2 c

/

\\.d> taJcslon

£*

•*+>»****** ********* * + + +,<* *^^ + + -.^--^. --...^^^^¦^.¦^^^-..-.^aaafra^^^^A
franm legislation ijotfr, to|m it conflicts toitfe % f ato of m.

DI8COTJESE

DELIVERED IN THE

CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH,

MADISON, O., AUGUST 31, 1856.

BY
REV. R. S. EGLEST'ON.

CLEVELAND: ;
HARRIS, FAIRBANKS & CO., PRINTERS, HERALD OFFICE
1856.

irnnattf *jjisIatiou tofo, tym it mtkh Anctfr t|j f ato of <§ob.

DISC OURSE

DELIVERED IN THE

CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH

MADISON, 0., AUGUST 31, 1856.

REV. R. S. EGLESTON

CLEVELAND:
HARRIS, FAIRBANKS & CO., PRINTERS, HERALD OFFICE,
1856.

INTRODUCTORY.

The following Sermon was not intended for the press when
written. It is printed in compliance with the express desire
of many who heard it.
To such as have requested its publication it should be said,
that the phraseology, in a few instances, has been changed,
and a few sentences have been added; but the sentiment is
the same as when delivered.

DISCOURSE

Rom. 13 : I. Let every soul he subject unto the higher powers. For there
is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God.
The text admits the doctrine that civil government is of
Divine appointment, and some have inferred from it, that the
subject of any government is obligated to yield perfect obedi
ence to every law which his government may enact, however
unjust, oppressive, or cruel the law may be. But the general
principle which the text establishes, is not absolute, nor unlimited
in its application. Although God does not favor anarchy and
disorder, still no civil government can possess authority superior
to Ms authority, or impose upon men the obligation to obey any
enactment which conflicts with the laws that he has decreed, to
control human conduct. While I adopt this sentiment, and
express my belief that it accords fully with the instruction of
the apostle, I am aware that much evil might result from the
prevalence of the doctrine, that we, as citizens, have a right to
disobey all laws, which in our private judgment are unjust and
burdensome. Should this liberty be granted, " the bad, the
selfish, the cruel, and the grasping, might disregard wholesome
laws as easily as just men unjust laws."
Society could not long exist, were each member of it to sit in
judgment upon his own case, and decide the claims of such laws
to his obedience as seemed to oppose his individual interest. It
is no uncommon thing for human enactments to favor some while
they burden others. Such has been the tendency of every sys
tem of taxation. No State has adopted laws to regulate the
assessment of taxes, which have been universally approved, or
which every body has considered equitable. Such, too, has been
the operation of the Free School system, in this and other
States* Some regard the Free School law as unjust and bur-

densome, because they are taxed by it for the support of schools
in which they have no particular interest.
Every one, it is true, ought to feel interested in the subject of
popular education, whether he has children to be educated or
not, for as a member of society which is made better by the gen
eral diffusion of knowledge, he is benefitted. Others derive from
the law a pecuniary advantage. They are not at the whole ex
pense of educating their children. It is evident, therefore, that
individuals are liable to be influenced by selfish considerations in
their decision respecting the equity of law. »
The general good should.be the primary object in all the
enactments of governmeut. As a moral Governor, God acts
upon this principle in his dealings with his subjects. And it is
doubtless a correct position, that, all things considered, individ
ual prosperity and happiness are the most effectually secured by
securing the general good. Equity, in the true sense of the
word, .and in its application to all, is a thing unknown — it does
not exist in the administration of any human government. For
men are imperfect beings, and all governments which they have
organized, and many laws which they have made, partake of the
imperfection and fallibility of human nature. But this fact does
not justify individual resistance to any law, which is designed to
promote the public welfare. As members of society, we are
under obligation to yield our own preferences, and obey, even
though in so doing we make an individual sacrifice. " It is the
duty of every good citizen to abide his time, and seek redress
from the evils of bad laws at the appropriate tribunal of his
country. The wrong may be sharp, the burden heavy, but any
other remedy will be sharper, and in the end ruinous to the indi
vidual sufferer by the destruction of society itself. No injuries
can justify resistance to laws, except such extreme cases as in
their nature preclude appeal to the proper tribunals. But if the
wrong that is done us extend to liberty and life itself, and re
dress from law is foreclosed, then we are under no obligation to
obey. The social compact is dissolved ; and he who suffers the
wrong is thrust back on his natural rights." It is a declaration
of this nation that " all men are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights — that among these are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness." These are natural rights which God
has bestowed equally upon all mankind. Any law which takes

