law be executed and con- 
 tinued, it may be the doom not only of a large minority, 
 but of a large majority of the citizens of this vaunted 
 free country. Of this, indeed, we cannot entertain a 
 doubt, unless it be grounded on the supposed insincerity 
 of those, who profess to believe that slavery is a violation 
 of natural right. From the known circumstances of the 
 times and of the occasion, it may perhaps be doubted 
 whether a majority of the free inhabitants of our country 
 ever did give, either directly or indirectly, an intelligent 
 consent to the principle of the Slave law. In the first 
 place, if I rightly recollect, the Constitution was adopted 
 by small majorities in the Conventions of several States ; 
 and it is hardly to be presumed from our experience in 
 such things that all the Delegates truly represented the 
 anti-slavery convictions of their constituents. Secondly, 
 to say nothing of ivomen,, who were to be no less subject 
 than men to the prohibitions and penalties of law, there 
 were many free men, and among them some who had 
 spent their patrimonies and incurred debts for a collegiate 
 and a professional education, who were excluded, for 
 want of the pecuniary qualifications required in those 
 days, in order to make them voters, from all part or lot 
 in the primary assemblies, by which those Delegates were 
 chosen ; and, thirdly, there were in those times very few 
 public jottrtials or newspapers, scarcely a half dozen in 
 Massachusetts, and those few had little circulation. From 
 my own remembrance, I think it doubtful whether one 
 family in five of our most respectable yeomanry cither 
 took, or frequently saw any paper whatever. Hence 
 
25 
 
 there is reason to suppose that there were multitudes of 
 primary voters, who had never cast their eyes upon the 
 Constitution, though they might perhaps have once heard 
 it read ; and considering that the word slave is carefully 
 excluded, and the principle is somewhat obscured by 
 an ambiguous phraseology, it would not be wonderful, 
 if among the many particulars, which would engage 
 attention, common minds should have overlooked the 
 obnoxious principle, from which, if it had been seen, their 
 minds and hearts would have instantly revolted. If, then, 
 as Ave have reason to believe, a large minority, if not a 
 majority of our citizens were always opposed to the prin- 
 ciple of the Slave law, is it not a hard case that they and 
 their posterity should be subjected to the alternative of 
 either disobeying the law of God, which they believe to 
 be clearly and indelibly written on their hearts, or of 
 being thrown into prison among criminals and felons, and 
 as the case may be, deprived of all their means of sup- 
 porting themselves and their families] Beside, it is a 
 momentous consideration that, from various influences, 
 the tide of sentiment and feelmg throughout the civilized 
 tvorld is rolling on, and that with irresistible power 
 toward the consummation of justice and humanity. In 
 this beneficent tendency, Christianity takes the lead, and 
 as God is true, is destined to triumph over that selfish- 
 ness in the human heart, which, as we have reason to 
 believe, is the chief corner-stone, though not the only 
 foundation of all slavery, whether political, or personal. 
 It was one of the express designs for which Christ came 
 into the world, " to proclaim liberty to the captives, and 
 the opening of the prison to them that are bound." 
 Is. Ixi, 1. He solemnly declared, "I came not to destroy 
 the law or the prophets, but to fulfil." Matt, v, 17. 
 Yes ; he came to establish and carry into eff'ect the moral 
 principle, inculcated Is. Iviii, 6 : "Is not this the fest 
 
