TL 
 
 A_. &-t\. ft 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 )'b~ Xr'^ ffa- 7^T2/T^ Ms'M- 
 
 
 
 Csl^ 
 
 TUjtJL 
 
 b'\-Q 
 
 *? srs 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 /r 3, 
 
 ..' - 7 — 
 
 
wi* 
 
 b 0& C. W 3 
 
 0 K 0| 
 
THE RELATION OF SLAVERY TO A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT 
 
 A 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED AT THE 
 
 flefo (£ii<jlani> ^Hti-Jilakrj (fantkniroit, 
 
 WEDNESDAY MORNING, MAY 26, 1858- 
 
 BY THEODORE PARKER. 
 
 REVISED BY THE AUTHOR. 
 
 \ 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 WILLIAM L. KENT & COMPANY, 3 STATE STREET. 
 
 1-8 5 8 . 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858, by 
 \VM. L. KENT AND COMPANY, 
 
 In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 
 
 Geo. C. Rand & Avery, Printers, 3 Cornhill, Boston. 
 

 7 *) / 
 
 fzi^r 
 
 64 aj 
 
 S P EE C II. 
 
 /., 
 
 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 On the matter of Slavery there is great confu¬ 
 sion of thought, just now, in the American 
 State and the American Church. Monarchic 
 and Oligarchic Europe is at war with this insti¬ 
 tution. The British Teuton has driven it out 
 from his soil; his kindred, the Dutch, the 
 Scandinavians, the Germans and Austrians, 
 have done the same. The French Celts allow 
 no property in man, and Napoleon’s attempt 
 to restore the doctrine and practice of the Dark 
 Ages, is sure to fail. Even the Russian des¬ 
 potism attacks the principle of bondage. Alex¬ 
 ander will liberate 30,000,000 Caucasian slaves, 
 and in less than twelve years the last footprint 
 of the serf will be covered up by the new hu¬ 
 mane agriculture of Russia. Turkey cannot 
 long hold out against the steady progress of 
 mankind. 
 
 But, in America, the Democratic party 
 thinks slavery is “ indispensable to good gov¬ 
 ernment,” and is “the normal condition of one 
 seventh part of the people.” The Republican 
 party has naught to say against property in 
 man, but allows a minority to own a majority 
 in South Carolina. The American Church is 
 the stanchest supporter of American slavery. 
 To the American Politician, slavery is a “ Re¬ 
 publican Institution;” to the American Priest, 
 it is doubly religious —both a “ Jewish ” and a 
 “Christian ” Dispensation. The Revival of the 
 Ecclesiastical Religion and of the African 
 slave trade go on at the same time; they take 
 sweet counsel together, and walk to the house 
 of their God in company. Years ago, the 
 greatest professional Rhetorician of America, 
 “ the Monarch of the Platform,” “ Orator, Pa¬ 
 triot, Sage, Cicero of America, Laudator of 
 Washington, Apostle of Charity, High Priest 
 of the Union, and Friend of Mankind,” whom 
 “ totally mendacious Greece,” if she might 
 equal, yet could ne’er surpass in that sophistic 
 art, justified slavery out of the New Testa¬ 
 ment, and declared his readiness to buckle on 
 his knapsack, shoulder his musket, and march 
 
 South, to defend the masters who make mer 
 chandise of men, against their insurgent chat-, 
 tels. I know not whether Mr. Everett said that 
 under the influence of “ an anodyne ” or a stim¬ 
 ulant ; but neither the public and immediate 
 reply of Southern Congressmen, nor the pri¬ 
 vate rebuke of more distant Jefferson—then so 
 near the grave — has yet led this “Patriot, 
 Statesman, Philanthropist,” to renounce that 
 statement in his maiden speech ! Noble 
 Charles Sumner, who “ was wounded for our 
 transgressions,” in a foreign land seeks the 
 quiet and health he cannot find in this. He 
 bears with him the thanks and the prayers of 
 religious men ; but his sails are filled with the 
 curses of the Northern Democrats, the South¬ 
 ern hiss and sneer, the contemptuous laugh of 
 Richard Yeadon, and the remarkable language 
 of Mr. Everett, their rhetorical coadjutor. 
 “ Remarkable language ” ! Is there not a 
 shorter name for it, also wholly Saxon ? 
 
 This ecclesiastical and political confusion is 
 amazing. Can you and I do something to end 
 it 1 Let us try. So I will ask your attention 
 to some Thoughts on the Relation of 
 Slavery to a Republican Form of Gov¬ 
 ernment. 
 
 Man is gregarious by instinct ; like sheep 
 and deer, he cannot live save in flocks and 
 herds. Solitary, he perishes. He is social by 
 reflective will — consciously making terms of 
 alliance with his fellows, and shaping the form 
 of his community to suit his needs, which vary 
 from age to age. So in all lands men group 
 together, the wildest and also the most enlight¬ 
 ened ; for this gregarious nature of man 
 appears in all stages of his development—low¬ 
 est and highest. But, while the gregarious 
 savage makes only a herd of men who are 
 driven together by necessity, or drawn by their 
 unreflective instinct, and are domineered over 
 by the strongest, who, though he protects the 
 feeble, also robs them of their natural rights as 
 
4 
 
 pay for his help ; the reflective civilized man 
 shapes his society so as to secure the Natural 
 Rights of each ; the ablest man rules, but it is 
 for the joint good of him and all; and he does 
 not take his pay by robbing them of their rights, 
 bat rather do they voluntarily give him the 
 sweeter compensation of Honor and Gratitude. 
 Thus are both parties materially and spiritually 
 profited by the alliance. 
 
 There are two great things to be considered 
 in human History. 
 
 1. The Individuality of each man. He is 
 an integer, a Unit of Humanity, impenetrable ; 
 his humanity must be respected. 
 
 2. The Sociality of all men: they must 
 cohere into one symmetric whole. There is a 
 mutuality of social need: the strong man 
 requires the Aveak men as the weak needs the 
 strong. As the doctor wants patients, the 
 speaker hearers, the herdsman cattle, the far¬ 
 mer land ; so and not less does the great man 
 need the little. If they require him as means 
 for their protection and guidance, so docs he 
 need them as means for his development. Nei¬ 
 ther greatness nor littleness can be alone. 
 
 Now, the Individual reaches his proper 
 groAvth only in society—with the communion 
 of his fellows. A great character cannot be 
 built up alone ; no more than a great temple. 
 A hermit constructs no pyramid ; he achieves 
 no great, noble manhood. The man running 
 alone goes nowhere, and is yet soon lost. The 
 more perfect and complete the form of society, 
 the more complete and perfect are the individ¬ 
 ual men whom it brings up. Society is to be 
 tested by the men it breeds; that is the best 
 which produces the best and most superior 
 individuals. 
 
 The Substance of Society depends on the 
 automatic gregarious instinct which groups 
 men into flocks and herds; this is always the 
 same. But the Form of Society depends 
 upon the will and intelligence of the control¬ 
 ling men. In the human body there are Vol¬ 
 untary Actions — eating, speaking, drinking, 
 and the like; but also Involuntary Actions, 
 which go on independent of the individual will 
 — such as breathing, the circulation of the 
 blood, and the like. So in the great compa¬ 
 nies of men, there are automatic actions of 
 the community, tribe, nation, or mankind, 
 which are not purposed by individuals, nor 
 even forethought in the consciousness of any 
 special person ; these are to the Body Social 
 what breathing and similar things are to the 
 
 Body Individual; they belong to social In¬ 
 stinct, not social Will. 
 
 It is the business of statesmen to regulate 
 Jhe action of both the voluntary and the auto¬ 
 matic forces of the collective mass, and make 
 such.a Form of Society as shall produce noble 
 men, in the greatest number and of the best 
 kind. 
 
 For the development of Society there must 
 be Government; that is, the social body must 
 observe certain Rules of Conduct, called Laws, 
 whereto all persons are held subject. These 
 may be Customs which men hit upon, and be¬ 
 come wonted to — and they are the conse¬ 
 quences of an experiment, the product of his¬ 
 tory, the record of the past: or they may be 
 the Ideal Aims of the people or the rulers, 
 which anticipate experience, and are intended 
 to shape and control the future — not repre¬ 
 senting experiments tried, but experiments in 
 process. One is Common Law, made, not 
 enacted — a path worn by the people's feet; it 
 is a public highway because men walk there. 
 The other is Statute Law, enacted by con¬ 
 scious will, not made by actual practice, — a 
 road laid out intentionally by the surveyors; 
 the people walk there because it is a public 
 highway. 
 
 These twofold laws may be just — conform¬ 
 able to the Constitution of the Universe, the 
 natural Rule of Right, and the reflection thereof 
 in the moral sense of mankind : or unjust—con¬ 
 trary to that Higher Law of God and the con¬ 
 science of man. 
 
 Human experience shows that all govern¬ 
 mental power of one man over others is abused 
 for the advantage of the holder thereof, and the 
 hurt of those he holds it over, unless thev have 
 abundant means to keep him in check, and 
 prevent his tyranny. Irresponsible governors 
 make bad Iuavs. The private conscience of the 
 ruler is seldom so good a check on his selfish¬ 
 ness as the rod and the axe in the hands of the 
 governed. 
 
 All society must have its government, that 
 is, Rules of Conduct, and Conductors to see 
 that they are kept — Abstract Rules, Concrete 
 Rulers. The substance of government con¬ 
 sists in these two, and is always the same : but 
 the forms thereof vary much from land to 
 land, and age to age; yet may they be thus 
 grossly summed in three: 
 
 I. Monarchy — The One-Man PoAver; gov¬ 
 ernment over all, but by one, and often in 
 
5 
 
 practice it turns out to be chiefly for the sake 
 of that one. 
 
 II. Oligarchy—The Fcw-Men Power; gov¬ 
 ernment over all, but by a few, and often in 
 practice it turns out to be chiefly for the sake 
 of that few. 
 
 III. Democracy — The All-Men Power; 
 government over all, by all, and for the sake 
 of all. Yet, practically, it must be government 
 by the Majority, and in fact, it often turns out 
 to be chiefly for the advantage of that major¬ 
 ity. As a general rule, no majority, no small 
 body of men, no individual man, is ever trust¬ 
 ed with unlimited power over others, but he 
 abuses it — for his gain, to their loss. Such is 
 the friction in all social machinery. 
 
 None of these three types anywhere appears 
 simple; all governments are mixed. The most 
 despotic monarchy is partly oligarchic, for 
 King One cannot dispense with the help of the 
 superior men, and if some of these be wiser 
 and skilfuller than he, ere long it is they who 
 govern, while he only reigns. And these able 
 men, the Pew, cannot prevent the automatic 
 action of the social power in the great mass of 
 men, who will instinctively, nay, who must of 
 necessity, walk in new paths of their own, 
 spite of the many statute roads that perplex the 
 land, and the command to walk in them. Thus 
 do the Democratic elements sping up, wild 
 flowers of humanity, where Oligarchs and 
 Kings scattered only the privileged seed, col¬ 
 lected by authority out of the court-house, and 
 appointed to be sown in gardens. 
 
