Abolition a Sedition Part 3

_encourages us_ to _combine_ our own means and efforts for the promotion of a STILL GREATER CAUSE." Far be it from us, however, by this allusion, to disparage the Temperance reformation, any farther than the violent and overstrained part of it is concerned. And this qualification, we trust, will be satisfactory to all, whose good opinion we have any hope of enjoying.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE INCENDIARY DOCTRINES OF ABOLITIONISM.

_Facit per alium, facit per se._ The accessory to a crime is by law, and in justice, made responsible with the princ.i.p.al. No man can deny, that the effect of the Abolition doctrines and measures on the slave-holding States, if they were not resisted, would speedily lead to insurrection and ma.s.sacre; that scenes of this horrible kind would be constantly occurring, till the whole South would become a field of desolation. It is true, the Abolitionists say, it would not be so, if the slave-holders would give up. This, however is a justification, which, we suppose, is not likely to be admitted. Everybody knows, that the slave-holders will not give up, and that they are more remote from it now than when this agitation commenced. The Abolitionists are responsible for having, by their imprudence and rashness, rivetted the chains of slavery, and put far off the day of Emanc.i.p.ation, unless they shall succeed in breaking up society, by forcing abolition--the responsibility of which, we apprehend, would be immeasureably greater than that which now rests upon them. The right or wrong of slavery cannot now be discussed with any effect, because another great question has forced that aside. It is the question, whether the political fabric of the country, in relation to this subject, shall give way to violence? The claim of the slave to his freedom, we think, will never be listened to, till that is settled. We must take things as they are, and man as he is.

"No," says the Abolitionist, "G.o.d forbid. We stick to _principle_; and our principle is, that the slave has a right to his freedom--a right paramount to any artificial and accidental state of society that exists, standing in the way of it; and the consequences of opposing this claim, _be_ on those who take this stand." Is this a fair statement? We are inclined to think it is, as to those Abolitionists who lead and govern the cause. Certainly, we should be willing to state it in any other form, if we could do it more fairly. We only wish to know on what ground they stand, that we may know how to take them. From all we have been able to learn of their principles, we believe that the above statement does them no injustice.

Let us, then, observe the following facts: The slave-holders are resolved they will not give up; the Abolitionists are resolved they shall. The more the latter do, in the way they are now engaged, to accomplish their end, so much the more determined are the former to maintain what they claim to be their rights. The former point, first, to the Federal Const.i.tution, as their security; next, to their own swords. Such, undoubtedly, is the true state of the case. The right of the slave to his freedom, as claimed by the Abolitionists in his behalf, is out of the question, till this political warfare is ended; and every step makes the case worse and worse. Such is the present position of the cause of Abolition in this country: the Abolitionists stick to their principle, that "the duty, safety, and best interests of all concerned, require the _immediate abandonment_" of slavery.

Such is the language of their Const.i.tution, italicised as above; and they are accustomed to press that principle by all the means in their power, _without regard to consequences_; and we think it may be fairly added, as a general fact, _without respect to the supreme law of the land_, which happens to be against them. They view the right claimed for the slave _paramount to all law that stands opposed_. We believe we do not mistake in this. Every one may see what such principles, carried out and enforced, lead to; and when we consider the certainty of their being opposed, and opposed to the last, we think it not unjust to p.r.o.nounce them _incendiary_ in their character.