them away is tyrannical. If no provision is made for redress,
it has no claim to obedience. It may compel men to obey, and
oppress them so low in the scale of being, as to crush out of the
soul every feeling of manly independence, and blast all hopes of
successful resistance ; but even here they have the same rights
which neither human enactment, nor the condition in which it
may place them, can annihilate. Take, for example, the slave
in our own land. The rights which the Declaration of our
National independence declares to the world cannot be justly
alienated, or transferred to another, are tho very ones which are
forcibly and wrongfully taken from him. He has as strong a
claim to freedom as any one of us. The fact that he has always
been held in bondage by a power which he cannot resist, does
not justify the wrong which has been done him. Freedom,
according to its usual acceptation, is an endowment bestowed
upon man by his Creator. And if it be right for any one of us
to maintain his freedom at any expense, the same right belongs
to the slave. If he possesses the ability, he has the right to
resist the authority of the law which makes him a slave, and the
power that wields it, and gain his liberty. He has been guilty
of no crime which makes him an outlaw. His claims to the pro
tection of government in the possession of those rights which
elevate him above the condition of a brute, are valid, and no
human power can invalidate them. The system which unmans
him and hands him over to another, as a thing to be possessed
and used for gain, or any other selfish gratification, originated
in lust, and conflicts with the law of nature and of revelation.
The relation of master and slave is not of divine origin. Man

" Finds hip fellow guilty of a skin
Not colored like his own, and having power
To inflict the wrong, for such a worthy cause,
Dooms and devotes him as his lawful prey ;
And worst than all, and most to be deplored,
As human nature's foulest blot,
Chains him, and tasks him, and exacts his sweat
"With stripes, that Mercy with a bleeding heart
Weeps when she sees inflicted on a beast."
It is a self-evident truth, that " all men are created equal."
God has written it upon the tablet of the heart of every man and
confirmed it by his word. In accordance with this truth, the
child of the slave mother is as free as the children of these

mothers before me ; and there is the same injustice in the enslave*
ment of the one, as there would be in the enslavement of the
others. Human enactments hold the slave mother's child in
abject and life-long bondage, while your children breathe the
vital air of freedom. But a higher latv annihilates the distinc
tion, and grants to each the same right to be free.
The enactment, therefore, which oppresses the child of the
bond-woman, is without force. It has no inherent element of
power to render it obligatory. It is wanting in the one essen
tial quality which constitutes any human legislation binding —
harmony with the law of God. Should the oppressed disregard
it, and break loose from bondage, and raise himself to a level
with his fellow men, he would do just what every free man would
consider right in his own case, were his liberties thus forcibly
taken from him. There is not a parent among all the slave
holders of the South, nor in any of the Free States, who would
yield obedience to any State or National legislation, which
demanded his children, severed the natural relation which he
sustains to them, nullified the authority over them which God has
given him, and placed them in the possession of the grasping
and avaricious as chattels or things, that can be bought and sold,
and pass among men as merchandise in human flesh. His sense
of justice would arouse in him the strongest opposition to a law
so exacting, unrighteous and oppressive.
Moved by instinct, he would rush to the rescue of his children,
and if in his power, break the arm of the law, and remove every
obstacle which opposed their freedom ; and no " higher law"
would condemn the act. But the proposition that human law
has no authority when it robs us of our natutal rights, interferes
with conscience, or in any way comes in conflict with the law of
God, may be substantiated by reference to the standard works
upon the validity of law, by the decision of reason, by the dic
tates of conscience, and by the instruction of the Bible.
Blackstone, who is considered good authority on all points of
law, and whose works are universally used in law schools and in
courts of justice, takes the ground that the binding force of all
human enactments, depends entirely upon their agreement with
the law of God, as revealed in nature and in the Volume of inspi
ration. " There is a law," says Lord Brougham, in his speech
on West India emancipation, " above all human enactments,