 So, on the other side, the most Democratic 
 form of government will contain oligarchic and 
 monarchic elements. The Democracy cannot 
 enfeeble the powerful man, strong by nature, 
 no position can make him weak ; he will rule 
 men just in proportion to his power, and if 
 wicked also, will rule them for his apparent 
 gain and to their real loss. So companies of 
 rich men, powerful by money, or of educated 
 men, powerful by knowledge, will do much to 
 ontrol the majority who have only their naked 
 lumbers to rely on,—must be counted, and 
 not also weighed. If they likewise are wicked 
 men, or but commonly selfish, they will sway 
 the people with an oligarchic misrule. Thus, 
 even in the national field “ an enemy/’—so men 
 call -what they do not comprehend,—is contin¬ 
 ually sowing these tares among the 'wheat, 
 which, though they suck the ground and check 
 the grain, must yet not be pulled up, lest worse 
 ill fall out thereby. 
 
 Let not names deceive us: all monarchies 
 
 have spots which are like democracies; and 
 popular governments have institutions, at 
 least practices, which are oligarchic, and even 
 despotical. There are many points of resem¬ 
 blance between the Turkish Despotism, the 
 most rearward government in Europe, and 
 our own Democracy, which we think the fore¬ 
 most in the world. Still, not misled by names, 
 define the governments by their centre, where 
 they are most distinct and faithful to their 
 idea, not by their circumference, where they 
 meet and blend, and you find these three — the 
 One-Man Power, the Pew-Men Power, the All- 
 Men Power,—government for the sake of one, of 
 a few, or of all. At present, no one of these has 
 combined the separate excellences of all the rest. 
 
 Now, man is a Progressive Being. This is 
 true of the Individual, who reaches his earthen 
 limit of attainment in a short life, and dies ; it 
 is also true of mankind, which never dies, nor 
 reaches that limit of attainment. You and I 
 start as babies, and grow up to manhood ;— 
 Mankind starts from naked, ignorant wildness 
 — the babyhood of the human race — and 
 grows up till the hindmost nations are what we 
 hear of in New Holland and Patagonia, while 
 the foremost are -what we see in Boston, Lon¬ 
 don, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Rome. The whole 
 of human History is evidence of this Progress. 
 But even now, it depends chiefly on the auto¬ 
 matic actions of mankind ; once it was control¬ 
 led entirely by them. It was an instinct, not a 
 will, a thought, or even a conscious wish. Man 
 was progressive, as the beaver was constructive, 
 and the squirrel acquisitive. As you and I 
 grow up from babyhood, and, though we take 
 no thought, yet add whole cubits to our stature, 
 so has Mankind made progress from wildness 
 to the enlightened condition of the foremost 
 people to-day. 
 
 This Progress of Mankind may be thus 
 summed up. It consists of three things : 
 
 I. The development of Personal powers in 
 the Individual man—the ultimate atom of 
 society. 
 
 II. The development of Social powers in 
 the gregarious mass. This is done by combin- 
 ing men into companies:—first, there is the 
 binary union of Him and Her, and at length 
 the multitudinous compounding of four hun¬ 
 dred millions, despotically welded into a Chin 
 ese empire, — which is a stiff, unwieldly bar of 
 iron ; or of thirty-two sovereign States, feder- 
 atively connected into one American Com- 
 
 ✓ 
 
6 
 
 monwealth — which is a chain of many links, 
 alike flexible and strong. To develop these 
 powers of Society, there must be National 
 Unity of Action — the whole mass working as 
 a well-harnessed team of men ; and also Indi¬ 
 vidual Variety of Action—each man enjoying 
 his own personal freedom of nature. 
 
 III. The acquisition of Power over the 
 material world, which comes as a consequence 
 of this personal and social development. This 
 Power appears in two forms. 
 
 (1.) That of Science; which is ability to 
 know the forces of Nature in their present 
 and past condition, and to foretell their future 
 condition. 
 
 (2.) That of Art; which is ability to control 
 the forces of Nature, and make them produc¬ 
 tive of Use and Beauty for our own purposes. 
 
 This Progress is generic of Mankind — not 
 an exceptional, but an instantial fact. The 
 Human Race, taken as a whole, never goes 
 back, never stands still. But yet, this advance 
 of Mankind has hitherto depended mainly on 
 the automatic forces of Human Nature ; it has 
 been and still is directed less by the foresight 
 of man than the Providence of God acting 
 through the great instincts of individual im¬ 
 provement and social progress. Mankind 
 could not prevent it; no more than all the 
 babies in Boston could prevent themselves 
 from growing up to manhood. But while this 
 progress is continual in Mankind, dependent 
 on organic causes which are out of our reach, 
 there are yet fluctuations in individual men, 
 and in particular nations, that stand still, or 
 even go back. All round us there are good 
 men who come to their growth, and stop there, 
 then decline, next die; it is the course of 
 nature. But there are likewise evil men, who 
 by their vice debar themselves from natural 
 and healthy growth, and perish immaturely 
 old, and die not half grown. The same is true 
 of States. I do not know that any nation has 
 died a natural death of old age. Many adopt 
 evil forms of government, with such ecclesias¬ 
 tical, political, social and domestic institutions 
 as prevent them'from advancing, force them to 
 stand still, and so to perish. Here I notice 
 two things. 
 
 I. In all progressive nations there is a con¬ 
 tinual bettering both of the Form and the Sub¬ 
 stance of Government. 
 
 1. In its Form. The Monarchy tends to 
 Oligarchy, the Oligarchy to Democracy. 
 There is a popularization of Government, a 
 
 progressive diffusion of power. Centralization 
 yields to local Self-Government. This im¬ 
 provement may go on by that regular slope 
 we call Development, — where the continuity 
 of historic action never seems to be broke; or 
 by those irregular stairs we name Revolution, 
 which seems to interrupt the historic continuity 
 of action, though it does not. 
 
 2. In its Substance. There is a moraliza- 
 tion of Government; statutes and customs 
 conform more’to the Constitution of the Uni¬ 
 verse ; the roads laid out and the paths w r alked 
 in, come nearer to an arc of that great circle 
 which is the shortest distance between two 
 points on the human sphere ; the natural Rule 
 of Right becomes the Rule of Conduct, and 
 secures Justice, which is the interest of each 
 and of all, the point common to me and man¬ 
 kind, to men and God. 
 
 This change is noticeable in all progressive 
 nations, just as clearly as the swelling of buds, 
 the opening of flowers, and the shooting forth 
 of leaves, are distinctive of spring. 
 
 II. In a regressive or a stationary people, 
 the opposite takes place ; there is a continuous 
 worsening of institutions. 
 
 1. There is a change in the Form of Gov¬ 
 ernment, — Democracy tends to Oligarchy, 
 that to Monarchy ; local self-government yields 
 to centralization; political power is monopo¬ 
 lized ; Government by All shrinks to Govern¬ 
 ment by a Few, that to Government by One. 
 
 2. The change in the Substance is of the 
 same sort. Statutes and customs conform less 
 to natural Justice; the Rule of Violence be¬ 
 comes the Rule of Conduct 
 
 This change is noticeable in all decaying 
 nations. It is like the fall of the leaf and the 
 tightening of the bark when winter sets severe- 
 
 O O 
 
 ly in. 
 
 At this day, the Caucasians are the most 
 progressive people on earth. Their most ad¬ 
 vanced and advancing nations are the Celtic- 
 French, who have made vast strides within a 
 hundred years, and though now checked in the 
 march, they will not stop long; and the vari¬ 
 ous Teutonic people. Among the latter, the 
 English and Americans are types of progress, 
 representative nations. Not only have they 
 the Instinct of Progress, and advance by their 
 automatic action; but also the Idea, and im¬ 
 prove by their conscious Will. They look 
 forward to the end, and devise means to help 
 them thitherward. No where has there been 
 [ such advance in two hundred and fifty years. 
 
7 
 
 Think of North America at the settlement of 
 Jamestown, in Virginia, in 1608; and of the 
 United States at the settlement of Sumner, in 
 Kansas, in 1858 ! What growth of numbers, of 
 wealth; what improvement of Institutions — 
 ecclesiastical, political, social, domestic ! What 
 instinct of progress there is in the American 
 People ! What speculative desire for it, what 
 resolute will, what practical action ! 
 
 We have the foremost form of Political In¬ 
 stitutions, with local self-government as the 
 Ideal ; we take that for the equivalent of 
 Freedom, while centralized government by- 
 others Ave look on as the same with Slavery. 
 
 This progress appears in many things — in 
 Agriculture, Mining, Manufactures, Com¬ 
 merce— the four grand divisions of the Busi¬ 
 ness world. You find it in all departments of 
 thought: even theology is amenable to im¬ 
 provement ; Unitarians, Universalists, Spirit¬ 
 ualists, carry on the historic continuity of 
 development, which reaches from the flight of 
 Moses out of Egypt, down to the meeting of 
 this Anti-Slavery Convention. 
 
 Since this century began, there has been a 
 great progress in the Political Institutions of 
 all the Northern States. Constitutions be¬ 
 come more democratic; customs and statutes 
 are more just; condensed, vicarious power is 
 broken up and diffused abroad to many centres 
 of local self-government. This progressive 
 bettering of the Form and Substance of such 
 institutions goes on with accelerated velocity. 
 
 But at the South, you do not meet with a 
 similar improvement; nay, you often find the 
 opposite. For Slavery has there a permanent 
 welcome. That shoot from the Upas tree of 
 foreign barbarism has been imported and nat¬ 
 uralized there; with its pernicious shade it 
 hinders the growth of the fair plant of Liberty, 
 once set even in that soil. What was once a 
 transient exception in the history of the North, 
 is become a typical institution there; it is a 
 guide-board instance, pointing to the central 
 peculiarity of the South. Under her control, 
 the Federal Government also retrogrades in 
 the same way, through the influence of the same 
 exceptional cause. From the latter, I select 
 three examples. 
 
 1. In 1793, the Federal Government took 
 slavery under its special protection, passed the 
 first Fugitive Slave Law, according to Proper¬ 
 ty in Men a guaranty it never gave to Prop¬ 
 erty in Land or Things. Here it violated 
 both the natural and the constitutional rights 
 of the individual States, and adopted a vicious 
 
 centralization of the most dangerous charac¬ 
 ter. In 1836, the Supreme Court, — which is 
 also the purchased creature of the Slave Pow¬ 
 er, — in the Prigg case, decided that the indi¬ 
 vidual States had neither duties nor rights in 
 this matter; but the United States might kid¬ 
 nap a runaway on any free soil of the individ¬ 
 ual States. In 1850, by the new Fugitive 
 Slave Bill, the means of kidnapping were 
 provided at the expense of the General Gov¬ 
 ernment, and man-stealing was made easy. 
 In 1857, in the Drcd Scott case, the Supreme 
 Court decided that a colored man had no 
 rights which the people were bound to respect, 
 for he was not a citizen of the United States, 
 — of course, he could not receive a passport 
 enabling him to travel on the European conti¬ 
 nent, nor command a merchant vessel, nor 
 claim a citizen’s bounty in the fishery, nor pre¬ 
 empt a quarter section of the public land, nor 
 exercise any of the other rights of citizenship ; 
 yet is he made amenable to all the laws whereof 
 he is thus habitually put to the ban. Two Judges 
 dissented from this iniquitous decision as false 
 in history as unjust in law, — Mr. McLean of 
 Ohio, Mr. Curtis of Massachusetts : — it gives 
 me great pleasure to mention and extol his 
 manly conduct then ! This is the first ex¬ 
 ample—what a striding backward in five and 
 sixty years! 
 
