Produced by Charlene Taylor, Martin Pettit and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)






THE WAY TO ABOLISH SLAVERY.

BY CHARLES STEARNS,

AUTHOR OF

"FACTS IN THE LIFE OF GEN. TAYLOR, &C.," "TAYLOR,
CASS AND VAN BUREN COMPARED," AND "ENCROACHMENTS
OF THE SLAVE-POWER UPON THE RIGHTS
OF THE NORTH."

BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.
1849.

FOR SALE BY BELA MARSH, NO. 25 CORNHILL.




INTRODUCTION.


After the flood of light respecting the evils of the execrable system of
chattel Slavery, thrown upon the minds of the community by eighteen
years of Anti-Slavery preaching; it would seem almost a work of
supererogation to attempt to cast any more light upon the subject;
therefore in this work, nothing will be said in reference to this part
of the subject; but every effort will be made to convince the reader of
the efficacy of the remedy here proposed.

It will be necessary to say at the commencement of this work, that the
author is no politician, and does not write for party purposes; neither
is he the agent, or the organ of any Anti-Slavery society, but writes on
his own authority, and that of truth; being responsible to no man for
what he shall assert.

My object is to present to the public mind, what I deem to be the only
true and effectual remedy for the terrible disease of Slavery. If in
doing this, you are condemned, reader, judge not hastily that I am
wrong; but give me a candid and impartial hearing. In the language of
the apostle, "prove all things, and hold fast that which is good."

I am not a disunionist, from any wish to see anarchy casting its direful
shade over our land; but from a sincere desire to prevent "confusion
worse confounded" from reigning in our midst, as most assuredly will be
the case if Slavery exists many years longer. Let us then "give the
pull, the long pull, and the pull altogether," and drag this terrific
monster from his hiding place between the walls of the sanctuary, and
the halls of legislation, giving him no rest, until he flees from earth,
back to perdition from whence he sprang.

THE AUTHOR.




THE WAY TO ABOLISH SLAVERY.


Slavery is the medium through which the corrupt passions of men flow
with resistless power. Beneath its influence every plant of virtue
sickens and dies. Its putrid form taints the air which we breathe, and
exhales all manner of foul odors, which render it so obnoxious to truth
and purity, that these angels would speedily end its existence, if it
were not for the support it derives from other sources than itself.
Although coarse and brawny in its outward appearance, yet it is within
full of disease; and nothing but continual doses of medicine enable it
to present the appearance of life. It is said that a celebrated
magnetiser, once preserved a dead body from putrefaction for a long
time, by the power of magnetism. At length he withdrew the magnetising
power, and the body instantly crumbled to atoms. Thus with Slavery;
withdraw the enchantments from it, which priests, politicians, and
speculators have thrown around it, and it expires of its own corruption.
It lives only by this outward support, just as the virtue of some men is
caused only by their being paid or praised for it. Apply, then, the
finger of truth to its gigantic form; let but the mighty arm of
righteousness lay hold of these sustaining influences, and sweep them
from it; and it will fall as quickly as a huge statue would, if the
pedestal on which it stands should be removed from under it.

Slavery, to be sure, reaches mountain high, towering over all other
eminences in this nation; far above the highest steeple, or State-house
cupola, (church and State;) yet tall and commanding as it is, it shall
be laid lowly in the dust, if but truth can reach the props and guards
which keep it alive. Herculean though it may be in strength, it shall
then become powerless and impotent; the life that is in it being like
the light of the moon, not its own, but derived from a source
independent of itself.

What then are the props of Slavery? They may be divided into two
classes, political, and religious ones; or in other words, both church
and state may be regarded as sustaining the dreadful system. It is
recorded in history, that at one entrance to a certain island there was
stationed an immense brazen statue astride the water which lay before
the island; and that there was no ingress to the city, except by sailing
betwixt the legs of this statue, each foot of which rested on a
promontory of the island. Imagine, then, the great giant Slavery
standing with one foot on the American Church, and the other on the
Union, requiring all wishing to enter the port of popularity and renown,
to run this gauntlet, and you have a faint idea of Slavery. It plants
its right foot firmly on the government of the United States, and
receives its principal support from that; but to make its foothold firm
and sure, it extends its left foot to the Church, and there finds
additional support. Without these two props, it cannot exist a moment.