9
Written by the finger of God on the heart of man." And the
language of Blackstone is, that " this law of nature being coe
val with mankind, and dictated by Grod himself, is of course supe
rior in obligation to any other. No human laws are of any
validity if contrary to this." The divine law, which God has
revealed in the Bible, harmonizes with the law of nature and
enforces it. " Upon these two foundations — the law of nature
and the law of revelation, depend all human laws ; that is to say,
no human law should be suffered to contradict these." The
natural and revealed law alike condemn falsehood, and theft, and
robbery and murder. Should the law of any human govern
ment demand the commission of these crimes, the reason of every
man, upon whom the light of revelation has shone, would decide,
that duty to himself, to his fellow men, and to God, required him
to disobey.
Reason teaches that all men should obey the eternal and
independent laAv of right, " to which the Creator himself, in
all his dispensations conforms." The truth is universally
acknowledged by enlightened nations, that God, who is infinite
and unchangeable, cannot deviate from this rule of right in the
administration of his government. The supreme authority of his
word is a conceded fact. Though in our own government there
is much said about the obligation to obey all laws which have been
tested by the constitution without any reference to their agree
ment with the doctrines of the Bible. But even those who seem
to place the constitution of our government higher in authority
than the word of God, virtually acknowledge the supreme
authority of the Bible, when they promise, upon oath, allegiance
to the constitution.
If they believe the decisions of the constitution to conflict
with the precepts of God's word, but still hold them to be bind
ing, they are practical Atheists, and therefore inconsistent when
they place the hand upon the Bible, and appeal to its Author for
the truth of the oath to support the constitution. Why do men
swear by any higher authority than the constitution, if they con
sider that to be supreme ?
But as all men who believe in the existence of a God, acknow
ledge in some way his supremacy, it is evident that when direct
appeal is made to reason, she never determines the authority of
human law to be above the divine. And when there is a conflict

10
between the two, the claims of the law of God upon man's obe
dience will be sustained at her tribunal. It is a philosophical
fact, that no stream can rise higher than its source ; and to every
reasonable mind the truth is evident, that as God is the ground
of all existences, no created being can be elevated in power
above him. But it may be said, further, that conscience approves
what the reason determines to be right.
It is a wise arrangement of the Creator, that conscience never
conflicts with reason. It always accords with the apprehension
of a rule of right, approving such acts as agree with the rule,
and condemning such as do not agree with it. Conscience is
therefore an imperative guide to the will ; for men should never
violate a feeling of moral obligation. As accountable beings,
we must either act in harmonywith our convictions of duty, or
be condemned by conscience for acting contrary to them. Now,
in bringing the subject under consideration to be tested by an
enlightened conscience, no one can have a reasonable doubt,
that the decision would sustain the authority of the divine law,
when human law conflicts with it.
Conscience would not approve of theft or murder, though these
crimes were committed by the authority or under the sanction of
human law ; for the law which God has recorded in the Bible for
bids them. And the law " written by the finger of God on the
heart of man" agrees with the divine law in condemning them.
Again : Supposing that our government should no longer tol
erate the religion of Christ, and should pass a law. that those
who love the worship of God might never again engage in it —
that they should pull down their sanctuaries, burn the Bible, and
renounce forever the religion of their fathers. And supposing
that this law should be declared constitutional by the supreme
court of the nation ? Do you think that conscience would hold
men to obey ? It would condemn obedience and approve diso
bedience. In every instance where it is seen that the law of man con
flicts with the law of God, the natural feeling of obligation is to
obey God rather than man. It is true that men do not always
yield to the conviction of right ; for the action ®f the will may
be induced by the desires, as well as by the awakened suscepti
bility of conscience. And although it is the design of the Crea
tor that conscience should regulate the desires, still men are