 2. The Federal Government has taken 
 special pains to acquire new territory, and 
 put this exceptional institution in it. Look at 
 Louisiana, and the other States made out of 
 the territory acquired from France; look at 
 Florida, at Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Arizo- 
 nia! What pains does the Government take 
 to spread Slavery! That is the second ex¬ 
 ample. 
 
 3. It assumes that Slavery is not only con¬ 
 sistent with the nature of a Republic, but is 
 favorable for its development. The Slave 
 Power controls the Government, and continu¬ 
 ally declares that “ free society is a failure ; n 
 that “ Slavery is indispensable to a Republic.” 
 If the present and the past Administration, — 
 I mean, the Presidential and Senatorial Exe¬ 
 cutive, with their manifold subordinates, — are 
 not personally of that opinion, they yet are 
 officially, for all their acts look that way. Wit¬ 
 ness the attempt to force slavery into Kansas, 
 whose whole brief life has been the history of 
 violent attempts to inoculate her with that dis¬ 
 ease which even in their youth makes Virginia 
 and the Carolinas decrepit — hindering their 
 increase in men, their acquisition of things, 
 
8 
 
 and degrading their intellectual and moral char¬ 
 acter. So important does the present Admin¬ 
 istration think Slavery for political welfare, 
 that it not only allows Kansas, with but 
 50,000 inhabitants, to come into the Union as 
 a Slave State now, but offers her enormous 
 bribes if she will thus defile her maiden honor; 
 while, if she insists on being a Free State, then 
 shall she have no dowry at all, and shall not 
 enter the national family until she has 93,000 
 inhabitants, in 1860, or 1864! 
 
 These are but three examples ; I could count 
 many more. All this wickedness comes from 
 the adoption of Slavery by the Federal Gov¬ 
 ernment. Had it done nothing at all about 
 the matter— taken sides with neither Freedom 
 nor Slavery — how different had the nation 
 now been! What if the Government had 
 sided with Freedom ! What a nation should 
 w r e have become ! What population, what in¬ 
 dustry — Agriculture, Mining, Manufactures, 
 Commerce — should we see in the Southern 
 States themselves! what intelligence, what 
 morality ! 
 
 But, strange as it may seem, the Constitu¬ 
 tion of the nation contains these words : — 
 '■ The United States shall guarantee to every 
 State in this Union a Republican form of Gov¬ 
 ernment.” (Art. IY. sec. 4.) 
 
 These are not words of idle ceremony; “ they 
 are plain without any scruple, and absolute 
 without any saving;” “prudent antiquity in¬ 
 cluded much matter in few words.” The only 
 pretended ambiguity is in the words, “ Repub¬ 
 lican form of Government.” What do they 
 mean ? Is Slaver} 7 consistent with a “ Repub¬ 
 lican form of Government,” in the constitu¬ 
 tional sense of the phrase ? If so, then it may 
 spread every where, and include not only black 
 men, but also red men, brown men, yellow 
 men, and white men — for the color is but an 
 accident of the skin, affecting the substance of 
 no man’s nature. Nay, it may include the 
 Majority of the People — all except a few 
 masters numerous enough to hold the rest! 
 But if £S a Republican form of Government” 
 be hostile to slavery, then, peaceably or forci¬ 
 bly, slavery must go down and perish utterly 
 out of every “ State in this Union.” The 
 question must now be decided, actually and 
 presently through custom, or prospectively by 
 statute. 
 
 It is the People who are to determine what 
 the words mean; — the Legislative, Judiciary 
 and Executive, are but attorneys, having only 
 
 delegated and limited powers ; while the Peo¬ 
 ple are the Pi-oprietors and Sovereigns, with 
 Eminent Domain over the premises of their 
 vassals. The opinion of these attorneys is but 
 advisory and provisional, while the decision 
 of the majority of the People is declaratory 
 and final. 
 
 Here, then, come three questions — (1) What 
 is Slavery? (2) What is a Republican form of 
 Government, in the constitutional sense? (3) 
 Is Slavery compatible with a Republican form 
 of Government ? Let me say a word on each 
 of the three. The first two are questions of 
 definition, the last of comparison. 
 
 I. What is Slavery ? I define it by its es¬ 
 sence— Slavery is Property in Man. I make 
 Dinah my slave. She is my property — her sub¬ 
 stance becomes my accident. She is no longer 
 to be counted a person, with free spiritual or 
 bodily individuality ; she is a thing—■“ a chattel, 
 to all intents, uses and purposes whatsoever.” 
 Slavery is a condition contrary to Natural Right. 
 
 II. What is a “ Republican form of Gov¬ 
 ernment ? ” Here the dictionaries will not 
 help us, neither will the private opinions of 
 distinguished men living at the time the Con¬ 
 stitution was made; for it is notorious that 
 such men as Fi*anklin, Jefferson, the two 
 Adamses, Washington, Madison, and others, 
 differed very widely on this Ideal Government, 
 indicated and guaranteed by these words. The 
 common rules of interpretation are well known, 
 and must serve us in this as in all other cases. 
 We are to look at the Constitution itself, to 
 interpret its words by reference to the Purpose 
 which the People had in view in making it, 
 and the Principles set forth in any other docu¬ 
 ment of like nature coming from the People. 
 The interpretation of this clause requires only 
 good sense, good faith, good heed, good judg¬ 
 ment ; there is nothing mysterious in the 
 matter. 
 
 I shall seek the means of definition in two 
 documents which are the work of the People 
 of the United States, namely: in the Consti¬ 
 tution itself, which is professedly and on its 
 face the act and deed of “ the People of the 
 United States,” and in the Declaration of In¬ 
 dependence, which is equally their free act and 
 deed, though not set forth and published as 
 such in the same manner and form : the Rev¬ 
 olutionary War is the People’s Vote for ac¬ 
 cepting the Declaration. I think these two 
 papers are the act of the People of the United 
 
9 
 
 States as no other in our history. Now, the 
 meaning of the words “ Republican form of 
 Government ” is to be sought in the Constitu¬ 
 tion itself, though it occurs therein but once ; 
 the Declaration affords light to read the Con¬ 
 stitution by, and as that is the older, let us look 
 at it first, and then at the Constitution. 
 
 i. The Declaration of Independence is the 
 National Programme of Political Prin¬ 
 ciples, solemnly prepared and published by 
 the Delegates, and subsequently adopted by 
 the People themselves, as their Rule of Con¬ 
 duct in separating from the mother country, 
 and organizing their own voluntary and 
 automatic powers into a new form of Govern¬ 
 ment, and constructing its institutions. It is 
 solemnly read on all celebrations of Indepen¬ 
 dence in the Northern States, formerly in all 
 the States. You all know the words; here 
 are the principles, which, for convenience, I 
 put into a philosophic form. 
 
 1. All men have certain natural and essen¬ 
 tial Rights ; among them, the right to Life, 
 Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. 
 
 2. These Rights are unalienable, except by 
 the misconduct and crime of the possessor 
 thereof. One man cannot alienate another's 
 rights. 
 
 3. In respect to these natural and unalien¬ 
 able Rights, all men are equal; with the rich, 
 the educated, men of famous family, these 
 rights are not quantitatively greater, or qualita¬ 
 tively more nice, than with the poor, the igno¬ 
 rant, and men born in the humblest place. 
 
 4. Governments are instituted to secure 
 these natural, unalienable and equal Rights to 
 all men. 
 
 5. These Governments derive all their just 
 powers from the consent of the governed, that 
 is, from the Majority of the Inhabitants ; and 
 accordingly, when the government does not 
 secure them the enjoyment thereof, it is the 
 right of the People to alter or abolish it. 
 
 In this Programme of constructive Revolu¬ 
 tion. the great charter of American Law, these 
 Principles are not referred back to any grant 
 from Parliament or King, to any Statute Law, 
 nor rested on the foundation of any Customs 
 among men, or inductive reasoning of philos¬ 
 ophers. They are founded not on Facts of 
 Observation in Human History, but on Facts 
 of Consciousness in human Nature itself. Our 
 fathers said — “ We hold these truths to be 
 self-evident.'’ Young Mr. Jefferson fur¬ 
 nished the popular words, but the Ideas were 
 of New England, and had been passed upon 
 
 in the town meetings of Boston, and other 
 little villages in Massachusetts, whence Frank¬ 
 lin and the two noble Adamses took and in¬ 
 spired them into the democratic young man 
 from Virginia. New and strange to the 
 world, where they were to have a great future, 
 they were familiar to New England, where even 
 then they had also a history. 
 
 That is the first witness for definition : such 
 his testimony. If the People were to establish 
 such a government as would represent the 
 sense of that document, a “ Republican form 
 of Government" must be one which in sub¬ 
 stance secures to all men their natural, una¬ 
 lienable and equal right to life, liberty, and the 
 pursuit of happiness, and in form has the con¬ 
 sent of the governed. 
 
 ii. The next source is the Constitution 
 of the United States itself. During the war 
 a Confederacy was made, intended to be 
 provisional; but when the Revolution was 
 complete, something more lasting was needed. 
 Institutions must be invented, organized and 
 administered, which should apply the Principles 
 of the Declaration to actual work, and incor¬ 
 porate them into the political life of the Peo¬ 
 ple. This could not be done directly by ail 
 the People; it must be by a few—the servants 
 of the People. So a scheme of Institutions 
 must be prepared. For that purpose, dele¬ 
 gates were appointed in all the States, and a 
 Convention held. They made “ the Constitu¬ 
 tion," and proposed it to the People, who ac¬ 
 cepted it by rather a small majority of the 
 popular vote. The servants who wrought it 
 out confessed that it had great defects. Such 
 was the opinion of Franklin, the ablest man 
 in America—of Washington, the next most 
 distinguished: many leading men in the indi¬ 
 vidual States, who voted for its acceptance, dis¬ 
 liked many things in it. Such was the case 
 with Samuel Adams and John Hancock, then 
 the two most influential men in Massachusetts. 
 But it was accepted as “ good for the present 
 distress." There is much foolish and hypo¬ 
 critical talk now about the “ sacred ness of the 
 Constitution," which would sound a little con¬ 
 temptible to Hancock and Adams, to Wash¬ 
 ington and Franklin. 
 
 The Constitution is a Power of Attor¬ 
 ney, by which the People of the United 
 States, authorize their servants to do certain 
 matters and things pertaining to the govern¬ 
 ment of America—that is, to invent, organize 
 and administer such Institutions as shall in¬ 
 troduce the Principles of the Declaration into 
 
10 
 
 the actual political life of the People. All 
 officers of the United States are sworn to keep 
 the Constitution — i. e., to conform to that 
 Power of Attorney, to do what it commands— 
 of course, the agents of the People have no 
 official authority, except what they receive 
 under that Power of Attorney. 
 
 Now, this Power of Attorney contains two 
 parts: (1,) The Preamble, and, (2,) the Pur¬ 
 view, the Seven Articles making up the body 
 of the document. 
 