But let us see if it is true that it exists by the power of these two
institutions. 1st. Does the church give it any support? We would bring
no railing accusations against the church; all we wish to know is, does
it render any support to Slavery? It will not be questioned, that in the
slave-holding States Slavery is sanctioned by the church. Every one
knows that slave-holding is no disqualification for church membership,
throughout the entire South. Very few ministers refuse to hold Slaves,
and neither ministers nor church members are ever censured for the act.
The author has resided several years in two Slave States, and knows this
to be the fact. He travelled and preached constantly, and was therefore
in the families of a large number of religious people; and he never knew
of a case where slave-holding was spoken of as rendering a man unfit for
church membership. He was at many revivals of religion, and never knew a
word said to any of the converts about giving up their Slaves, except
what he said himself. Slave-holding was considered no more inconsistent
with Christianity, than hiring servants is at the North. No man dreamed
of giving up his Slaves because of his conversion. Slave-holders were
the most prominent men in the churches; elders, deacons, class-leaders,
stewards, and ministers. Of course if the church consider it right, the
people generally will; for who ever heard of a purer public sentiment,
than what the church approves of. Streams never rise higher than their
fountains; and, of course, as the fountain of morals in any community is
always its religion, never than the religion of that country. It is idle
to expect the community to be better than its religious teachers;
therefore such teachers are always regarded as more pure than the mass
of the people. And the very idea of a church, is a company of people
professing more purity than others; of course whatever sin is practised
in accordance with the will of the church, will be by the rest of the
community. If adultery was considered no disqualification for church
membership, how long would it be before the land would be full of
adulterers? It is plain that whatever sin takes refuge in the bosom of
the church, will be practised by the world; therefore all attempts to
correct any great evil are useless, as long as the church upholds them,
and at the same time possesses any power. Take, for instance,
intemperance. What a mighty argument it was in opposition to temperance,
that church members made, sold and drank rum? And if this practice was
followed universally by church members now, as it once was, what hope
would there be of the progress of the temperance enterprise? As Christ
says, "if the light that is in the world be darkness, how great is that
darkness." The church lays claim to being the representation of
Christianity, the embodiment of virtue. It says, "we are holy and
inspired; if you speak against us you blaspheme God, for we are his
children."

Then, of course, if it upholds Slavery, it says that it is a good and
divine institution; perfectly adapted to promote the welfare of mankind.
If the church forbade the practice of slave-holding, as it does those of
drunkenness, adultery, theft and murder, and excommunicated those
practising it, as it does those guilty of the above sins, the case would
be far different, even if its members were in the habit secretly of
practising it. If it even preached against Slavery, it would be a
different matter; but instead of that, we have ministers justifying it
from the Bible, and exhorting Slaves to obey their masters, because God
requires it, and threatening them with hell, if they disobey them. Then
we have the spectacle of a large church at the South, seceding from its
northern brethren, because the latter did not like to have a bishop hold
Slaves! They would not remain in connection with a church at all opposed
to Slavery.

But all this you may say does not apply to the northern churches. Well,
if the northern churches countenance the southern in slave-holding, it
certainly does. If they recognize them as Christian churches, receive
their ministers as Christian ministers, and forbear reproving them for
their sins, then is the northern church guilty of upholding Slavery. And
it gives a double sanction to it; for it says we believe Slavery is not
incompatible with Christian character; and we have been brought up away
from its influence. It does more to support the vile system, than even
southern churches themselves; for southerners expect those brought up
under the influence of Slavery, will think it lawful; but when they see
churches living away from its place of existence, countenancing it and
fellowshipping it, they conclude at once it cannot be wrong. Why the
churches of the North should countenance it, what motive they have in so
doing, is not for us to say now. The great and appalling fact stands out
before the world, that there is scarcely a church throughout the whole
of the free North, but what is in some way in fellowship with Slavery.
If they do not fellowship southern churches, they do northern churches,
which give the right hand of fellowship to southern ones. And where is
the church at the North, the members of which are all out-spoken
Abolitionists? Is there scarcely a church where "no union with
slave-holders" is made a test of admission? We have never heard of but
one, and that the church of the Covenanters in Pennsylvania. To be sure,
the Wesleyans will not recognise the southern churches, as Christians;
but they will fellowship those that do; exchange with their ministers,
and receive their members, and more than all, allow their members to
vote for slave-holders, even for Gen. Taylor! Certainly, no church can
be Anti-Slavery which has members who voted for that king of southern
slave-holders! That this is true, witness the case of Seth Sprague, of
Duxbury, who is a Wesleyan, and made almost the first speech in favor of
Gen. Taylor made in the State. But all our churches contain such men,
and certainly are upholding Slavery. Witness the great number of
ministers in this State, who voted for Gen. Taylor. Drs. of Divinity, as
well as those less honorable; and some illuminated their houses in honor
of his election, as in the case of Dr. E., of Salem. Others preached
sermons in favor of the act, as in the case of Dr. S., of North
Brookfield. Probably there is scarcely a church throughout New England,
all the members of which, who voted at all, voted against the extension
of Slavery.