11
influenced sometimes by these alone to act, even against con
science. Such is doubtless the case with those who obey human
enactments which are contrary to the spirit and doctrines of the
Christian religion. They act without consciousness of moral
obligation. Let us examine, in the next place, the records of the Bible, to
prove the correctness of our position. God has recorded in his
word numerous examples of strict adherence to his commands,
when the law of man opposed them. The King of Egypt, appre
hensive that danger to his government would arise, from the
increasing numbers and strength of the Israelites, commanded
the Hebrew midwives to kill their male children at birth ; but
it is said that these women feared God, and obeyed him rather
than Pharoah. The infants were saved in accordance with the
will of God. But Pharaoh failing in his first wicked project to
crush the power of the Hebrews, gave orders to all his people
that the male infants of the Israelites should be drowned ; and
he doubtless affixed a severe penalty to any violation of the
decree. In the case of Moses, if in no other, the decree was
disobeyed ; and if all the mothers had successfully resisted the
enforcement of the inhuman law, and saved their tender off
springs from its murderous intent, would any one have condemned
them for doing it ? Would they not have been acquitted at the
tribunal of conscience and of God ?
The history of Daniel furnishes a remarkable instance of obe
dience to God, in direct violation of human authority.
At the first deportation of the people of Judah by Nebuchad
nezzar, he and three other youth of rank were among the cap
tives, and were finally placed int) the service of the Babylonish
court. Daniel soon acquired renown for his integrity, wisdom
and piety ; and after the time fixed for his education in the Chal
dean language had elapsed, he was elevated to important and
honorable offices in the government, which he held during the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar and of some of his successors. After
the conquest of Babylon by the allied forces of the Medes and
Persians, Daniel was continued in office, and raised in power
next to tho king. The officers of the court over which he was
placed, provoked to envy f nd hatred by his preferment, sought
to bring some charge against him which would result in his
removal from office, '" But they could find none occasion nor

12
fault, forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error
or fault found in him." Having failed to find any fault in him
as an officer of government, they attempted in the next place to
accomplish their malicious design through his religion. And in
this they were confident ef success. Daniel had maintained, his
virtuous character amid the immoralities of a licentious court,
and under all the influences of worldly prosperity. . . ,
His enemies knew how strongly he was attached to the religion
of his nation, and that nothing would induce him to renounce it,
or to neglect the worship of his God for a single day. They
went to the king, and succeeded in obtaining from him " a royal
statute, and a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition, .of
any God or man for thirty days, save of the king, should be cast
into the den of lions," or, in other words, should be put to death.
Did Daniel obey the law which deprived him of the privilege of
prayer to God, and which made Darius for a month the sole deity
and benefactor of his empire ? Certainly not '. His enemies
knew that he would not when they influenced the king to sign it.
The Bible informs us that " when Daniel knew the writing was
signed, he went into his house ; and his windows being open in
his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three
times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he
did aforetime."
The royal decree did not keep him away from his frequented
place of prayer. Nor under the influence of fear did he seek to
perform his religious duties in a more private manner than he
had been accustomed to do. The privilege of prayer had been
secured to him by the Being to whom he prayed, and no power
but that which bestowed it could take it away. Is there one that
has ever read the history of Daniel, that believes he ought to
have obeyed the royal decree, and omitted his prayers even for
one month ? He thought differently ; and it appears that God
sustained his decision. The three companions of Daniel, Sha-
drach, Meshach and Abednego were placed in circumstances
under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar where they were obliged
either to become idolaters or disobey the king's command, and
thereby incur the penalty of being cast into the midst of a burn
ing fiery furnace. In accordance with a royal decree an imao-e
of gold was made and set up in the province of Babylon, and
all were required, whenever the specified signal was given, to fall

13
down and worship it. The Hebrew captives refused to obey,
and they were summoned to appear before the king and answer
to the charge of contempt of his authority. The king, who
seemed to be much enraged by their audacity, commanded them
in person to yield obedience to the law, that required all to wor
ship the image which he had set up. Notice the three pious youth
as they stand in the presence of an exasperated monarch. Hear
their reply to his demand that they should either yield obedience
to his will, or endure the penalty which he had affixed to disobe
dience. " 0 Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee
in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to
deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out
of thine hand, 0 king. But if not, be it known unto thee, 0 king,
that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image
which thou hast set up." Such magnanimity and self-possession
as these young men evinced are almost without a parallel. The
sequence shows that their decision met the divine approval. It is
not necessary to mention other examples in the Old Testament
which sustain the superiority of the law of God over that of man.
We will turn to the New Testament for instruction upon this sub
ject. At the time of our Savior's birth, wise men from the east
came to Jerusalem to make inquiry respecting him.
¦This seems to have been the first intimation to Herod that the
promised Messiah had come. Apprehensive that his crown
might be in danger from this new-born King, he laid a plan imme
diately, under the cloak of religion, to destroy him. He sent the
wise men to Bethlehem " and said, Go, and search diligently for
the young child ; and when ye have found him bring me word
again, that I may come and worship him also." God knew the
design of this wicked king, and communicated to the wise men
in a dream that they should not return to him. They obeyed
God rather than Herod, and returned into their own country
another way.
All who have read the New Testament, have learned the fact
that the apostles were often interrupted in their labors by the
civil power. They could not obey the parting injunction of
Christ to them — "Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost ;• teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you," without disobeying human law. The Savior