 1. The Preamble is a Programme of Pur¬ 
 poses, telling the People’s agents what matters 
 and things they are authorized and instructed 
 to do. Commonly the preamble to a statute 
 merely recites the historical .occasion of that 
 enactment; but the preamble to this solemn act 
 of the whole People is quite different — it de¬ 
 clares the Motive, the Anivius propter quern , and 
 the Purpose, the Finem usque ad quevi. These 
 are the words: “ To form a more perfect Union, 
 establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquillity, 
 provide for the common Defence, promote the 
 general Welfare, and secure the blessings of 
 Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. 
 
 •> w 
 
 These are the things to be done. Nothing 
 else is commanded or even permitted; and it 
 is elsewhere expressly declared that “ the pow¬ 
 ers not delegated to the United States by the 
 Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
 are secured to the States respectively, or to the 
 Peopled (Amendment, Art. X ) And again : 
 “ The enumeration in the Constitution of cer¬ 
 tain rights shall not be construed to deny or 
 disparage others retained by the People.” 
 (Amendment, Art. IX.) 
 
 This Programme of Purposes is unitary, in 
 harmony with itself: and also consistent 
 with the Programme of Principles in the Dec¬ 
 laration. 
 
 2. The Seven Articles are a Programme 
 of Means for the attainment of the Purposes 
 and the carrying out of the Principles mention¬ 
 ed before. These are not unitary. Some of 
 them conflict with each other, some with the 
 Principles and Purposes: but, in the great 
 majority of cases, the means are in harmony 
 with the ends proposed before. The others 
 were exceptional—some of them were felt to 
 be so at the time of making or adopting the 
 Constitution, and hence the opposition to it in 
 both the national and the State Conventions. 
 But, to make clear that the natural and essen¬ 
 tial Rights of Man are to be carefully respected, 
 to guard the Rights of all men, the Constitution, 
 in one most important particular, secures to the 
 
 United States a Right and imposes on them a 
 Duty to watch over the institutions of the in¬ 
 dividual States, and guarantee to each of them 
 “ a Republican form of Government.” What 
 do these words mean, in this place ? Certainly 
 they guarantee to each State such a Govern¬ 
 ment as will accomplish the Purpose for which 
 the People made the Constitution; and, of 
 course, one which embodies and carries out the 
 Principles that the Revolution was fought to 
 secure. It must be a Government which tends 
 to form “ a more perfect Union ” amongst all 
 the People; to “establish Justice” for each 
 person; to “insure domestic Tranquillity” every 
 where in the land; to “ provide for the common 
 Defence” of the natural rights of all men there¬ 
 in ; to “ promote the general Welfare ” of all, 
 the enjoyment “of life, liberty, and the pursuit 
 of happiness;” and “secure the blessings of 
 Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” It is 
 clear the People contemplate the establishment 
 of such a Government, and nothing less. Words 
 cannot make it more clear. 
 
 III. Now, compare Slavery and a Republi¬ 
 can Form of Government. Slavery denies the 
 slave all his natural rights; so it is the abnega- 
 tionof the self-evident Truths of the Programme 
 of Principles. It tends to destroy Union 
 among the people ; to establish Injustice ; to 
 prevent domestic Tranquillity; to hinder the 
 common Defence; to disturb the General Wel¬ 
 fare, and to annihilate the Blessings of Liberty, 
 just so far as it extends : so it is the nullifica¬ 
 tion of the Ends proposed in the Programme 
 of Purposes. Not only is Slavery inconsistent 
 with a Republican form of Government, in 
 the constitutional sense of the word, it is so 
 utterly hostile thereto that the two cannot live 
 together, but one must ultimately destroy the 
 other. 
 
 Yet when the Constitution was adopted, 
 almost all the States had slavery within their 
 borders ; some of the men who set their names 
 to the paper were themselves slaveholders. 
 But these facts do not alter the meaning of the 
 words, or their power; for we are not concerned 
 with the opinions, or even the intentions of 
 those men, but only with the opinions and in¬ 
 tentions of the People of the United States, as 
 expressed in the words of that document. The 
 delegates in the Federal Convention which 
 drafted the Constitution were simply the scriv¬ 
 eners of the People, to draw up this Power of 
 Attorney; the delegates to the State Conven¬ 
 tions were but the agents to examine it, and 
 
11 
 
 give the People's assent thereto, or withhold it 
 therefrom. The ultimate authority is the Peo¬ 
 ple of the United States. I know no act of 
 theirs, at that time, which intimates an inten¬ 
 tion to keep slavery; or hints that they thought 
 it consistent with the Principles of the Decla¬ 
 ration, with the Purposes of the Constitution ; 
 or which wrests the words “ Republican form 
 of Government " from their plain and natural 
 sense in the Constitution. 
 
 Some years ago, the Legislature of Massa¬ 
 chusetts made a law forbidding lotteries in the 
 State. Many of the delegates who supported 
 the measure had lottery tickets in their pockets 
 at the moment of voting. Does that fact alter 
 the meaning of the statute ? A Massachusetts 
 Legislature prohibited the sale of liquor in the 
 State except for certain specified purposes, and 
 in a manner provided for. Some of the men 
 who voted for the liquor law daily used intoxi¬ 
 cating drinks; others rented their shops for the 
 sale their vote made illegal; the law has never 
 been enforced in Boston, the capital of the 
 State,—nay, the traffic has been more open and 
 more extensive ever since. But do these facts 
 alter the intention of the Legislature, and con¬ 
 trol the words of the statute ? 
 
 It is now well known that many of the lead¬ 
 ing men in the Conventions, Federal as well 
 as State, were hostile to slavery. I need only 
 mention Franklin, Washington, Madison, Sam¬ 
 uel Adams and John Hancock. What is still 
 more important, it was the general opinion of 
 the People, that Slavery would soon end if let 
 alone, and that it would be better not to kill it 
 violently at once by direct blows, but to let it 
 die of the incurable disease then supposed to be 
 eating its vitals out. So they let it remain in 
 the States, though the Principles of the Dec¬ 
 laration, the Purposes of the Constitution, and 
 the Guaranty of a Republican form of Govern¬ 
 ment were all hostile to it. The Northern 
 States one by one removed this shameful ex¬ 
 ception from their institutions. Washington, 
 Jefferson, Madison, acted with their party, and 
 from time to time did deeds inconsistent with 
 these Principles and Purposes, but their per¬ 
 sonal convictions still remained unaltered. 
 When Madison and Jefferson read this clause 
 in the preamble of the Constitution, “ to secure 
 the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Pos¬ 
 terity,” do you believe they limited its applica¬ 
 tion to white men, — to their posterity born free ? 
 They expected that slavery would soon end in 
 all the States, and while for the moment they 
 
 tolerated it as a Measure of convenience or ne¬ 
 cessity, which either they would not or else 
 could not then escape from, they yet denied it 
 as a Principle of public policy and morals, and 
 provided a clause in the body of the Constitu¬ 
 tion which would ultimately destroy it, and that 
 without amending the Constitution itself. 
 
 But it is the words of the document we are 
 to consider, not the opinions of contempora¬ 
 ries, or the conduct of individuals, parties, 
 States, or the nation itself. It often happens 
 that a false interpretation of a statute prevails 
 for a long time. James I. knew this, and said, 
 u Let me make the judges, and I care not who 
 makes the laws.” The South knows it as 
 well, and as wickedly acts thereon. In 1628, 
 the British Parliament enacted the great Peti¬ 
 tion of Right to deprive the King of the power 
 of imprisoning men without due process of 
 law. Charles I. asked the judges if that would 
 prevent him from clapping in jail whom he 
 would, without showing cause for it. Judge 
 Hyde answered — u Every law .... hath its 
 exposition, which is to be left to the courts of 
 justice to determine “there is no fear of such 
 a conclusion as is implied in the question.” 
 But would that false interpretation by wicked 
 Judges alter the plain meaning of the “ great 
 Petition of Right ? ” 
 
 The Common Law of England did not 
 change ; under it, men were held as slaves for 
 centuries, — no questions asked; but in the 
 Somerset case, Lord Mansfield fell back on the 
 Principles of English Law, on the Purpose of 
 English Law, and declared that slaves could 
 not breathe in England — so it had been said 
 in the time of Queen Elizabeth. He knew 
 what a change his judgment would make ; that 
 it overturned the decision of many judges, the 
 practice of centuries; but he said “ Fiat justi- 
 tia, ruat coelum.” Justice teas done, and the 
 sky has not caved in yet. 
 
 Look a moment more at this Constitutional 
 Guaranty. It is often said, “ The People of 
 the United States, as a whole, have no right to 
 meddle with the local institutions of any special 
 State: "that each is “ absolutely sovereign." 
 But, then, what does this constitutional guar¬ 
 anty mean? Are these mere words of cere¬ 
 mony ? Nobody can believe it. “ They are 
 plain, without scruple; absolute, without any 
 saving.” Other constitutional provisions also 
 trench upon the local sovereignty of individual 
 States, and were wisely objected to at the time 
 of framing that instrument. The Federal Au- 
 
12 
 
 thority has no right to interfere and establish a j 
 Monarchical or an Aristocratic Form of Gov- i 
 eminent, but it is its constitutional Duty to in- j 
 terfere and establish a Republican form of Gov¬ 
 ernment. The People wisely contemplated 
 this contingency — that some State should fail 
 to establish such institutions, or carry out the 
 Principles of the Declaration and the Purposes 
 of the Constitution; and so they enacted this 
 very clause, to meet the emergency when it 
 should happen. The words are no more a cer¬ 
 emony than those which declare that Congress 
 shall have power to establish a bankrupt law 
 (Art. I., sec. viii., par. 4;) or to punish trea¬ 
 son, (Art. III., sec. iiii., par. 2.) Nay, this 
 article goes further—for it imperatively enjoins 
 the duty, while they only confer the power: it 
 says — “ The United States shall guarantee to 
 every State in this Union a Republican form 
 of Government.'” It is not can , or may, but 
 shall , not the word of permission, but of com¬ 
 mand ! 
 
 “A Republican form of Government,” says 
 another, “ is any Form of Government which 
 a sovereign State sees fit to adopt.” Let us 
 suppose, then, that a few rich and educated 
 men in the State of Delaware should have 
 their Coup d' Etat, destroy their present insti¬ 
 tutions, and establish a theocratic despotism, 
 with an absolute Pope, the monarchy heredi¬ 
 tary in his family, his children, numerous as 
 those of a Roman Pontiff: that he should be 
 the/sole law-giver in the little State, appointing 
 all the local officers, and likewise the one Rep¬ 
 resentative and the two Senators in Congress ! 
 —would that be a Republican form of Govern¬ 
 ment ? Would Congress allow the creatures 
 of this American Napoleon the Little to sit in 
 the Capitol, as equals of the Democrats from 
 Wisconsin, New York, Ohio, New England 1 
 Not a day! Nay, the People of the United 
 States would soon take this Delaware Pope 
 and his one-horse concern of a monarchy, and 
 pitch them into the sea, and establish a Repub¬ 
 lican form of Government with a rough hand ! 
 But which, think you, is most at variance with 
 the Principles of the Declaration and the Pur¬ 
 poses of the Constitution — a despotic Papacy, 
 which deprives men only of political and eccle¬ 
 siastical rights, or Slavery, which deprives men 
 of all rights—ecclesiastical, political, social, 
 domestic, individual ? 
 