We will ill.u.s.trate this state of things by a case of fact. We happened to be acquainted with a very estimable and exemplary clergyman, some ten years ago, or more, mild and benevolent in his disposition, bland in his manners, of unquestionable piety, and in all respects agreeable; but we observed, with some concern, that he appeared to be tending strongly to the way of violent reforms. In the spring of 1838 we were glad to meet him again, as an old friend; but found him thoroughly in for Abolition, according to the modern type. In the course of conversation, it was suggested, that Abolition, hardly pushed, would chance to make some bad work. "No matter," said the gentleman, "the principle is sacred." "And must be maintained at all events?" "Certainly." "But it may occasion the effusion of blood." "We can't help it." "There will be insurrections and ma.s.sacres." "That is the fault of those who committed the first sin; and they must take the consequences." It will be seen, that they who committed the first sin, were out of the way many generations ago, and were never citizens of this country. "But, do you mean to advocate the _instant_ manumission of all slaves, without regard to consequences?" "Certainly. Slavery is sin; and all sin ought to be left off instantly." "But do you not see, that slavery is interwoven with a complicated state of society, political and domestic; and that it is impossible to do it away _immediately_?" "No matter; it is wrong, and ought not to continue a moment." "But your doctrine will produce anarchy." "No--G.o.d will take care of that. G.o.d never required any thing, that will produce a bad result. Obedience to his will is always safe; and disobedience unsafe.

Slavery is sin; and all sin should be repented _now_, radically and thoroughly, in practice as well as in heart." "But, there is the law of the land." "And there is the law of G.o.d, and of nature." "But the law of G.o.d says, _the powers that be are ordained of G.o.d. Put them in mind to be subject to princ.i.p.alities and powers, and to obey magistrates._" "That is a general rule, and was never intended to vitiate the authority of conscience. If it is to be construed strictly, and without exception, we had never had the Protestant Reformation, nor American Independence. The indefeasible rights of conscience, and of liberty, in the sense now maintained, may always be a.s.serted, and ought to be." "But may we go on a crusade, in behalf of others, for these objects?" "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, and shalt not suffer sin upon thy brother." "Then you are in favor of carrying Abolition _forthwith_, as best it can be done, in despite of the law of the land, and without regard to consequences?"

"Undoubtedly. It is impossible, there should be a higher law, than that a.s.serted in this cause. The law of the land will never be altered, if we let it alone; and the only way to bring it about, is to press matters by agitation. There are always enough on the side of order, and we have no fear of consequences in so good and holy an enterprise," &c. &c.

We have abridged this dialogue, and profess no more than to give the substance of it. And when we compare it with all we have seen, heard, and read on the side of Abolition, and with the ordinary features of the movement, we see not but it is a fair representation. Any persons, however, are at liberty to qualify it, as they may think it deserves.

There are, doubtless, Abolitionists of all shades and degrees; but there is a common ground, on which those who const.i.tute the strength of the movement, meet. We suppose it ought to be allowed, that most of them _profess_ respect for the authority of law on this point, and that they intend nothing but Const.i.tutional modes of reformation. The Const.i.tution of their great Society, proposes "to do all that is _lawfully_ in our power to bring about the extinction of slavery." But every one construes the law for himself; and generally, that is lawful, which sets up the right of the slave to his freedom, as paramount to the law of the land. That we do no injustice to Abolitionists by these statements, is open to proof, by the high authority of the last Annual Report of their Parent Society, in which, however startling it may seem, they have not only in effect, _but in form_, set aside the authority of the Federal Const.i.tution, in regard to slavery, by _construction_! After quoting the well known third clause of the second Section of the Fourth Article, which recognizes the validity of property in slaves, and provides to defend it, having first stated, that, "if strictly construed it could not apply to slaves," because it does not _name_ them _as slaves_, the Report goes on to say: "It is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the _intentions_ of the framers--_whatever by historical evidence we may ascertain them to have been_--_cannot bind_ us to an interpretation of the Const.i.tution which its own language does not render necessary, and which is inconsistent with objects for which it was professedly framed, to wit, 'to establish justice,' and 'to secure the blessings of liberty.' _But we go further_: We contend, that when the Const.i.tution was framed, it was the understanding of _all parties_, that slavery was soon to be abolished by the States, and the clause intended to facilitate the recovery of fugitive slaves was a mere _temporary_ concession, to _expire_ with the unhallowed anomaly which called for it. If such be the case, it need hardly be said, that the slave States, after having _violated_, on their part, that good faith which was implied in the compact, _have no right_ to urge its fulfilment, beyond the letter, on the other part." "Beyond the letter." "The _letter_" does not happen to _name_ slaves.