14
knew this when he gave the command. He told his disciples
some time before his crucifixion, that in accomplishing the work
which he was about to commit to them, they would be brought
before governors and kings for his sake. But he assured them
that they need not be anxious about what they should say in
reply to the accusations which might be brought against them,
for they would be under divine guidance. His instruction is —
" Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul ; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell." Here is evidently an obligation laid upon the
disciples to obey God rather than man, and the history which is
given of their lives shows that they always disregarded the law
of man whenever it interfered with the fulfillment of their divine
commission. They were scourged, imprisoned, and all, but one,
put to death by human authority, simply for taking the word of
God as their guide in faith and practice. At one time when
arrested by the arm of the civil power and thrown into prison,
God sent an angel to open the prison doors and lead them out,
and said to them — " Go, stand and speak in the temple to the
people all the words of this life." They obeyed, and in a bold
and conspicuous manner repeated the very deed for which they
had previously been imprisoned, by preaching salvation from sin
through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When
arrested again and arraigned before the Sanhedrim for the
alleged crime of violating the laws of the nation, and the high
priest asked them in an authoritative manner — "Did not we
straightly command you, that ye should not teach in this name?"
they justified their conduct by replying — "We ought to obey
God rather than man." This bold reply was indicative of the
course which they were determined to pursue ; and the Sanhe
drim could not mistake its meaning. But the apostles were
not satisfied to intimate simply that they designed to pro
ceed in the work, which they had begun. They did proceed,
and immediately preached truths to the supreme council of the
nation before whose tribunal they were then standing, which
" cut to the heart." Any person of ordinary powers of discern
ment can see that here is an instance where human law was
disregarded and the law of God obeyed.
The sacred historian has recorded another instance of the
deliverance of Peter from prison by miraculous interposition,

15
which set aside the highest human authority and allowed the apos.
tie to continue his labors in the cause of Christ. Herod
Agrippa "killed James the brother of John with the sword.
And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further
to take Peter also," with the evident design of putting him to
death. Herod did not assume authority in this matter, which
was not secured to him by the laws of the land. He had power
over life. But the apostles did not regard his authority as being
supreme. While Peter was in prison bound in chains and sleep
ing between two soldiers, " and the keepers before the door kept
the prison," an angel visited him, " and he smote Peter on the
side and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his
chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him,
Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals ; and so he did. And he
saith unto him, Cast thy garments about thee and follow me.
And he went, and followed him ; and wist not that it was true
which was done by the angel ; but thought he saw a vision."
" When Peter was come to himself he said, Now I know of a
surety that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me
out of the hand of Herod." Now if the law by which Peter
was arrested, and which was about to take his life, was binding,
he ought to have returned to the prison, when he found himself
free, and yielded to its penalty. He had no right, though deliv
ered by an angel from heaven, to escape and go on directly in
his course, which seemed to defy the power of the law.
But it is evident that the apostles were " higher law " men.
They never considered it right to hearken unto man more than
unto God. It is not necessary to adduce further proof of the truth
of the proposition to which your attention has been called. We
find that the " higher law" doctrine is as old as the Bible. In
its application to politics, it was first proclaimed in the legisla,
tive hall of our nation by one of her noble Senators some more
than six years ago. Since that time it has been echoed from
nearly all the Free States, and ought to have been from every
pulpit in the land. The permanency and prosperity of this
Republic are depending upon its recognition in the policy of the
government. It is neither safe nor expedient for any nation to
forget its responsibility to God, and disregard his laws in its
enactments. God says—" Them that honor me I will honor,
and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed." The prin-