 Make the case still more plain. There are 
 four million slaves in the United States. Sup¬ 
 pose they were all gathered into one State, Vir¬ 
 ginia, — it would not be so densely populated 
 
 as the State of New York is now; it would 
 have only about a third as many to the square 
 mile as Massachusetts. Suppose there were 
 only free men enough in the State to rule the 
 slaves,— say forty thousand : suppose they all 
 belonged to one man, Hon. Mr. Firstfamily, 
 and he owned all the real property in the State, 
 made all the laws, and appointed his two Sen¬ 
 ators and his pack of Representatives to Con¬ 
 gress : would Virginia have a Republican form 
 of Government'? Would the rest of the na¬ 
 tion tolerate that state of things, and allow one 
 man to own four million men, and claim a 
 proportionate power in Congress'? The ab¬ 
 surdity is evident — self-evident. I make no 
 words on that matter. 
 
 Suppose those four million slaves, condensed 
 into that one State, are owned by two men, 
 does that alter the case ? Certainly not : the 
 difference is only quantitative — not in kind, 
 but degree. Suppose they are all owned by 
 2000 men, 20,000, 350,000 — the actual num¬ 
 ber of slaveholders — does that alter the case ? 
 Not at all; the diffusion of ownership makes 
 no odds in the essence of ownership. Certain¬ 
 ly, that State could not have a Republican form 
 of Government when there were 4,000,000 
 slaves owned by 350,000 masters. 
 
 But suppose the slaves are diffused, and the 
 4,000,000 thus owned by 350,000, are spread 
 over fifteen States, does that make any differ¬ 
 ence in the Principle ? Not the smallest in the 
 world. If it be not consistent with the Declara¬ 
 tion of Independence and with the Constitution 
 for one man to own 4,000,000 men in a single 
 State, and in virtue of that ownership to ap¬ 
 point all the delegates therefrom to Congress ; 
 then it is not consistent for 350,000 men to 
 own 4,000,000 in fifteen States, and in virtue 
 of that ownership to have a proportionate 
 share in ruling the nation. It is no more con¬ 
 sistent for the 350,000 to own one man, and 
 debar him from those natural rights which 
 Governments are instituted to secure, which the 
 Revolution was fought to protect, and the 
 Constitution framed to establish, than it is 
 for one man to own 4,000,000. 
 
 But, if the matter is not yet quite clear, take 
 one illustration more. In New England we 
 have a celebrated Democrat, who has held 
 high offices, civil and military, under all the 
 parties which have been in power since my 
 boyhood. He declares that our fathers made 
 a great mistake in setting up a Democracy with 
 equal rights and universal suffrage: they 
 ought to have founded a limited monarchy, 
 
13 
 
 with an established church, a hereditary peer¬ 
 age, and its appropriate garnish. This famous 
 man is just now alike the champion of Slavery 
 and the Democratic party. Let us suppose he 
 should preserve his historical continuity of 
 deceit, and betray his new coadjutors as he has 
 all his former helpers and friends — Whig, 
 Free Soil,and Republican; that he,with other 
 men to aid him, should subdue all the unterri¬ 
 fied Democrats of Massachusetts, including the 
 new converts, which the late revival of admin¬ 
 istrative Democracy has brought in at the 
 eleventh hour, or only five minutes before 
 twelve — hoping likewise to get “every man 
 his penny " of national plunder; suppose he 
 shpuld enslave them all, and likewise all the 
 Know Nothings of the State ; such as were 
 born Know Nothings, them also that were made 
 Know Nothings of men, and such likewise as 
 have made themselves Know Nothings for the 
 kingdom of earth's sake ; suppose he should, 
 moreover, enslave the foreign population, and 
 reduce all these three great parties—Demo¬ 
 crats, Know Nothings, and Foreigners, to 
 “chattels personal to all intents,uses,and pur¬ 
 poses whatsoever.’' There are a quarter of a 
 million Foreigners : the Democrats, with their 
 families, are at least as numerous ; and, accord¬ 
 ing to the census of the Know Nothing voters, 
 made by their late Governor, — whose reputa¬ 
 tion for veracity is beyond all question,—there 
 must be in the State at least 400,000, “ to a 
 mathematical certainty." Suppose the figures 
 are correct, and this conqueror, by his Coup d’ 
 Etat , gains him 900,000 slaves, all of them 
 white men, which lie distributes among 1000 
 cf his fellows. Massachusetts has then a pop¬ 
 ulation of 900,000 slaves, and 300,000 or 400,- 
 000 freemen. Suppose, further, that the 1000 
 slaveholders of Massachusetts, following the 
 example of Virginia, desist from commerce 
 and manufactures, let the fisheries slide, and 
 pay little heed even to agriculture ; but make 
 it their chief business to breed white slaves for 
 sale. And as, by the action of England, and 
 other powers of Christendom, the African slave 
 trade declines, suppose Massachusetts acquires 
 the monopoly of the business, has no competi¬ 
 tor in the Atlantic, and sells her white chattels 
 into bondage at Cuba and Brazil, as Virginia 
 sends the particolored descendants of her first 
 families to Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, 
 Louisiana, Texas, and a market. Suppose 
 our Democrat, old in apostatizing, becomes the 
 King of Massachusetts — absolute monarch — 
 ‘crushes out" all Freedom of the Press, the 
 
 Pulpit, the Pen, the Lip, or the Hand ; appoints 
 his servants to the local and the national 
 
 9 
 
 offices; and sends appropriate men to represent 
 him in the Capitol — would Congress admit 
 them there ? would they consider that Massa¬ 
 chusetts had a Republican Form of Govern¬ 
 ment ? We all know what the decision would 
 be. But is it more anti-republican to reduce 
 men to bondage than to keep them in it ? Is it 
 conformable to the self-evident truths of the 
 Declaration to enslave a black man and not a 
 white man ? Is it consistent with the pur¬ 
 poses of the Constitution to raise Africans for 
 market in Virginia, and inconsistent therewith 
 to raise Irishmen, Democrats, Know Nothings, 
 for sale in Massachusetts % If the Constitution 
 allows Virginia to deprive a single innocent 
 black man of his natural right to life, liberty, 
 and the pursuit of happiness, then it must 
 equally allow Massachusetts also to rob white 
 men of what the Revolution was fought to se¬ 
 cure to both white and black. 
 
 Take another case. The Declaration of In- 
 pendence sets forth the People’s right to destroy 
 an oppressive Government, and establish a 
 new one, which shall secure their safety and 
 happiness. But neither in that paper, nor vet 
 in the Constitution do the People say that eth¬ 
 nologic origin or cutaneous color, affects the 
 self-evident Rights of themselves and their pos¬ 
 terity. Now, in South Carolina there are 395,- 
 000 Black men, and 274,000 White ones. The 
 Africans have 121,000 majority in the State, 
 but are wickedly oppressed. Suppose that 
 majority should make a special application of 
 this Principle of the Declaration, and should 
 put the Blacks where the Whites are now— 
 making them “ chattels personal to all intents, 
 uses, and purposes whatsoever," and claim the 
 additional number of Representatives in Con¬ 
 gress on that account: would the Democrats 
 acknowledge that South Carolina had a “ Re¬ 
 publican form of Government," when such 
 a majority enslaved such a minority 1 But if 
 “ what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the 
 gander," then what is a “ Republican form of 
 Government " for the White minority to en¬ 
 slave the Black majority withal, must be at 
 least equally “ Republican ” for the majo tty 
 to enslave the minority by. 
 
 Extreme cases make shipwreck of false inter¬ 
 pretations ; they are the roadstead where just 
 principles can ride secure, to embark their 
 cargo, or unload^ their freight. If we define a 
 Republican form of Government by the Consti- 
 
14 
 
 tution, and the Declaration, which is its prevc- 
 nient Cause, —then it is evident it must con¬ 
 form to the Revolutionary Programme of Prin¬ 
 ciples, and the Constitutional Programme of 
 Purposes. It must be a Government which 
 secures all men in their natural, unalienable, 
 and equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit 
 of happiness: such and such only ! Now, as 
 slaverv is the denial of all these rights to the 
 enslaved—as it makes the substance of the 
 bondman an accident of the master—it is plain 
 that slavery is utterly incompatible with a Re¬ 
 publican form of Government; that no slave 
 State has a Republican form of Government; 
 that there are fifteen States in this Union to 
 which the Federal Power has not performed the 
 Constitutional Duty which it is solemnly bound 
 to perform. Any slave in the Union has a 
 Constitutional claim that Congress shall fulfil 
 this obligation — set him free, and secure his 
 natural, unalienable, and equal rights to life, 
 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
 
 But there is one argument more against this 
 definition of Republican form of Government 
 —viz., this: “ The classic and the mediaeval 
 Republics allowed slavery—therefore it is not 
 inconsistent with a Republic now—nay, it is 
 indispensably necessary; there can be no Re¬ 
 public without slavery.” But these ancient 
 governments had no such Declaration of Prin¬ 
 ciples and Purposes as our fathers started with ; 
 they laid down no great platform of natural 
 Rights for all men. The argument for slavery 
 derived from the constitution of those ancient 
 governments is of no more value than the sim¬ 
 ilar argument from their rapacity, their cruelty, 
 or their oppression of the Plebeians at Rome, 
 who were yet not slaves. The degradation of 
 man in the ancient republics is no more to be 
 copied as essential to that form of Govern¬ 
 ment than the degradation of woman. A con¬ 
 stitutional representative Democracy did not 
 exist in the old times. Abuses in Greece, 
 in Italy, in Germany, Switzerland, Holland, 
 are no universal warrant for wickedness in 
 America. I know there are men in Virginia 
 and South Carolina, who quote Aristotle and 
 Cicero in favor of American slavery; they 
 ^ecm to have read the translations of these 
 authors only to get arguments against the 
 Natural Rights of Mankind. Similar men 
 have studied the Old Testament but to find 
 out that Abraham was a slaveholder, that 
 Moses authorized bondage; they have read 
 the New only to find divine inspiration in the 
 
 words of Paul, which they wrest into this : 
 “ Slaves, obey your masters ! ” If they have 
 both the Hebrew and the Christian Religion 
 and the Spirit of Humanity against them, 
 they have the Hon. Edward Everett on their 
 side. 
 