26 
 
 that I have chosen ] to loose the bands of wickedness, to 
 undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, 
 and that ye break every yoke ] " He came to establish, 
 among other principles of the Mosaic code, that humane 
 law, recorded Deut. xxiii, 15, 16: "Thou shalt not 
 deliver unto his master the servant, which is escaped from 
 his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even 
 among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of 
 thy gates, where it liketh him best. Thou shalt not 
 oppress him." Is it possible that the professed disciples 
 of Him, who sacrificed everything for the cause of 
 humanity, should continue for years and ages to come so 
 far as they now are below the standard, which Avas given 
 to a semi-barbarous people more than three thousand 
 years ago ? And if the benignant spirit of Christianity, 
 and the favorable influences of the nineteenth century 
 should create a decided majority against the principle of 
 the Slave law, what is to be done 1 Is the minority to 
 rule the majority with a rod of iron, which has scarcely a 
 parallel under the most despotic governments of the 
 present century 1 It may be said that in such a case, the 
 Constitution might be amended. Perhaps so ; but it is 
 to be remembered that the Constitution cannot be altered 
 without the concurrence of three fourths of the States ; 
 three fourths of the States, which may be seven eighths of 
 the free population; and is the one fourth or the one 
 eighth to hold in moral bondage the three fourths or 
 seven eighths of what are too ironically called the free 
 citizens of the Union'? No, it may be said ; the majority 
 may repeal the law, and leave that part of the Constitu- 
 tion a dead letter. True, they might and probably would 
 do this ; but what would then become of the principle, 
 which is now so confidently asserted, that this part of 
 the compact must be executed to the letter, though it 
 
27 
 
 require all the armaments of the nation to carry it into 
 
 efFect '? 
 
 Thus, I think, I have clearly shoAvn that the principle 
 of the Slave law is utterly irreconcilable with that 
 declared purpose of the Constitution, " to secure the 
 blessings of freedom to ourselves and our posterity ; " 
 and should the principle be permanently established, it 
 would render the Constitution not only a failure, but in- 
 comparably worse than a mere failure. 
 
 If in the foregoing discussions it has been clearly 
 shown, as I thmk it has been, that the principle of the 
 Fugitive Slave law is at war Avith two of the cardinal 
 objects of the Constitution, the establishment of justice, 
 and the security of freedom to the citizens of the Union, 
 I need not multiply words to prove that the principle is 
 adverse to all the other purposes for which it was estab- 
 lished. " To form a more perfect union ! " What perfect 
 union can there be between the love and the hatred of 
 involuntary slavery 1 between two parties, one of which 
 would compel the other to give its aid in perpetuating 
 such an institution 1 A lamb may indeed be chained to 
 a tiger, but it would not be a very perfect union. A 
 perfect union, it is self-evident, must be founded in 
 mutual confidence, affection, justice and generosity. 
 
 " To insure domestic tranquilUty ! " In such a state of 
 things as must inevitably result from enforcing the law in 
 question, while it conflicts with the moral sentiments and 
 feelings of a large minority, not to say a majority of the 
 people, what tranquillity can there be % Those who thuik 
 themselves cruelly oppressed will remonstrate, and that 
 with a zeal and perseverance proportioned to their real or 
 imaginary wrongs. To prevent the agitation of those 
 subjects, which are the occasion of their grievances, is 
 utterly impossible. As well might Xerxes think to 
 
scourge the waves of the Hellespont into a calm submis- 
 sion to his will. 
 
 " To provide for the common defence !" What defence 
 can there be, when the country is divided into two great 
 parties in a state of alienation from each other 1 They 
 may indeed agree to build navies, raise armies, and pro- 
 vide arsenals and munitions of war. But these very 
 things may be used by the maddened parties for the pur- 
 pose of mutual destruction, or by the stronger party for 
 the annihilation of the weaker. Beside, I would ask. 
 What defence can there be against the Almighty, whose 
 eternal and self-evident law is violated in the institution 
 of slavery 1 If not one of the Divine attributes can 
 take the side of involuntary slavery, how much reason 
 have we, in the words of Jefferson, to " tremble for our 
 country ! " 
 
 " To promote the general welfare ! " Yes, however 
 unjust or oppressive to those who are weaker than our- 
 selves, we may indeed accumulate wealth beyond all 
 definable limits. We may extend the boundaries of our 
 empire, by the slaughter of innocent women and children, 
 and we may cultivate the arts of war, till this malign 
 glory shall eclipse everything else of the kind, whether 
 ancient or modern ; but are any of these things, or all of 
 them together, true welfare'? Better, a thousand times 
 better, are national justice and generosity, a moderate 
 degree of wealth, a small extent of country, and no war- 
 like fame at all. 
 