16
ciple here revealed, is one by which God is actuated in his
dealings with nations as well as with individuals.
We are led by our subject to the conclusion that some of the
laws of this government, . and also some which it is trying to
enforce in one of its Territories, are invalid. The conflict between
them and the law of nature and revelation is so apparent that
every one, who is guided by reason and conscience and the word
of God, must feel obligated to disobey. I allude particularly
to the Fugitive Slave bill, and the code of Missouri laws, with
which the present Administration of the Federal government is
seeking to crush out liberty and establish oppression in Kansas.
The bill of 1850 was considered by its friends, at the North to
be a final quietus of tlie ever agitated subject of Slavery. But
the sequel has shown the futility of the argument.
With equal consistency one might talk of putting out the fires
of the volcano by outward appliances -as to attempt to stop all
agitation upon slavery by such legislation. The passage of the
bill by Congress was one over-reaching eftbrt of the Slave power
to crush the liberties of freemen, and to extend itself by the aid
of the General government over the whole nation. The agitation
will never be quieted by such appliances. So long as the cause
exists, the effect will be visible.
The objections to the bill do not arise so much from what it
has done, as from what in the hand of the government, it has the
power to do. Under its practical operations very few fugitives
from slavery have been returned to their former, wretched con
dition. But it has driven many from their homes in the Free
States to seek protection in the enjoyment of their rights under
the British flag. It strikes a death blow at the vital principles
of a Free government. Personal liberty falls before it, and is
sacrificed to the interests of the Slave power. It grasps the
sympathies of the human heart, and forbids the deeds of human
ity, which naturally spring from them. It demands that you
shall turn away the trembling fugitive, in his perishing condition,
without assistance, or protection, who stands at your door asking
for bread, or raiment, or shelter from the storm. It demands
your help in returning him to his oppressor, from whom, under
the promptings of his own nature to be free, he has manfully
escaped. What a conflict between this law and the impulses of
humanity !

17
What a conflict between it and the injunction of Christ, " All
things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye
oven so to them !" Who, that fears God, or regards man, feels
obligated to obey it, though declared constitutional at the time of
its enactment, by a pro-slavery Attorney General, and since then
his decision endorsed by the supreme court of the nation ? But
this law, so revolting, was approved, or accepted by many, who
professed to be opposed to the institution of slavery, as a com
promise with the South, calculated to prevent all further excite
ment upon the question.
Strictly speaking, it is never right to enter into league with
Satan, or to make compromises with sin. But, admitting that
this bill was, when passed, a valid compact, it ceased to be such
from the time of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Many
of the most conservative of the North admit this. If different
compromises be formed at different times, having the same end
in view, and any part of one of them be broken, the treacherous
party relieves the other from further obligation to any of them.
Now, it is conceded by all that a compact, which at the time of
its acceptance by the North was considered perpetual, was aban
doned by the passage of what is termed the Nebraska bill. " A
territory comprising an area of 480,000 square miles, or more
than twelve times the extent of Ohio and fifty times the size of
Massachusetts," was closed to the institution of slavery by the ,
Compromise of 1820. But the bill which was passed by Con
gress two years ago last May, abrogated only so much of this
Compromise as secured Nebraska from the curse of slavery.
Missouri and Arkansas are still held by the Slave power ; and no
attempt has been made by the General government to release
them, or to remove from them the favorite institution of the
South, which gained admittance there through this noted Com
promise. But can one part of the act of 1820 be repealed and
the other continue in force ? Not without violating every prin
ciple of honor and justice. Still, through political intrigue it
has been effected. The South has realized all that was antici
pated- by the Missouri Compromise. The territory which she
claimed by virtue of it, has all been consecrated to slavery,
while the North, through the treachery of her own representa
tives, has been compelled, if not to fall down and worship the
hideous image, which has been set up in our land of boasted
2