 Besides, in a progressive People there must 
 be a Progressive Interpretation of many insti¬ 
 tutions and statutes. Thus the Common Law 
 of England did not change, but ship-money 
 became illegal; and slavery perished by an in¬ 
 terpretation. No number of decisions by 
 learned Judges, no royal usage, no popular 
 acquiescence for centuries, could withstand the 
 demand for natural Justice made by the in¬ 
 creased knowledge, virtue and humanity of 
 the progressive People. At London, Mr. 
 Bernard has just been tried under laws which 
 have put the halter round a hundred necks ; 
 no doubt he did the deed charged on him. but 
 a London Jury righteously acquits the man. 
 The Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, who 
 presided at the trial, in another post, has done 
 much to promote this moralization of the law, 
 by expounding it to suit the humane spirit of 
 an enlightened age, and the moral purpose of 
 Law itself, which, as Hooker says, “ has its 
 seat in the bosom of God/’ 
 
 But I need not cross the seas for examples 
 of this progressive moralization of institutions 
 and of statutes. In the Amendments to the 
 Constitution, Art. VIII., it is provided that 
 “ cruel and unusual punishments shall not be 
 inflicted.” If Congress should decree the pun¬ 
 ishment of crucifixion against all who aid a 
 fugitive slave, could that torture be justified as 
 neither cruel nor yet “ unnatural,” because it 
 had been common in the Roman “ Republic,” 
 or because Alexander—the pupil of Aristotle, 
 the most thinking man in the most democratic 
 of ancient u Republics ”—for no offence at all, 
 once crucified two thousand captive Tyi'ians 
 in a single day ? In the time when the Peo¬ 
 ple made the Constitution, some of the States 
 punished certain offences by branding with a 
 hot iron, by cropping the ears, and other mu¬ 
 tilations even more atrocious. Suppose Con¬ 
 gress should pass a law inflicting the most 
 odious of those tortures on defaulters, on 
 members of Congress whom the President 
 openly bribes to vote against the well-known 
 principles of Justice, is there any man who 
 would justify that punishment by declaring 
 that once it was “usual,” and could not now 
 be considered “cruel”'? No doubt there are 
 
15 
 
 such men in New York ; I know there are in 
 Boston — but the People do not go to the 
 cess-pools of society to find a test of right and 
 wrong. 
 
 I think the form of indenture for apprentices 
 to the business of the goldsmith in England, 
 as far back as the 14th century, provided that 
 the youth should receive “ sufficient instruc¬ 
 tion.” Suppose a lad is apprenticed now by 
 the same form of indenture, and the master 
 gives him just that amount of “ instruction ” 
 which was “sufficient” for a goldsmith's ap¬ 
 prentice then, and no more: is there a jury in 
 America that would justify the master's 
 neglect on the technical plea that he had done 
 all “the worshipful company of Goldsmiths 
 in London '' would require, five hundred years 
 ago ? 
 
 If, in Boston, a surgeon should amputate a 
 lady’s arm at the elbow, and plunge the 
 stump in boiling pitch to stanch the blood, and 
 she should die of the operation, and he were 
 indicted for manslaughter, could he justify his 
 malpractice by showing that such was the com¬ 
 mon method before the time of Hippocrates, 
 and was recommended by that great master of 
 the healing art ? 
 
 In Article I. of the Amendments to the 
 Constitution, it is provided that Congress shall 
 not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The 
 District of Columbia is under the exclusive 
 jurisdiction of Congress. There are Catholics 
 in it. Suppose a company of Catholics should 
 burn a heretic alive, as they have done many 
 a thousand times, and as some of their writers 
 declare they will again, as soon as they have 
 the power, could they justify themselves on 
 the ground that it was a part of their religion 
 to do so; quote the old English statute de 
 Uccretico comhurendo, and adduce a long list of 
 precedents, running back to the fifth century, 
 and appeal to this clause of the Constitution ? 
 
 Suppose the present “ revival of religion'’ 
 should work southward, and by some “ special 
 miracle ’' should incline the heart of one of the 
 great Southern Senators who arc champions 
 of slavery to a particular act of his new zeal. 
 Suppose he should sacrifice his son as a burnt- 
 offering ; let us suppose it was not his only 
 son, not even the son of his wife, but of a bond 
 woman—the Patriarch is imitated in more 
 particulars than one. When brought to trial 
 for the wilful murder, could lie justify it by 
 appealing to this clause of the Constitution, 
 declaring it was in the free exercise of his reli¬ 
 gion that he did the deed, following the example 
 
 of the mythical Patriarch, to whom the mere 
 intention was “imputed for righteousness;” 
 and declaring that he who had done the deed 
 was as much more “ righteous ” than Abraham 
 as Works are better than Faith, which cannot 
 be seen without them ? I doubt that a jury 
 would acquit him on that constitutional de¬ 
 fence, for there has been some little progress 
 in the idea of Religion since the days when 
 it was thought that God delighted in human 
 sacrifice! 
 
 Our own institutions are continually modi¬ 
 fied by the spirit of the age, nay, even by the par¬ 
 ty that controls the nation for the time. Need 
 I mention the conflicting judgments of Ex¬ 
 pounders of the Constitution in regard to a 
 Bank, a Protective Tariff, Internal Improve¬ 
 ments, and the like 1 “ Contemporary exposi¬ 
 
 tion,” says the maxim, “ is the strongest of 
 all.” It is only a rope of sand, which binds 
 no man. Jefferson's “ exposition’' Avas old 
 enough to be “ contemporary ” in law; he 
 thought the Constitution did not justify the ac¬ 
 quisition of new territory, and recommended an 
 amendment to save the purchase of Louisiana. 
 Who believes it now ? It has been the settled 
 practice as well as the consistent theory of the 
 American Government, to regard colored free¬ 
 men as citizens of the United States. All at 
 once, the Supreme Court repels the “ contem¬ 
 porary exposition,” and overthrows the estab¬ 
 lished principles of law. There has been a 
 progressive demoralization of the Constitution, 
 and no wonder men should cry out against a 
 plain application of one of its most valuable 
 provisions! 
 
 Of course, I do not suppose that this guar¬ 
 anty of a Republican form of Government 
 applies merely to the liberation of slaves: one 
 day, the humanity and knowledge of the age 
 will decide that the Declaration of Indepen¬ 
 dence and the Constitution itself arc adequate 
 to secure the natural rights of women not less 
 than men. But let us take one step at a time ; 
 so shall we be ready for the next. 
 
 It is not only unconstitutional, it is also 
 most dangerous to admit that Slavery is con¬ 
 sistent with a Republican form of Government. 
 The South claims a constitutional right to 
 that anti-republican institution. In her own 
 affairs, the North decides against it, and casts 
 it away with scorn and loathing: but she for¬ 
 gets the sacred obligation of the Constitution 
 — its solemn guaranties—and allows the 
 minority of the South to have their wicked 
 
16 
 
 way at home. See the pernicious conse¬ 
 quences. 
 
 1. In each Southern State there has grown 
 up a hateful Oligarchy, a Few-Men power; it is 
 not an Aristocracy—the rule of the best,— 
 but a Kakistocracv — the rule of the worst, — 
 of the worst rules of conduct, if not the worst 
 conductors. There is a privileged class, with 
 the odious monopoly of making property of 
 men. 
 
 2. The few slaveholders rule the majority in 
 all the Southern States ;—they own the blacks, 
 they overpower the poor whites. While en¬ 
 riching themselves, they yet impoverish the 
 community and the State ; they hinder educa¬ 
 tion ; they debauch and demoralize the People. 
 
 3. They control the nation. It is their crea¬ 
 tures who hold the Federal offices, and rule 
 the North. They invade the local rights of the 
 Northern States —in the examples I have al¬ 
 ready given, and many more. If the North 
 makes the law, the South appoints the judges, 
 who can unmake it by their exposition. The 
 Supreme Court is a judicial revolver in the 
 Southern hand — or is it, rather, only a Blud¬ 
 geon, to strike Freedom down 7 
 
 It is painful to see the increase of central 
 power, and the decay of local self-government. 
 Northern State rights are trod down to the 
 dust beneath the hoof of the Federal power. 
 Slavery is the cause of this vicious centraliza¬ 
 tion. Since the Alien and Sedition laws were 
 made, intended to gag men, I think of no ad¬ 
 vance towards despotism, except what has 
 been made by the Slave Power to defend and 
 greaten its peculiar institution. The guaran¬ 
 ty of a Republican form of Government is a 
 security against centralization of power. It is 
 the People's command to establish local self- 
 government in every State by the Principles 
 of the Declaration, and for the Purposes of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 Northern men are strangely unfaithful. 
 They do not attack slavery itself. I think 
 there is now no political party in the United 
 States which declares itself hostile to slavery. 
 It is only the incidents or the accidents of 
 slavery which the Republican party opposes. 
 They cry out against “ Extension of slavery," 
 not against the Existence of slavery itself. So 
 they have measures without a Principle. 
 Commissioner Loring, while Judge of Probate 
 for Suffolk County, kidnapped a man, and 
 sent him back to slavery; he put off the 
 widows and orphans who came to his Court, 
 
 thinking the sacrifice of a man was more to be 
 desired than mercy, or even justice. The 
 People of the State were moved with indigna¬ 
 tion, and sought to hurl the unjust Judge from 
 the office he disgraced. After many delays, 
 shufflings and dodgings, the matter was brought 
 before a Republican Governor, who removed 
 him, but took pains to declare that he did not 
 do this because Mr. Loring had kidnapped a 
 man — “ no official opinion of his entering 
 into my consideration of the question, and no 
 official act constituting an element in the judg¬ 
 ment I have formed." 
 
 Thus the Republican party fails to satisfy 
 the moral sense of the People, and to com¬ 
 mand the respect of the merely thoughtful, 
 who, if they do not feel justly or love mercy, 
 can yet see inconsistency, and despise Meas¬ 
 ures which are bottomed on no Principle ; 
 and scorn the men who are false alike to their 
 moral convictions and their official opportuni¬ 
 ties. Thus in the late Presidential campaign 
 the party nominated for its champion a man 
 never before identified with its principles, or 
 even devoted to its measures. Hence, fortu¬ 
 nate for itself, it was defeated. No Political 
 Party has yet a platform high enough to com¬ 
 mand a full view of the field, or lift its repre¬ 
 sentatives up to such a moral elevation as 
 shall draw the eyes of all good men. 
 
 It is clear what we ought to do — the North 
 must declare “ Slavery not to be toler¬ 
 ated in a Republican Form or Govern¬ 
 ment. No Property in Man. Immediate 
 Abolition. No Slave State in the 
 Union." We shall come to that by and by, 
 not all at once — little by little — step by step, 
 not by a jump. Nihil saltatim, gradatim 
 omne, is good Latin. Already the People look 
 that way. What they want is a Leader, who 
 is not only intellectually sharp, but also moral¬ 
 ly just. Mere intellect, looking only after what 
 is profitable for to-day, can never see Justice, 
 God's idea of what is profitable to all men, and 
 forever: while yet a conscientious woman will 
 know it at once, and can give the counsel 
 which would save a State. The nice ear, laid 
 to the ground, hears the airy footstep of the 
 thunder, when a great ways off; yet it never 
 sees the Rainbow, close at hand, wdiich yet 
 every clear-eyed boy in the farmer's barnyard 
 looks on with wonder, delighted at that hand¬ 
 some angel who tells him the storm is over and 
 gone. Each faculty has its function; those 
 of cunning and conscience are not the same. 
 
» 
 
 17 
 
 In 1787, the People of the United States 
 tolerated slavery as a Measure ; all the States 
 had it then, save Massachusetts, alone, as I 
 think — though Mr. Hale adds also New 
 Hampshire, and I wish he may be as correct 
 here as he is commonly right elsewhere. But 
 the People of the United States never admit¬ 
 ted slavery as a Principle. So, not only in 
 the Declaration do they lay down maxims, the 
 norm of Institutions, and in the Constitution, 
 the norm of Statutes and Customs, do they also 
 propose purposes utterly destructive of Prop¬ 
 erty in Man; but in the Constitution they 
 would not tolerate the word Slave or Bond- 
 man, lest they should be thought to admit as 
 a permanent Principle of Politics, what they 
 only tolerated for the moment as a Measure of 
 Necessity. 
 