Now, if _this_ is not _coming out_, and by the highest authority, by their own solemn and sanctioned Annual Scripture, declaring _null_ and _void_ the law of the land, and its highest law, in relation to the subject of controversy, it might be difficult to say what would be so.

They even set aside the universally established rule of interpretation, confessing to the _intention_ of the law, but denying its authority. Henceforth the public may know what to expect. We think, that, with this doc.u.ment lying before our eyes, it is no libel to say, the Abolitionists _do not respect the law_; and that they have made up their minds, to trample it under foot. Their measures, and their language, would certainly imply it. They seem to be so far carried away by their sympathy for the slaves, that the hazard of causing to flow in rivers the best blood of the land, by a civil war, seems hardly sufficient to effect an abatement of their zeal; and if the slave-holders and their families, should be butchered in the strife of Abolition, "that is the fault of those who committed the first sin, and they must take the consequences." _Immediate, instant emanc.i.p.ation_ is the word and the _principle, whatever comes_. There is no law above it--none that must not give way to it. Let the public judge, whether this principle be not incendiary, and sanguinary, in the most revolting aspects. The only barrier, hitherto supposed to stand in its way, the Federal Const.i.tution, is swept away by an authoritative commentary, and the license to go forth to battle, has, by this act, received the sanction of the Supreme Legislative a.s.sembly and high Court of the American Anti-Slavery Society!

We think the time has come, when the public of this country have a right to demand, whether the Abolitionists do indeed intend thus to _force_ the application of their principles, in contempt of law, and at the hazard of all consequences. Let them avow this scheme openly, and it will be enough. The uncharitable imputation of occult criminal designs is unwarrantable. But we submit, whether the pa.s.sage just quoted from the Annual Report of this Society is not sufficiently open; and whether the habitual developements of the great movement, as made before the public, in so many forms, do not corroborate and confirm the impression which this doc.u.ment is calculated to produce?

CHAPTER IX.

POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY IN REGARD TO SLAVERY.

We believe the Abolitionists are accustomed to find one apology for the movement in which they are engaged, in the a.s.sumption, that all the Members of the American Union are responsible for the existence of slavery therein, if not equally, yet in part; and being conscientiously opposed to slavery, their conscience obliges them to act in obedience to its dictates. They cannot, therefore, choose to abstain from this enterprise, if they would. We propose here to consider this question, as it cannot be denied, if the a.s.sumption be founded in truth and justice, that there is some weight in the statement. It is obviously proper to begin at the _beginning_, and enquire where the responsibility rests for introducing slavery into this country.

We say, therefore, that it was imposed upon this country against the avowed wishes, and resolute remonstrances of the ancestors of those, who now have charge of the evil that was thus entailed; and that resistance to the imposition came to the brink of a rebellion--nay, was a cause of rebellion.

"So early as 1502, the Spaniards begun to employ a few negroes in the mines of Hispaniola; and in the year 1517, the Emperor, Charles V., granted a patent to certain persons for the exclusive supply of 4000 negroes annually, to the islands of Hispaniola, Jamaica, Cuba, and Puerto Rico."[3] John Hawkins, an Englishman, received the honors of knighthood, and was made Treasurer of the Navy, by Queen Elizabeth, for his achievements in the slave trade. Elizabeth, James I., Charles I., and II., were all in the habit of chartering companies to carry it on. Charles II., his brother, the Duke of York, n.o.blemen, gentry, and _ladies_ of high rank and quality, were subscribers to these companies; and England, Europe, revolted not at the deed! The public conscience of the world seemed to tolerate it! When the slave trade first commenced, from Great Britain, under Elizabeth, the American Colonies did not exist. The succeeding princes patronized the traffic, and introduced slavery into their American provinces. "In 1760, South Carolina, a British Colony, pa.s.sed an act to prohibit further importation; but Great Britain rejected this act with indignation, and declared that the slave trade was beneficial and necessary to the mother country. The Governors of the Colonies had _positive orders_ to sanction no law enacted against the slave trade. In Jamaica, in the year 1765, an attempt was made to abolish the trade to that island.