 If, then, the principle against which I have been con- 
 tending is in itself, or in its inevitable consequences, 
 irreconcilably opposed to all the declared objects for 
 which the Constitution was established, nothing more is 
 necessary to show that it is at least prudent to abandon 
 it, lest it sap the foundations of the fabric. 
 
 In what I have written, it has been no part of my 
 
29 
 
 design to add more oxygen, or more hydrogen, or more 
 carbon to those flaming passions, which for years have 
 often burned too intensely for the moral or the political 
 safety of our country; but to bring into a clear view 
 some great principles and facts, which, as appears to me, 
 have been overlooked or misapprehended by many of our 
 leading men. In retrospect of the argument, I would, in 
 that sjDirit of courtesy, candor, and moderation, which 
 never weakens a good argument, put a few simple ques- 
 tions to every true-hearted man at the South, not doubting 
 that many such there are, and hoping for candid and 
 considerate replies. 
 
 Was it quite right for the conservative slaveholders in 
 '88 to demand such concessions from those who had been 
 among the foremost in their generous sacrifices for inde- 
 pendence, as the indispensable conditions of forming that 
 union which was to save the country, and was no less 
 important to the South, than it was to the North ? and is 
 it magnanimous for the descendants of those slaveholders 
 at the present day to insist on a rigorous fulfilment of 
 that concession, which involves the sacrifice of a high 
 moral principle, and which was extorted from the high, 
 but mistaken patriotism of those who regarded it as a 
 necessary means of saving their beloved country ? 
 
 Should the foregoing questions be answered in the 
 afl&rmative, there is another point connected with them, 
 on which I would urge several queries on the just and 
 generous spirits of the South. Ought you not to be very 
 careful yourselves to come up to the requirements of the 
 Constitution in relation to your fellow citizens at the 
 North, before you invoke all the energies of Government 
 to enforce your claims on them ? To aid you in your self- 
 examination, I would ask. Does not the Constitution 
 contain a provision like the following? — Citizens of one 
 State shall be entitled to all the privileges of Citizens in 
 
30 
 
 any other State. Are there not laws in South Carolma 
 and Louisiana, which not only withhold these privileges 
 from citizens of a certain color from the North, but when 
 they come as seamen, either voluntarily, or by stress of 
 weather into the harbors of those States, throw them into 
 prison, deprive them of their wages as long as the vessel 
 remains in port, charge them with all the expenses of the 
 legal process and of support in prison ; and then, if these 
 charges are not paid, and they removed from the State, 
 sell them into perpetual slavery 1 and have not public 
 agents, sent by the authority of a sovereign State, and 
 therefore invested by the laws of civilization with a 
 sacred inviolability while engaged in the discharge of 
 their mission, been threatened with Lynch law if they did 
 not immediately abandon the peaceable object, for which 
 they came, and leave the State, although their mission 
 had nothing else in view, than to make those inquiries, 
 which were necessary to bring the subject of the contro- 
 versy before the tribunal, which had been provided by 
 the Constitution for the settlement of all such disputes 1 
 Should it be said that only two States are responsible for 
 such laws, I would ask. Have not the Representatives 
 from most, if not all of the slave States taken the side of 
 South Carolina and Louisiana when the subject has been 
 brought before Congress, and thus made themselves ac- 
 countable for the infringement of the national compact 1 
 The plea of necessity and self-defence is urged for the 
 justification of these laws ; but might not this object 
 have been as well secured, without all these rigorous pro- 
 visions ] and would it not have been more just and 
 generous for those States, while evidently violating the 
 Constitution, to have paid some part, if not the whole 
 price of the security, which they sought and obtained 1 
 