18
freedom, to sacrifice upon its altar, stained with human blood, a
large territory, which, it was supposed, had been reserved, in
safe keeping for the home of freemen. No more compromises
can be made with the Slave power. It violates all agreements
whenever it can, and thereby gain any advantage to itself.
Every compact is broken. Slavery and freedom are now
grappling in close contest for the ascendancy in this nation. The
struggle has already aroused the spirit of '76, and a voice from
the graves of the fathers of the Republic is calling upon us to
maintain the liberties, which they secured to themselves, and
transmitted to us, and which, unimpaired, it is our duty to trans
mit to our children. Events which are transpiring in the nation
warn us of danger. The avowed purpose of slavery is to extend
itself, under the protection of the General government, into all
the States and Territories of the Confederacy.
In accomplishing this object, it hesitates at nothing. There is
no crime too great, no act of barbarity too inhuman for it to
commit. It assaults the friends of freedom in the streets of the Capitol
of the nation. It enters stealthily the 'Senate Chamber, with
murderous intent, and strikes down a worthy Senator in his seat,
for exercising his right of freedom of speech. Supported by
our government, " it now stands erect, clanking its chains on the
Territory of Kansas, surrounded by a code of death, and tramp
ling upon all cherished liberties, whether of speech, the press,
the bar, the trial by jury, or the electoral franchise." The series
of crimes which have been committed against the Free State men
in that Territory is without a parallel in the history of any govern
ment ever known to have existed even in a state of half civiliza
tion. They are imprisoned for loving liberty and hating
oppression. Theft, robbery, arson and murder are frequent ;
and we have yet to learn that any effort has been made by the
proper authorities to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to
justice. If the officers, who have been placed there by the su
preme power of the government to administer justice, do not
commit these crimes themselves, they wink at them when com
mitted by others, or shout in approbation of them as pleasing to
their idol slavery. The voice of the blood of our brethren crieth
to us from the plains of Kansas. ' The lamentation of widows and
fatherless children is wafted to our ears on almost every western

19
breeze. We apply to the Chief Executive of the Union for
redress, and are coldly referred back to the very ones against
whom lieth the charge of robbery and murder.
Men of the North who hate slavery will not suffer such insult
to freedom to pass unrebuked ; nor will they leave their brethren
in Kansas, without aid, to be oppressed by laws which have been
made for them by citizens of a neighboring State, and which
repudiate the constitutional liberties of a free people. There is
a source through which these grievances can be reached, and
effectually removed. It is through the ballot box. To this
source men of all former political parties, who are in favor of
freedom in Kansas, and opposed to all further encroachments of
the slave power, are now hopefully looking. The feeling is prev
alent at the North, that there has been already too much yield
ing to the demands of the South. " The non-slaveholding
population constitutes nearly seven-eighths of the whole voting
population in the nation." And yet we have never had a Chief
Magistrate who has openly avowed himself as being opposed to
the further extension of slavery, or who on such an issue has
been elevated to that office. The united terms of office of the
slave-holding Presidents amounts to fifty-two years. These facts
show that in all our Presidential elections slavery has demanded
a hearing. Its interests have so long been consulted, that now it
takes hold of the arm of the government to crush all opposition
to its encroachments upon the rights of the Free States. But
slavery through the government cannot arrest the movement of
the people in favor of freedom. They are sundering party ties,
abandoning party preferences, and uniting in one mighty effort
to protect the tree of liberty from the deadly blows which have
been aimed at it from the National Capitol, and to shield it from
those withering blasts which are beating upon it from the South.
They will not worship at the shrine of slavery ; but will resist
the power which is trampling upon their constitutional rights, and
laying waste by fire and sword the homes of the friends of free
dom. They will not yield the essential principle in our govern
ment, that the government belongs to the people, and is not
above them, or a thing distinct from them. They will not receive
the doctrine which has been proclaimed in the Senate Chamber
of the nation, that men are sent to Congress to govern the peo
ple, and not to administer the government for them. Some o

20
the representatives from the North have heretofore betrayed the
trust committed to them. But now we have men in Congress
who represent their constituents, with honor to themselves and to
the cause of freedom. They have been weighed in the balance
and not found wanting. They are the men for the times.
They fear God. They love liberty. They say to slavery,
" thus far mayest thou come, but no further." Threats of assas
sination with the bowie-knife, the pistol, or the bludgeon, do not
move them from their position. We need more such men in our
halls of legislation. We need them in the judicial and execu
tive departments of the government, where they will administer
the government for us and not over us- They can be found
among the friends of liberty.
Let us use the means which we possess through the electoral
franchise, to elevate them to these responsible offices, praying
God, who holds in his hand the destiny of the nation, to speed
the right.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08540 1405