The Governor declared, that his instructions would never allow him to sign the Bill. It was tried again in 1774, but Great Britain, by the Earl of Dartmouth, President of the Board, answered: _We cannot allow the Colonies to check or discourage, in any degree, a traffic so beneficial to the nations._"[4]

[Footnote 3: Bryant Edward's West Indies.]

[Footnote 4: Professor Dew's Review of the Debate in the Virginia legislature, of 1831-'32.]

The history of legislation, in the Colony of Virginia, records _twenty-three_ Acts, imposing duties on the importation of slaves, with the avowed design of suppressing the trade. "In 1772, most of the duties, previously imposed, were re-enacted, and the a.s.sembly transmitted, at the same time, a pet.i.tion to the Throne, of which the following are extracts:--

"'We are encouraged to look up to the Throne, and _implore_ your Majesty's paternal a.s.sistance, in averting a calamity of a most alarming nature.... The importation of slaves into the Colonies from the coast of Africa, hath long been considered a trade of _great inhumanity_, and under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear, will endanger the very existence of your Majesty's American dominions. Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most _humbly beseech_ your Majesty _to remove all those restraints_ on your Majesty's Governors of this Colony, which prohibit such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce.'

"The _first_ a.s.sembly which met in Virginia, after the adoption of her Const.i.tution, prohibited the traffic; and '_the inhuman use of the royal prerogative_' against the action of the Colony upon this subject, is enumerated in the _first_ clause of the first Virginia Const.i.tution, _as a reason of the separation from the mother country_."[5]

[Footnote 5: Professor Dew.]

Such was the _common_ feeling of the Southern Colonies, though more decidedly manifested in Virginia. They never invited, they never tempted the slave trade, except by a silent acquiescence for a season, in what was imposed upon them by the cupidity of foreigners, and the mandates of authority, before the public conscience of mankind had begun to remonstrate; and the moment they opened their eyes to its domestic results among themselves, they set their faces, and employed all their lawful powers, against it.

"Federal America interdicted the slave trade from her ports _thirteen_ years before Great Britain; she made it punishable as a crime _seven_ years before, she fixed _four_ years sooner the period of non-importation--which period was earlier than that determined upon by Great Britain for her Colonies."[6]

[Footnote 6: Walsh's Appeal.]

For the introduction of Slavery into America, therefore, the Americans themselves are acquit of all political responsibility. All that can be said is, that individuals purchased slaves that were brought and offered, when the public conscience of the world tolerated the traffic; but it was under the authority, and by the imposition, of a parent Government, in another Continent, that slavery was reared into a domestic and political inst.i.tution, the process all the while having been solemnly protested against by those whose voice had a claim to be heard, and who were most intimately concerned, until it grew into a magnitude and importance, too formidable to be dealt with by a violent hand of excision and extirpation--sufficiently formidable, indeed, to demand the utmost wisdom and prudence of man for its treatment and ultimate disposal.

Thus, having fairly wiped from the American escutcheon the political responsibility of introducing slavery in this Continent, and among ourselves, it remains to be considered, how far the present generation of slaveholding Americans are responsible for this state of things.

The sum of the matter lies in one short sentence: _They were born into the world the heirs of this condition._ In no manner or degree are they responsible for it, any farther than they maintain it, and _as_ they maintain it. We suppose the Abolitionists themselves would not differ widely from us here, except as, peradventure, some of them may take their stand on the theological proposition--"In Adam's fall we sinned all." If, however, it may be a.s.sumed, that all agree on this point, it is the simple and the great question at issue. The slave States say, that is _their_ business; and the Abolitionists say, it is _ours_. This is the _contest_--the question _to be tried_.