 Again, I would request the candid citizens of the South 
 to consider whether they have fulfilled their part of that 
 
81 
 
 compromise, which affects in various ways and to an inde- 
 finable extent the interests of the North, contained in the 
 article which determines the apportionment of Representa- 
 tion. While, on the one side, the free States consider 
 that in this apportionment three fifths of the slaves shall 
 be counted as so many free inhabitants, it is stipulated on 
 the other side that property in slaves shall be subject to 
 taxation. Has there ever been a direct tax, in which 
 slaves were included, for the last fifty-two years'? and was 
 not the direct tax of '98 a subject of great clamor at the 
 South, and among the prmcipal causes which prevented 
 the re-election of the elder Adams, and proved the de- 
 struction of his party '? From that time to this, no party, 
 it seems, has dared and chosen to lay a direct tax, including 
 all kinds of property ; and what has become of the South- 
 ern side of this original compromise 1 Has not the con- 
 dition on one part been wholly unperformed for a half 
 century, while the other party has been held with all the 
 tenacity which would have been just, had the condition 
 been fulfilled 1 When the State of Massachusetts about 
 seven years ago applied to Congress for its aid in pro- 
 curing such an amendment of this article, as would 
 relieve the North from this one-sided bond, did she not 
 subject herself to a storm of abuse, from which her 
 Senators in Congress did not think it prudent to defend 
 hei'l It may indeed be said that the South pay their 
 share of those duties, which, for the purpose of revenue, 
 come into the place of direct taxes ; and so do the citizens 
 of the North pay in proportion to the articles consumed an 
 equal amount of those duties. How, then, does the pay- 
 ment of duties at the South fulfil the condition, on which 
 alone the North can by any principle of law or equity 
 be any longer held responsible for their part of this 
 compromised Further, I would ask. Is it not a great 
 mistake to suppose that either this compromise, or that 
 
32 
 
 which relates to the restoration of fugitive slaves was 
 intended for perpetuity 1 By the provision of the Consti- 
 tution itself, is it not manifest that these articles are as 
 liable to amendment, as any other, whenever three fourths 
 of the States shall concur in the change 1 The slave- 
 holders in the South have not been content with holding 
 the free States to the one-sided compact we are consider- 
 ing ; but, to confirm and perpetuate in their own hands 
 the dominant power, which by means of an unequal 
 representation, and the consequent possession of executive 
 patronage they have almost invariably held, they have 
 for more than thirty years been adding by purchase, con- 
 quest, or other means, territory after territory almost with- 
 out bounds, and introducing, or providing for the intro- 
 duction of whole families of slave States, and carrying 
 this false balance of power thousands of miles beyond the 
 original limits of the copartnership. Is it wonderful that 
 the advocates of freedom should wish, by applying the 
 principle of the proviso, to secure to their posterity some 
 chance of rising to an equality in power and influence 1 
 
 There is still another point, on which I must be allowed 
 to suggest a few queries to those who have candor enough 
 to consider and reply to them. Have the South dealt 
 fairly with the North, in resorting, as they seem to have 
 done, to dift"erent modes of interpreting and applying the 
 Constitution, according as the measures proposed favored 
 or contravened their sectional interest 1 Was not Texas, 
 though a foreign State, invited and admitted into the 
 Union by acts of Congress, without any express warrant 
 from the Constitution, or any that was clearly implied ? 
 And have not the Southern States uniformly insisted that, 
 when any act was proposed which seemed to be unfavor- 
 able to their interest, the advocates of such a measure 
 should show that the power of passing it was expressly 
 given by the Constitution \ Nay, further, have they not 
 
33 
 
 been driven almost to madness, by every serious proposal 
 to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, though the 
 Constitution says in the most explicit terms, Congress shall 
 have exclusive jurisdiction there in all matters whatever'? 
 In the face of these most intelligible words, have not 
 Southern Eepresentatives again and again denied the 
 power of Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery 
 in the District, and declared that if they did abolish it, 
 they would secede from the Union "? 
 