Before proceeding to comment upon the guilt of the church, in this
respect, let us for one moment consider the terrible situation of the
poor Slave, as hurried from his family, he is transferred to the
chain-gang of a negro driver, to be transported to California, or New
Mexico. "Husband, where are you going?" plaintively enquires the
sorrow-stricken wife, as he is knocked off upon the auction block to the
highest bidder, and returns to bid farewell to his companion. "Wife, I
know not! Farewell! farewell!" responds the sobbing husband; and away he
is hurried from her presence, and perhaps beaten for speaking to his
wife. An eye witness of these scenes, and one who has himself been
separated from his mother, says he has known the driver beat with sticks
the husband and wife as they clung around each other's necks, just
before parting. The author at one time, while travelling in Kentucky,
met a Slave who seemed very much dejected. He stopped and asked him what
the matter was. "Oh," said he, "I have been to take leave of my wife,
who has just been sent off to Missouri to live with my young mistress,
lately married, and I never expect to see her again, as long as I live!"

What must be the humanity of these persons who cannot feel for the poor
Slave in such conditions as these? No one denies that these things
continually happen at the South; and yet but little sympathy is excited
in consequence. The hearts of the people have become as hard as adamant.
Their sensibilities are totally blunted. They are destitute of all
feeling.

What a picture has just been presented before this nation! A new
territory, free from Slavery, demands protection from its awful curse. A
large majority of all the people in the United States, treat this prayer
with contempt, and virtually say it shall not be granted by voting for
candidates for the presidency, known to be in favor of its admission
there. Here the mangled victims of Slavery, have these 50 years, lain
bleeding upon the plantations of the South, loudly calling upon our
government to desist from protecting their cruel masters; but their
cries have been stifled by the clamor of noisy politicians, who have
talked of the necessity of preserving our glorious Union, at whatever
expense to the crushed and manacled Slave.

A new era seemed about to commence. The question is obtruded upon the
whole country, and becomes the pivot upon which the presidential
election is made to turn. Shall these cries of three millions of Slaves
be made louder and more acute, or shall a barrier be interposed between
them, and all increase of their sufferings? Shall Mexico be the slough
of despondency, into whose terrible mire shall be cast the gasping
Slave, and a new mart be opened for the gratification of men who examine
the bodies of their victims, as a man does a horse he is about to
purchase, and women as well as men; or shall a sword of cherubic power,
guard all entrance to this country, as the angel's sword protected the
garden of Eden?

This was the question brought before the people of this country at the
last election, and how was it decided? Let history shrink back
astonished as she pens the degrading fact, that the whole country was
rocked with emotion, and reeled with the mighty efforts put forth, to
place a man in the presidential chair known to be in favor of this
extension. It needs no argument to prove the turpitude of such a people.
Their guilt is self-evident, their hypocrisy glaring. It stares all the
world in its face, like the lurid flames of hell, ascending from their
subterranean enclosure. Guilt, did we say? There are no terms in the
English language sufficiently strong to describe the wickedness of this
transaction; and yet the _church participated in it_. No warning voice
was heard from her public bodies arousing her members to opposition to
this direful deed. On the contrary, many of her ministers volunteered to
help forward the accursed transaction. The piety of Gen. Taylor was
vouched for by reverend fathers in God; and saints of the most high,
were found bowing in reverential adoration before this Juggernaut. Few
and far between were the voices of single ministers, in opposition to
this course; and now that the deed is done, who exclaims against it? Who
comes out from the churches where these guilty men rule? Who refuses to
hear ministers preach or pray who voted for Gen. Taylor? What society
has yet dismissed its minister for so doing? What church has passed
resolutions in opposition to the recognition of such men as Christian
ministers? Why, a highway robber has as good a claim to the character of
a Christian minister, as one has who voted for Gen. Taylor.