And one of the apologies of the Abolitionists, for interference in this concern, is, that the whole nation is involved in the responsibility. Let us see, whether this be true. It must be admitted, that it requires some study to comprehend the nature of our political fabric, as a nation, with the relations of its parts to each other, and to the Unity; but still, like a mathematical problem, though obscure and misty to the intellect, before it is laid down and demonstrated step by step, it is afterwards no less clear and satisfactory. It happens, that this task has already been done in a former chapter, and requires only to be restated here. The great principle, and its whole scope, are laid down before the eye, in the tenth Article of the Federal Const.i.tution.[7] By this rule, the respective States are declared possessed, by original right, of all independent and sovereign powers, not "delegated or prohibited" by the Federal Const.i.tution. In these limited attributes of sovereignty, therefore, they are placed precisely on the footing of all other independent States and Nations; and as the inst.i.tution of slavery, and all legislation over it, is one of these "reserved" powers, it follows, that all its responsibility devolves on those States, in which it exists, and is maintained. It is impossible it should extend any farther, from the nature of the compact. It is a simple proposition, and may be understood by any body, by a child, that I cannot be responsible for that which the laws of society forbid me to meddle with; and this is precisely the proposition which sets forth and limits the responsibility of slavery in the United States. The Union was formed on these conditions, and in an exigency under which the parties were forced to combine for common good, with mutual concessions thus specified, in the same manner as a society of any individual persons is formed by mutual compact and mutual concession, and the responsibility of every member is limited by the line thus marked out. As he is not permitted to trespa.s.s on the rights secured to others, he cannot be held responsible for any thing that would demand such a trespa.s.s. If the rights thus secured are invaded, or violated, the administration of justice does not devolve on individual members of the community, or on any combination not provided for by law, but on the const.i.tuted and public authorities. Even though there be manifest injustice for which the law does not provide a remedy, or injustice sanctioned by law, the same principle applies, and the evil can be redressed only by a const.i.tutional legislation.

[Footnote 7: Page 52.]

But, it is said, the principle of slavery is incorporated and sanctioned in the Federal Const.i.tution; and we are all at least so far responsible. This, surely, will not be urged by Abolitionists, who have formally and publicly declared, by their own mode of legislation, as shown in the previous chapter, that this principle has ceased to exist, and is no longer binding. But suppose it does exist. It neither declares, nor sanctions, the _right_ of slavery _as such_: but simply interposes the authority of a principle, which applies equally to all the States, to enable them to maintain and secure their domestic inst.i.tutions, as established by their sovereign will--a principle, which may accidentally operate more in favour of one State, than of another, but which is equally important to all, and is habitually employed by all. The Government of the United States, therefore, is not responsible in this matter, politically considered; and therefore not responsible at all, as it exists only as a political inst.i.tution.

All these public relations are political, and can involve no other responsibility than that which is prescribed by the laws of the social state, as it exists. The relation of the master to the slave involves a responsibility which applies to private conscience, and the master must answer for it. So also the relation of the master to that political commonwealth which maintains slavery; and he must answer for that, to the extent of his political influence and relations. And so with every member of such a commonwealth; but farther than this, he cannot be held to account. This, we think, is the legitimate domain of conscience, and the limit of responsibility, in regard to this subject.

But, it will yet be said, that the Government of the United States is the public guardian of slavery, by the force and habitual application of the fourth article of the Federal Const.i.tution; and therefore, all the citizens of the Republic are involved in this responsibility, and consequently have a right to concern themselves about it.

Notwithstanding, it cannot be denied, that the Federal compact bars this claim; and the Christian's conscience might find its salvo in the Scripture which saith--"He shall abide in the Tabernacle and holy hill of the Lord, who sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." In the day of trial, our fathers swore to this compact, and bound their children in the covenant, if we accept the inheritance; if not, then we have no voice in the matter. But, we think, the political pledge of the general Government to maintain the domestic inst.i.tutions of the several States, in case of need, so far as they do not interfere with the prerogatives "delegated," or those "prohibited," does not involve a responsibility for the _character_ of those inst.i.tutions--not at all.