 On the subject of opposition to the laws of Congress I 
 must be allowed to draw a comparison between the 
 fortunes of the North and those of the South. Is it 
 forgotten, that when the venerable J. Q. Adams, some 
 years ago, presented a petition for a peaceable dissolution 
 of the Union, while he declared himself opposed to the 
 petition, he was for that simple and official act arraigned 
 before the bar of the House, charged with a high misde- 
 meanor, and put on trial for it '? At the same time, and 
 from that time to this, members of Congress, in the very 
 chambers of their session, might threaten war upon their 
 country, without even the mildest rebuke from their 
 colleagues, or their partisans at the North. How consis- 
 tent, how impartial is all this ! 
 
 The Hartford Convention affords a contrast yet stronger. 
 For about six years, the commercial interests of the North 
 had been almost annihilated by a series of measures, which, 
 in the commercial States, were generally regarded as 
 unnecessary, and consequently unjust and oppressive to 
 them ; and, in the prosecution of the war, a conscription, 
 like that of Napoleon, was recommended by the Secretary 
 of War, which should force our young men from the 
 bosoms of their families into the field of slaughter, and 
 that for no sufficient object. In this state of things, the 
 Convention of delegates met in Hartford, to consult on 
 the best means of securing their most precious rights. 
 
34 
 
 They continued together several days, without a whisper 
 of violent resistance to the Government, and then separat- 
 ed, with a report most exemplary for its moderation, in 
 which they recommended to their constituents to use no 
 means whatever for the security of their rights, which 
 were not strictly within the limits of the Constitution: 
 and this Convention, thus beginning and thus ending, was 
 an unpardonable sin, for which those who were concerned 
 in it were doomed to political death and disgrace. Need I 
 remind the reader how it has been at the South from that 
 time to the present 1 how they have agitated, and even 
 declared war against the Union in State Legislatures, and 
 Conventions, and even among the members of Congress ^. 
 what was the fury of Georgia in regard to the Cherokees "? 
 and the hostility of South Carolina"? how the latter 
 State provided her arms and ammunition, and mustered 
 and trained her legions, for the express purpose of resist- 
 ing the execution of the laws ^. By the resolute course of 
 President Jackson, the insurgent State was indeed brought 
 to lay down her arms ; but that seemed to be a complete 
 atonement for her political sin, and presently we see the 
 majority of the other States, through their Representatives 
 in Congress, bowing before her, and, by conceding a great 
 part of her demands, virtually telling her that her offence 
 was a venial one ; and at the same time giving a virtual 
 promise that any other State at the South might, with the 
 same impunity, commit the like offence. Has not this 
 implied promise been punctually fulfilled during the 
 late session of Congress, in the purchase of peace from 
 Texas, at the sacrifice of ]3hilanthropic principle, the 
 promise of protection to one of our Territories, and ten 
 millions of money "? Little, comparatively, do I care for 
 the money; yet I should like to know how long it will be 
 before the peace, which we have thus been compelled to 
 buy, must be bought again, and that, perhaps, at a still 
 
35 
 
 greater price ; how soon and how often we must redeem 
 our glorious Constitution from destruction, by the sacrifice 
 of principles and feelings, which are dearer to us than our 
 heart's blood. 
 