We have yet to learn of the first church ejecting a member for this
flagitious transaction; and yet voting for Taylor is as much worse than
common stealing, as a man is of more value than a beast or a dollar. By
voting for a slave-holding warrior, you say that Slavery is right,
reputable, and worthy of praise. Instead of frowning upon the
slave-holder, as you would upon the horse-thief, you elevate him to the
highest office in your gift; thus doing all in your power to render
slave-holding honorable. It is just as great a crime to aid in elevating
a slave-holder to the presidency, as it is to hold Slaves. It does
_more_ to uphold Slavery; for it says we will heap the highest honors of
society upon slave-holders. We will place them where all their influence
can be used to strengthen the system; and it serves to shut the mouths
of Anti-Slavery men; for it will not do to cry out against slave-holders
as robbers, when our President is a slave-holder.

Besides this, a very large portion of the church cast their votes for a
man pledged to go for the extension of Slavery, although not nominally a
slave-holder. Gen. Cass justified the extension of Slavery, and argued
in favor of the unconstitutionality of prohibiting its extension; and
thousands of votes were cast for him, by church members. To their praise
be it said, many church members and ministers refused to vote for either
of these men; but what action have they taken in their churches in
reference to those who did? If such acts as these are to be passed
over, in silence, then is the _sanction of the church_ given to
_slave-holding_, and the _extension of Slavery_. Recollect that the
question was not, should Slavery exist at all? On that question there
_might_ have been some excuse for inaction; but it was should it be
_extended_ over a territory nearly half as large as the whole of the
United States? It would seem as if Christians could not have hesitated a
moment on this point; as if the whole host of God's elect, as the church
claims to be, would have been marshalled in battle array against the
myrmidons of the slave-power. But no, a death like silence pervades the
entire church upon this point. It matters not to her whether Slavery
"covers the earth, as the waters cover the sea," or not. Her "mission is
to let it alone." To cry out against gambling, whoredom, Sabbath
breaking, and such unpopular sins, is her duty; but to advance before
public opinion, and create a purer one, is no part of her work. She is
so engaged in saving souls, she has no time to attend to the bodies of
the people. But seriously, is it not a terrible state of things when the
churches of our land are asleep over such a dreadful evil? When the
voice of the watchman is but faintly heard, if at all, in rebuke of the
most heaven daring of crimes? We appeal to all who are in the habit of
attending church. Does your minister every Sunday, exclaim against the
horrid enormities of extending Slavery, to say nothing of it where it
now is? Do you hear from his lips as severe denunciations of those
engaged in this wicked business, as fell from the lips of Jesus Christ,
as he reproved the oppressors of his day? No, you do not, only
occasionally. It is considered a rare instance of courage if a minister
dares to rebuke his people for having voted for Gen. Taylor?

What, then, is to be done in the matter? That the church at the North
upholds Slavery can no longer be denied, for she goes farther, and
upholds its extension; yea, farther yet, she countenances _fighting_
for its increased power, murdering men, women and children, that it may
exist, where it could not without this fighting. O, shame on a church
having in its folds a single member who cast a vote for that most wicked
of men--Gen. Zachary Taylor! But declamation will avail nothing without
action. We propose a remedy for all this wickedness. We call upon all
true friends of the Slave to leave those churches where ministers or
members voted for Taylor or Cass. Further, we invite you all to make a
critical examination of your relations to Southern slave-holding
churches, and see if your associations, your conferences, or your
conventions, are not in league with slave-holders, or with those who are
allied with them. If you belong to a church not having a single member
in it who voted for Taylor or Cass; yet if your church fellowships those
churches having such members, are you not a pro-slavery church? To
fellowship the churches who retain pro-slavery voters, is to say that
such voting is not wrong. But if you cut loose from all such relations,
do you not fellowship northern churches, who have slave-holders
themselves in their bounds; for instance the northern Methodist Church,
having still slave-holding members?

But if you are clear from all such connections, there is still another
point we beg leave to submit to your serious consideration, which brings
us to the second great pillar the statue of Slavery stands upon. You
have seen the influence given to the system by the church; now look at
the power given to it by the _Government_. This is the principal
foothold of the dreadful system. Destroy this prop, and Slavery falls;
but before advancing to this position in our argument, let us see for a
moment how Slavery is acknowledged by law; for it is in this relation we
are about to contemplate it.