The _Union_ is admitted to have been indispensible to our National Independence, and the slave States came into it on the condition, that the inst.i.tution of slavery should not be disturbed, and that it should be maintained in the way the Federal Const.i.tution prescribes. Whether slavery was right or wrong in itself, or how long it should be maintained, were questions never submitted; but were left among the "reserved" rights. The Union never had any responsibility in the existence of slavery; it never a.s.sumed any; it has never had any whatever; it has only covenanted to protect the sovereign rights of the slave States, as it has the sovereign rights of all other States, leaving to them the sovereign control over their own domestic inst.i.tutions, without a.s.suming any one item of responsibility in regard to their character. The principle which forbids the interference of the Union, absolves it from responsibility.

But still the Abolitionist holds his ground, as a religionist, and declares, that he is bound to have a care for all his fellow creatures, and to help them, wherever he sees them laboring under any evils, physical or moral, or any wrongs social or political. So far as his benevolence extends to those who suffer under social and political wrongs, if they happen to be beyond the limits of his own Commonwealth, we can only give him a piece of advice, which he may use or not, at his own discretion, viz. that, till the world gets to be in a more favorable state for the range of his sympathies, as a religionist claiming to carry his religion into politics by force, he had better be content with the wisdom of Moses, who, as it would seem, saw fit, not only to tolerate, but to _legalize_, slavery--for whatever may be said of _different forms_, it cannot be denied that the _principle_ was there. Or, with the wisdom of the Apostle Paul, who, instead of interfering with the political fabrics of his time, in regard to this as well as other matters, sent back Onesimus, a runaway slave, thereby recognizing the legal claim of his master, Philemon, with such messages as these: "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that to my account.... Whom I would have _retained_ ... but _without thy mind_ would I do nothing.... Though I might be much bold in Christ to _enjoin_ thee that which is convenient, yet for love's sake I rather _beseech_ thee." Or, with the wisdom of the Apostle Peter, who said: "Servants, be subject to your Masters with all fear--not only to the _good_ and _gentle_, but to the _froward_. And what glory is it, if, when ye shall be buffetted for your faults, ye take it patiently; but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable to G.o.d." It is also written by "such an one as Paul, the aged: Let as many servants as are _under the yoke_, count their own Masters worthy of all honor, that the name of G.o.d and his doctrines be not blasphemed, &c. _These things_," saith he to Timothy, "_teach_ and _exhort_." For, we think, the Abolitionist would be much better employed in imitating these ill.u.s.trious examples, than by inculcating sedition, and stirring up insurrection. Or, if this should not suit his taste, then we would advise him by all means, to let the politics of foreign States alone, as it is a delicate and dangerous business, not as yet tolerated by the actual state of society. If he thinks so, he may rely upon it, he has made a mistake.

If, however, he insists on being thus occupied, and since his labors are not well received in the slave holding States of America, and seem likely to do more hurt than good, we would advise him to "shake off the dust off his feet against them," and turn to another field, and still _more_ remote, as he likes distant objects. If he would do the greatest amount of good, and since he is resolved to have a _foreign_ field, let him try where the evil exists in more aggravated forms. For there is actually less slavery in the United States, in proportion to the population, and the whole of it in a milder form, than in any other part of the world, civilized or uncivilized. For what is the _name_ of a thing, apart from its essential attributes? Slavery, fairly defined, is the unequal and unjust depression of man in relation to his fellow man, as the result of an artificial state of society, which has been erected, and is maintained for the advantage of the few, and to the disadvantage of the many. The degree of depression, and the amount of _oppression_, are accidental. Both are greater in any other part of the world that can be named, beyond the bounds of the United States, than in the slave States of the South--if, perhaps, we except the North American British Provinces--now being invaded on Abolition principles.