 There is only one other point to which I would at 
 present call attention. In a debate of the last session of 
 Congress, on some question of compromise, I think, some 
 remark like this came from an Honorable Senator on the 
 other side of Dixon's line ; that in the compromise pro- 
 posed, the South would give up pecuniary interests, while 
 the North would sacrifice nothing but sentiment. If by 
 sentiment the gentleman did not mean some principle of 
 morality or true honor, I would ask whether it was not 
 charging the North with insincerity in the professions 
 they are constantly making ; and, if he did use the word 
 sentiment in that high and sacred sense, I would ask 
 whether honor and honesty are indeed of less value than 
 money. "We solemnly protest that we are compelled, not 
 only by conscience, but by a dread of moral disgrace, to 
 withhold our hands from everything which tends to the 
 perpetuity of slavery. Boasting, as we do, of our free 
 institutions, and setting ourselves up, as we do, as an 
 example for all the rest of the world to follow, we blush 
 to meet the gaze of the world, while Ave allow ourselves to 
 be made passive instruments in riveting anew the chains 
 of those, who have had the manly resolution to break and 
 escape from them ; and we are deeply mortified, while in 
 imagination we see our posterity, in more enlightened, 
 more just, and more generous ages, reading, as they 
 certainly will read, the history of the present time, and 
 weeping over its mental and moral infirmities. High- 
 minded men of the South and the North, is there any 
 thing in this sentiment, which is hard to be understood 1 
 Is there nothing in your own souls, which beats in 
 harmony with it? "I pause for a reply." 
 
36 
 
 What is to be the end of these thmgs, or how the ex- 
 isting evils are to be removed, is known to that Being 
 alone, with whom there is no distinction between the 
 present and the future. One thing, however, is certain. 
 Government is too strong to be forcibly resisted, even if 
 Christian principle would allow such resistance ; and if 
 the Fugitive Slave law should be continued, and be stren- 
 uously enforced, another thing is equally certain; viz.: 
 That those who believe in the unchangeable supremacy of 
 the Divine law, and the consequent injustice of every aid 
 that is given to slavery, must be prepared to endure per- 
 secution. I do not believe that Christianity, in its true 
 spirit and generous designs, is wholly extinct in our land ; 
 nor can I resign the cheering hope, that this sacred leaven, 
 though in a great measure hidden, will diffuse its in- 
 fluence, and leaven the mass more and more, in proportion 
 as it is warmed by the excitements which always attend 
 persecution. It was persecution that spread and estab- 
 lished Christianity in the primitive ages, and this mighty 
 agent may be required to give life to those religious 
 professions, which often seem to be nothing more than 
 professions and empty forms ; to call forth the regenerat- 
 ing power of the Gospel, and abolish everything in our 
 Constitution and Laws which is opposed to its philan- 
 thropic spirit. Let the law in question be rigorously en- 
 forced, and the sufferers have everything to hope for, 
 and persecutors everything to fear. Suffering innocence, 
 bleeding under oppression and cruelty, acts on the heart 
 of man, so long as he has any heart, with a power sur- 
 passing everything else upon earth ; and where the heart 
 is gained, the understanding is apt to follow, and all the 
 noblest energies of the soul. Let, then, the advocates of 
 that law exert all their power and influence to crush 
 opposition to it. They will only hasten the downfall of 
 their political system. They will sooner or later produce 
 
37 
 
 a moral earthquake, which will cause our whole country, 
 from ocean to ocean, to rock like a cradle, or rather, like a 
 ship on a tempestuous sea. Such moral earthquakes, and 
 their kindred storms, are, I think, means appointed by the 
 Almighty and Allwise for demolishing the strongholds of 
 inveterate abuses ; and the result of the present conflict, 
 unequal as it may appear — the catastrophe of this na- 
 tional drama, on which more than one world, one age, and 
 one order of beings is now looking, may give a new 
 demonstration of the facts, which are asserted by the 
 apostle Paul : — " God hath chosen the foolish things of 
 the world to confound the wise ; and God hath chosen the 
 weak things of the world to confound the things which 
 are mighty ; and base things of the world, and things 
 which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things 
 which are not, to bring to naught things that are." 
 
 Deerjield, Nov. 28th, 1850. 
 
z^^ 
 
■r^ "»- 
 
 LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 026 167 8