 But, after the People, in their weakness or 
 wickedness, allowed slavery as a Measure, then 
 the Southern States got possession of the Gov¬ 
 ernment, claimed that slavery was a Principle, 
 a Constitutional Principle, a Republican Prin¬ 
 ciple, nay, a necessary Principle, and devel¬ 
 oped it into numerous measures hostile to the 
 self-evident Truths our fathers fought for, and 
 subversive of all the great Purposes for which 
 they built the Union up. Slavery is a Prin¬ 
 ciple— the special Principle of the Southern 
 States — the distinctive Shibboleth thereof. 
 It is the Principle of Despotism ; also of na¬ 
 tional ruin. 
 
 But Freedom is also a Principle — the dis¬ 
 tinctive Principle of our Revolutionary and 
 our Constructive Purpose. The two cannot 
 long continue in the same Government. The 
 People cannot go backwards to Slavery, and 
 the despotic ruin which that abuts on; and at 
 the same time go forward to Freedom, and the 
 manifold welfare it leads to. America can¬ 
 not have Regress and Progress at the same 
 time. 
 
 Slavery platform that these gravest of all mat¬ 
 ters can be now discussed ; no where else are 
 they looked fairly in the face. But still the 
 question forces itself into the Politics of the 
 nation, of every State, of each considerable 
 town, nay, into all the theological sects. The 
 slaveholders and their vassals, North and 
 South, loudly declare, “ Slavery is essential to 
 the Republican form of Government.” The 
 rest of the nation feel that Freedom is the 
 essential of a Republic, yes, of all continuous 
 Progress, and of all sure Welfare; but they 
 dare not say so yet. 
 
 What cowards we are ! Hence the best in¬ 
 stitutions of the North are an object of con¬ 
 tinual attack. The South (I mean the slave¬ 
 holders) hate the North, hate her Republican 
 Principles, hate her Democratic Purposes, 
 hate her Progress, hate her Welfare, hate 
 her best men ! They seek to ruin us. Forty 
 years ago, they made a tariff to ruin the 
 commerce of the North ; then they unmade 
 it, to ruin our manufactures. The Senato¬ 
 rial executive repeals the Bounty paid to the 
 Northern fisheries ; Mr. Boyce, of South Caro¬ 
 lina, proposes to abolish all custom-houses, 
 and collect the nation's revenue by a direct 
 tax. I also wish his plan might succeed, and 
 will do all in my little power to help the work. 
 But while I would recommend this as a great 
 Principle of Democracy, which will deprive the 
 Federal Government of the means of corrup¬ 
 tion, the Hon. Senator from the State of Bully 
 Brooks and Keitt designs it only as an oligar¬ 
 chic Measure of Revenge, meant to harm the 
 North. That stone thrown into the air would 
 fall back on the Southern head, and destroy 
 half the army and navy of the nation, and 
 crush out of sight I know not how many polit¬ 
 ical office-holders. 
 
 I say the power of the Federal Government 
 greatens at the expense of the Northern States. 
 Every increase of that central power enlarges 
 the courage, the strength, and the malignant 
 insolence of your Southern masters. Listen 
 to Senator Hammond : the New England men 
 are slaves ; you and I are slaves ; but, alas ! 
 we have no masters bound to take care of us 
 when sick and old ! Compare the last four 
 Administrations — that of Polk, Fillmore, 
 Pierce, Buchanan ; see with what accelerated 
 velocity they descend towards slavery. 
 
 What efforts have been made by the Slave 
 Power to prevent the people of Kansas from 
 establishing a Republican form of Govern¬ 
 ment ! what monstrous money has been spent 
 
 There is one great Political question before 
 the American People — “ Is Slavery consist¬ 
 ent with the Republican form of Government 
 which the Revolution was fought to secure, 
 and the Union established to found ? n Parties 
 represent the tendencies of the People. They 
 are crucial experiments, guide-boards, to point 
 this way or that. There is no political party 
 whose finger indicates the road to that true 
 Republican Government which shall realize 
 the Principles and Purposes of those great doc¬ 
 uments of the People. It is only on this Anti- 
 
18 
 
 to enslave Kansas ! what efforts are making 
 still ! The battle between Freedom and Sla¬ 
 very is now waging there. The question is 
 now before her People, “ Will you make a Re¬ 
 publican form of Government, or take the An¬ 
 ti-Republican which the Slave Power seeks to 
 force on you with the bayonet ? " Tilt Meas¬ 
 ure is of great importance, the Principle of 
 yet more. There are two plans of action for 
 the people there to choose between. 
 
 I. The wicked plan — to accept the Lc- 
 compton Constitution, take the bribe of Eng¬ 
 lish's Bill, come into the Union as a slave 
 State; then repudiate that Constitution, and 
 make a new one prohibiting slavery. This 
 course will be recommended by political job¬ 
 bers, land-speculators, and many men who 
 “ have axes to grind ; ’’ but it is wrong, it is 
 impracticable, and liable to defeat at every 
 step ; it is not likely to succeed, and is dis¬ 
 graceful if it prosper. 
 
 II. The just plan — to vote down the Lc- 
 compton Constitution, repudiate English's 
 Bill, organize under the new Leavenworth 
 Constitution, and appeal to the freemen of the 
 North. There will be no violence offered by 
 the Federal Government. A new election of 
 Representatives to Congress takes place next 
 autumn. Then the Northern men who voted 
 for Mr. English's Bill to force the Lecompton 
 Constitution on Kansas, will go where they 
 who voted for Mr. Douglas’s Ivansas-Nebraska 
 Bill were driven at the subsequent elections. 
 The new House of Representatives will come 
 together in December, 1859, fresh from the 
 People. Some advantageous changes will 
 have taken place in the Senate ; Unitary New 
 England will count twelve in the column of 
 Freedom ! Kansas will apply for admission as 
 a free State; Mr. Buchanan, unpopular, de¬ 
 feated, despised, going out of power, will not 
 be able to scare men, coax, or even to buy them 
 as now. The House of Representatives will 
 accept the new State, and offer a richer dowry 
 than the Slave Power now tries to tempt her 
 with. The Senate will seek to settle the Kan¬ 
 sas difficulty before the Presidential election of 
 the next year, and so will gladly admit her. 
 Kansas will lose nothing but a little time, and 
 that loss will be a gain to the Anti-Slavery 
 party of the North. 
 
 Within a few days, Minnesota has become 
 a State; Oregon will soon come within the 
 ring; Kansas cannot long be kept out. All 
 these will be Anti-Slavery States. While ter¬ 
 
 ritories, they are necessarily kept tied to the 
 politics of the administration party; but when 
 independent States, their individual character 
 will straightway appear. Soon there will be a 
 majority of Senators hostile to Slaver)'. I 
 think we shall never see another slave State 
 added to the Union, nor another slave- 
 President defiling the Capitol. After long 
 waiting for something to turn up," Mr. 
 Everett, it seems, if I understand his actions 
 and words, has now nominated himself for the 
 highest American office, and put himself on the 
 country. Guided by the “ Southern matron," 
 — a woman from the Bludgeon State, who 
 had never a husband or even a child,— this 
 professional rhetorician has gone down to the 
 electioneering deep to do business in great 
 waters. With the cold lead of his charity ser¬ 
 mon for sinker, and a small piece of General 
 Washington’s dead body as bait, he casts his 
 line upon all waters, bobbing for the Presi¬ 
 dency ! But, alas ! I think he will toil all the 
 night of his old age, and catch nothing, for the 
 South has just repealed the bounty on North¬ 
 ern fishery! Instead of the spoils of that deep, 
 he will take only an “ anodyne," and serve 
 but to “ point a moral and adorn a tale." No, 
 Mr. Chairman, I think we shall never have 
 another slavery-President. That creature has 
 been weighed in the balance, and found want¬ 
 ing ; his days are numbered, and will be fin¬ 
 ished soon. No victory of the Slave Power 
 enures to the permanent advantage of that 
 Power. The Mexican War, the Fugitive 
 Slave Bill, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the 
 English Bill, they are four jumps of the frog 
 in the well—each time he went up a foot, 
 but slid down three more before he leaped 
 again ! Slave-President Pierce came into 
 power with a vast majority — he went out with 
 more; slave-President Buchanan eoukl not 
 get the People's vote,— he is a minority 
 President! But what power he had last De¬ 
 cember, a majority of twenty-two in the House 
 of Representatives ! What is it now ? Where 
 will it be in December, 1859 ? — where will 
 he and his party be in December, 1860 ? 
 
 Slavery is immoral; it is also unconstitu¬ 
 tional. It must be put down by the social 
 action of the People — if not by Local Self- 
 l government in the Southern States, then by 
 the Federal Arm of the whole nation — peace¬ 
 ably if they will, forcibly if we must. 
 
 The work of Abolition is moral in its sub¬ 
 stance ; it is likewise political in its form. 
 While from the stand-point of individual con- 
 
19 
 
 science, slavery is a Wrong — what ministers 
 call a Sin — from that of American Politics, 
 it is the denial of a Republican form of Gov¬ 
 ernment, that is, a repudiation of the Princi¬ 
 ples and Purposes of the American People, sol¬ 
 emnly set forth in both the Revolutionary and 
 the -Constructive Programme — the Declara¬ 
 tion of Independence and the Constitution of 
 the United States. 
 
 All Federal officers hold place under the 
 Power of Attorney which the People swear 
 them on ; by that. Congress has no authority 
 to establish slavery in any territory, to protect 
 it in any territory, or to allow it in any State ; 
 the President has none, the Supreme Court has 
 none. 
 
 Not a man in the United States is Constitu¬ 
 tionally a slave; for the language of that 
 Power of Attorney is imperative — the People 
 command : “ the United States shall guar¬ 
 antee to every State in this Union a Republi¬ 
 can form of Government.” 
 
 I often hear it asserted, by wise and good 
 men, that the American People n^ver will 
 abolish slavery. They do not mean, I take it, 
 the “ never ” of eternity, but the never of a 
 very long period, say a thousand or five hun¬ 
 dred years. Now look at this. Within the 
 last three hundred and forty years, three great 
 questions have come up before the Anglo- 
 Saxon People. 
 
 I. The first was the question of the 16th 
 century. It was this — Shall the Pope of 
 Rome rule the British Church, after his own 
 sort, or shall the British People rule that 
 Church, — determine its doctrines, define its 
 forms, and control its practice ? At first, it 
 seemed as if the British People must cer¬ 
 tainly succumb to the Roman Pope, for in his 
 hand he had the armies, the treasure, the learn¬ 
 ing, the talent of Europe; the public opinion 
 of the world was on his side. It took more 
 than half a century, well-nigh a whole hundred 
 years, to settle that great question, and then 
 the Pope was cast out from the four seas of 
 England: and from that day to this, he has been 
 a heretic in Britain. That was the question of 
 the 16th century in England, and thus did our 
 fathers meet and answer it there. 
 