If the Abolitionists are resolved to interfere with the domestic condition of other States for the relief of the oppressed, and cannot otherwise satisfy their consciences, let them go to England, to Ireland, and to the British manufactories. We a.s.sure them, they will find work enough there, and enough of slavery too, as that particular form of evil is especially to their taste. Let them go to the Continent of Europe, and they will find enough of it any where in that field--more especially in Italy, in Spain and Portugal, in Hungary, in Poland, and above all, in Russia. Let them go to the tribes and nations that border on the sh.o.r.es of the Mediterranean; let them penetrate into Northern, Southern, and Eastern Asia; it is all a ripe field for their sickle, or if they like it better, for their sword--for it will no doubt soon come to that. Let them go to Africa--which their sympathies would naturally lead them to first--and there, independent of the temptations and effects of the slave traffic, as all travellers inform us, they will find slavery in such amount, and in forms of such horrid and murderous cruelty, as to show the fields of its abode in the Southern States a paradise in comparison. There they will see, that it is better to be a slave in America, than a free man in Africa, without justifying slavery; and that the best conditions of African barbarism could never be envied by the worst of American slavery, if both were equally well known to the parties, having their option between the two. There they might learn, that G.o.d, in his high and inscrutable providence, can bring good out of evil, and that, by the lights of American civilization, and the blessings of American Christianity, thrown out upon Africa from these sh.o.r.es, that long suffering, abused, and "pealed" race, may yet hope to receive some indemnification for their bleeding wrongs.

But do the Abolitionists reply, "that if we enter on the fields of Europe, or of any other countries, for political action, by any efficient force, to rescue the oppressed, we shall lose our heads."

That, indeed, may be a wise thought. Or, "if we attempt it by secret operations, and by emissions of the press, clandestinely introduced, we shall embroil our country in a foreign war." There is little doubt of that. Or, "if we organize a political machinery at home, industriously occupying years of preparation for descent, waiting for an opportunity, and it is known that our force is likely to tell with effect, when the time of aggressive action shall arrive, it will produce the same result, unless our own Government shall interpose, and suppress our movement." This, too, is doubtless a fair conclusion.

But, let it be remembered, that a foreign war is infinitely less to be dreaded, than a domestic and civil one; and that it is no less certain, if the Abolition movement is not suppressed, we must have the last. The cases are parallel: as a foreign Nation could not endure such interference, neither can the slave States of the South. There is as valid and justifiable a right of interference in one case, as in the other, and an equal provocation for resort to arms, if the General Government should not interpose its authority, and arrest the movement.

CHAPTER X.

THE ROMANCE OF ABOLITIONISM.

We live in an age of romantic sympathy and religious sentimentalism.

There is a charity that prefers a remote object, to one that is near.

A blind beggar, with every appearance of want and wretchedness, sits daily by the way side, to ask alms. Floods of population swim along, and now and then he gets a penny; but no body stops to ask him of his misery, or sympathize with his woes. He is a solitary, uncheered being during the day, in the midst of a busy, moving, and apparently happy world; and as night comes on, he feels his way to his wretched hovel, if he has one, and lies down in rags and filth, to sleep as he can. He may, or may not, have some one to comfort him there; but the world never asks. In every crowded population there are hundreds of poor and wretched beings, whose wants are fruitful of sorrow, and whose pains are without relief. They live in misery, and die without comfort; and that, too, while surrounded with an affluence that knows not how to dissipate its treasures. The sound of the light steps of the happy is heard in the street, but they enter not the uninviting abode to inquire into the wants of its tenants; the carriages of the wealthy roll onward; but the suffering poor, so near at hand, are not remembered. Even if you apply to the public in their behalf, you will chance to receive for answer, "they are worthy of their doom, and are only reaping the wages of their sins. We have known them well, and generally speaking, there is little merit, and a slender reward, in relieving such objects."