 II. In the 17th century, there came another 
 question, equally terrible. It was this — Shall 
 the Stuart kings control the British State, or 
 shall it be amenable to the British People,— 
 
 King, Lords and Commons, with a Constitu¬ 
 tion bottomed on tbe People’s consent ? Here, 
 too, there was an immeflse power opposed to 
 the People, for the Stuarts had possession of 
 the throne ; they had the armies, the institu¬ 
 tions, the talent, the treasure. The quarrel 
 began in 1603, when James the First came to 
 the crown; it did not end until 1688, when 
 Britain cast James the Second clear over the 
 sea: his family have been ‘‘Pretenders ” ever 
 since. That strife lasted more than fourscore 
 years, and it 'was decided in favor of progress, 
 liberty, and the rights of man. 
 
 But to settle that question, some of the 
 ablest and most thoughtful and progressive 
 families of England must flee from their na¬ 
 tive land, and here find a home in the wilder¬ 
 ness. So, while this question was getting set¬ 
 tled, the American Colonies were at the same 
 time getting planted. They grew up under 
 the shadow of the American forest, wherein 
 they started with nothing but their manhood 
 in them, and the wilderness about them. 
 
 In the 18th century, they had grown a great 
 and powerful people, then esteemed some two 
 or three millions strong. 
 
 III. Then came tbe third great question,— 
 that of the 18th century, namely— Shall 
 the American People be controlled by the 
 British King and Parliament, or shall they 
 make their own laws and found their own in¬ 
 stitutions, such as suit alike the instinct and 
 the reflection of the People ? 
 
 Here, too, it seemed as if the power was all 
 on one side, and only all the Right on the 
 other; for the British King had the navy and 
 the army, he had the offices, the institutions, 
 the church and the treasure, and of course lie 
 had the means to buy up young ambition, and 
 control much energetic talent. That quarrel 
 began openly about 1758, and it was not set¬ 
 tled until 1783. But here, too, the same spirit 
 prevailed, and the American People answered 
 that question as all the three others had been 
 settled, in favor of progress and the rights of 
 man. 
 
 Now, in the 19th century, with the same 
 race of men, there comes up this terrible 
 question, likewise to be passed on by the 
 People,— Shall the American Republic be a 
 Democracy, guaranteeing to every man his 
 “ natural, essential, unalienable right to life, 
 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” or shall 
 it degenerate down into a despotism, where 
 property in man is recognized as sacred, and 
 
20 
 
 that despotism spread itself until every foot¬ 
 step of Democracy is wiped clean out of the 
 continent 1 • 
 
 Now, as before, the chances seem to be 
 against us ; for the Slave Power has got pos¬ 
 session of the Government, it controls the 
 Church likewise, it has the army and navy, it 
 holds the mighty treasure of this continent; 
 and it has the means to buy up young ambition, 
 and take aspiring talent in its hand. But the 
 Anglo-Saxon blood is still the same as it was 
 in the 18th century, in the 17th, in the 16th, 
 and it will decide this question as each of those 
 others,— in favor of progress and the rights 
 of man. A nation, a great tribe of men, does 
 not lose its historic continuity of action, unless 
 it grows feeble either by natural or premature 
 decay, or mingles an excess of other ethno¬ 
 logical elements in its veins, and so corrupts 
 its blood and perishes. The American People 
 has done neither the one nor the other. It is 
 not old enough either maturely or prematurely 
 to perish by decay, and it has not yet filtered 
 bad blood enough into its veins to change its 
 character. Depend upon it, we shall do as 
 our great grandfathers did in Britain in the 
 16th century; as our grandfathers in Britain 
 did in the 17 th century; and as our fathers in 
 America did in the 18th century. If the 
 Slave Power retreat, it will be come up with 
 and run over; if it stand still, it will be trodden 
 down; if it advance against the Progressive 
 columns of Mankind, it will be met and dashed 
 to pieces. Its Nature of wickedness is its 
 manifest Destiny of Ruin. 
 
 But, alas! each of those three great ques¬ 
 tions was settled by war. Yet it seemed at 
 first the evil might be abolished by peaceful 
 arbitrament. Surely, there were historical 
 precedents and theological doctrines enough in 
 the 16th century to have given the People of 
 Britain control over their own church; in the 
 17th century, there was law enough to secure 
 Britain a constitutional and limited govern¬ 
 ment; and in the 18th century, our fathers had 
 enough charters, statutes, customs on their 
 side, and still more, enough Right, to enable 
 them to settle the question, we should sup¬ 
 pose, peacefully, and without drawing the 
 sword. But the party that was to be over¬ 
 come, the party that must yield, in the 16th 
 century, in the 17th, in the 18th, was the same 
 that held the purse in its left hand, and the 
 sword in its right hand ; and when did such a 
 party ever yield until that purse was clutched 
 back, and that sword was violently wrenched 
 
 away and taken to cleave the tyrant down 
 from crown to groin ? Never yet. 
 
 The time, I think, has passed by when the 
 great American question of the 19th century 
 could have been settled without bloodshed. In 
 1850 it was possible. It may be that in 1854, 
 when the Kansas-Nebraska question was before 
 Congress, there was still a chance for a peace¬ 
 ful settlement of the matter. But as that op¬ 
 portunity has been lost, and the ambition or 
 the Slave Power has become so greatly in¬ 
 creased, I think now this terrible question must 
 be settled, as all the preceding ones, by vio¬ 
 lence and the sword. I deplore it exceedingly. 
 I hate war, but injustice worse than war. Had 
 I lived in the 16th century, I would have en¬ 
 treated the Pope ; and when he would not be 
 supplicated with words, I would have persuaded 
 him with the battle-axe. In the 17 th centurv, 
 I would have argued, and quoted Magna 
 Charta, customs, statutes ; and when the Tyrant 
 would not yield, I would have shown him, 
 what Cromwell also taught, that kings, too, 
 had a joint in their necks, and that the People 
 could find it. In the 18th century, I would 
 have petitioned, and remonstrated, and cast 
 “ myself at the foot of the throne,” as our fa¬ 
 thers did ; but when spurned from that throne, 
 I would have done as they did, cast my pewter 
 spoons and platters into bullets, sold my last 
 load of hay to buy a musket, beaten my 
 ploughshare into a sword, and said, “ Liberty 
 first, ploughing afterwards.” So, in the 19th 
 century, sad as it is, I think we must come at 
 last to that same issue. I have confidence in 
 the Justice of mankind, but Wrath is the 
 flaming sword with which man so often fights 
 the battles of Humanity. 
 
 New England, Massachusetts — I do not 
 know what there is in her blood, but there 
 is this in her history, that all the great ideas 
 which have made their fortune in America, 
 and which at the same time have also made 
 America’s fortune, they are New England 
 ideas—Massachusetts ideas. There was some¬ 
 thing in the blood of those Puritans who 
 planted themselves on these shores, which 
 gave their descendants a Power of Ideas 
 and a Power of Action, such as no people 
 before our time has ever had. It was Massa¬ 
 chusetts that took the initiative in the great 
 strife of the 18th century; here are the early 
 monuments of the Revolutionary victory. It 
 is the same Massachusetts that has taken the 
 initiative in the greater strife of the 19th centu- 
 
21 
 
 
 ry ; here are the battle fields of the Anti-Slavery 
 Revolution,— they also will be one day beauti¬ 
 ful with monuments of victory. Wherever the 
 Platform of Freedom is laid down, it is New- 
 England men, Massachusetts men, who stand 
 up thereon. It may be in New York, in 
 Washington, in Cincinnati, in Philadelphia, in 
 California,— no matter where, it is New Eng¬ 
 land blood that is there ; it is the voice of Mas¬ 
 sachusetts that speaks. Here too, this great 
 work began, here let the first decisive step be 
 taken. 
 
 There are two things I want Massachusetts 
 to do. A few years ago, Charles Sumner was 
 railed at in the Senate because he had sworn 
 to support the Constitution of the United 
 States, and was asked how he could do that. 
 He said, “ I support the Constitution of the 
 United States as I understand the Constitution 
 of the United States.” They then asked him, 
 “ Would you do this thing 1 ” “ Yes.” “Would 
 you do that thing V* “ Yes ? ” “ Would you 
 return a fugitive slave ? ” I think it was Mr. 
 Mason or some of his coadjutors who asked 
 that question, — and Mr. Sumner said, “ Is thy 
 servant a dog, that he should do this thing ? ” 
 There spoke the old manly spirit of Massachu¬ 
 setts ! It wgl be writ on his monument one 
 day—letters of gold on whitest stone. Now, I 
 want the State of Massachusetts to say to the 
 Union, “Is thy servant a dog, that she should 
 return a fugitive slave ? ” 
 
 1. I want Massachusetts to pass a law, next 
 winter, declaring that no fugitive slave shall 
 ever be returned from her soil, but whatsoever 
 fugitive slave sets his foot here, that fugitive 
 slave is free, and the arm of Massachusetts 
 which holds the sword, shall be stretched out 
 over that man, and strike down whoever 
 strikes at him. There is a resolution before 
 this body which looks to that very purpose ; 
 and next autumn there will be a petition circu¬ 
 lated before the People of Massachusetts, ask¬ 
 ing the Legislature to do that thing. I hope 
 
 every man of you will put your name to it : 
 I know every woman will ; for the conscience 
 of woman outruns the prudence and the cun¬ 
 ning of man: I would follow her conscience 
 rather than his cunning. Let us declare a 
 Kidnapper’s Court a “Nuisance,” to be abated 
 as other nuisances, with the rough, swift hand 
 of the People. I say that solemnly, knowing 
 what I say. 
 
 2. Then, I w r ant the Legislature to instruct 
 our Senators and request our Representatives 
 in Congress to use all their influence to ful¬ 
 fil the guaranty in the 4th article of the Con¬ 
 stitution, and secure “a Republican form of 
 
 Government to everv State in this Union.” 
 
 * 
 
 We have asked many things of the dear old 
 Commonwealth before now, — always things 
 unpopular at first. She gave us a patient hear¬ 
 ing, listened, and has been convinced that we 
 only outrun the public conscience a little. So 
 she has granted almost every request we have 
 ever made of her. We did not come before an 
 unjust Judge, neither fearing God nor regard¬ 
 ing man, who complied with our petition only 
 to be rid of our complaint. We appealed to a 
 thoughtful and considerate People, who granted 
 our desire when they both felt and saw that we 
 asked only Justice, the common Right of 
 all, which is likewise the common Interest of 
 each. Dear old State — she will comply with 
 our request in this matter also; not perhaps 
 at once, but at length. Nihil saltatim , gradatim 
 omne. 
 
 Let Massachusetts do these two things, and 
 you will see presently the other New England 
 States follow. New York, Wisconsin, Minne¬ 
 sota, Michigan, Ohio, even Illinois, and Indi¬ 
 ana, and Pennsylvania, will presently take the 
 same ground ; and if w r e go on in this way, it 
 will not be long before slavery is abolished in 
 this nation ; and when the Declaration of In¬ 
 dependence is read on the Fourth of July, 1876, 
 there will not be a slave in the United States. 
 Then what a future is before us ! 
 

 

5 
 
 / 
 
f