The Government of the United States creates no Slaves; it only
recognises as lawful the Slavery existing in the several States, or to
use the words of the Constitution, "held to service or labor, under the
laws thereof." The _laws_ of the several slave-holding States are made
the standard for the general government's action upon this subject. No
quibble can possibly evade this, for it is not necessary to prove that a
runaway Slave justly owes service to his master, but only if he does,
under the _the laws of his master_. The master has made certain laws,
claiming his Slaves as absolute property; the Constitution says,
"persons owing service under these laws," shall be returned, thus making
the most complete provision for the support of the system. The laws of
the State in which the claimant lives, are the rule to go by, not the
feelings of the judge, respecting the abstract question of the
possibility of one human being owing compulsory service to another. It
is just as much a violation of his oath, for a judge to refuse to
deliver a Slave proved to be such, under the laws of the State, without
"a bill of sale from the Almighty," as the Vermont judge did, as it
would be to refuse to deliver the Slave _with_ the bill of sale from the
Almighty. If it is the bond that we contend for so strictly, as the Jew
did for the pound of flesh, we must abide by the bond, which says, not
if the _Almighty_ furnishes a bill of sale, shall the Slave be delivered
up; but if the _laws of the State_ say he is a Slave. The recent
decision of judge Edmonds in behalf of Belt, the most favorable one on
record, fully recognises this principle; and Belt owes his liberty not
so much to the humanity of the judge, as to the absence of positive
proof that the laws of Maryland uphold Slavery. A copy of the Slave laws
of Maryland was produced, but it only said published by authority, and
not by the authority of the legislature, therefore Belt was allowed to
go free. The omission of one word in a book, saved Belt from the jaws of
Slavery, more than any other thing. To be sure, it was proved that the
master did not take legal steps after the seizure of Belt, and therefore
had no right to him; but the main reason for his discharge was, not the
wrongfulness of delivering him up, not because God had given Lee no
_bill of sale_, but because a lawyer could not swear that a certain
book was the laws of Maryland!

From this decision there is no appeal, until a higher authority has
decided differently. All that a slave-hunter has to do, is merely to
bring an attested copy of the laws of the State, in which he lives, and
prove that in such a State he held the person claimed as his Slave, and
there is no redress for the panting fugitive. He _must be_ returned to
his former bondage, without any power to protect him from the punishment
his master may choose to inflict upon him in consequence of his escape.
Thus is Slavery legalized by our laws; and if we cannot expect a higher
standard of morality than what the church upholds, certainly we cannot
expect practices to cease, which the government pronounces lawful.
People are not generally so much in advance of their laws and religion,
as to refuse to perpetrate what those laws and that religion justify,
and pronounce honorable. Thus the whole influence of jurisprudence, and
church action, is thrown around Slavery. Is it any wonder, that it
exists in so much power, and now seeks to extend its sway over new
territory? What then is necessary to be done to remove this prop from
under the colossal statue of Slavery? Plainly, to repeal all laws
recognising its existence. Do this, and refuse to obey any of the claims
of the South in reference to this matter, and Slavery ceases as soon as
the earth would cease to turn upon its axis, if the Almighty should
remove his hand from the crank of the mighty wheel. Or to drop all
figure, as soon as the Slaves should arise and assert their liberty;
which would be almost instantly, if it were not for the North. We are so
hemmed in now by compromises and promises, that even in the act of
voting not to extend Slavery, we unconsciously pledge ourselves to
sustain it where it now exists.

But let us examine another point a few moments. What gives 250,000
slave-holders power to hold 3,000,000 of Slaves in bondage? Not the
power of non-slave-holders at the South, for they could not be relied
on, in case of an insurrection. They suffer so much now in consequence
of the degradation Slavery attaches to labor, and are so impoverished by
its influence, that few and faint would be the blows they would strike
in behalf of slave-holders; as a body they are envious of the
slave-holders, and would like to see him deprived of all his Slaves.
They gain nothing by the existence of Slavery, but on the contrary
suffer much; for the labor of Slaves is so cheap, that their services
are not demanded; and they are not respected as a general thing, except
in those sections of country where but a few slave-holders reside. What
motive have they to put down a Slave insurrection? There is not a man of
them but would be more independent than the present slave-holders, if
Slavery was abolished; for there is so much land lying idle at the
South, that the Slaves after emancipation would be under no necessity of
working for their former masters. It would not be with them as it is
with the free laborer of the North; for their power would be so great,
that they could take possession of the best plantations, and leave their
masters to look out for themselves; and the latter being unused to labor
would be miserably off, which would reduce them to a worse condition,
than that of the poor whites, who would immediately become the
aristocracy of the South. In fact, if an insurrection of the Slaves
should take place, there is not much doubt but it would be encouraged by
the non-slave-holders of the South. Who, then, give the 250,000
slave-holders of the South their power? Let the winds of heaven answer,
as they blow across the fertile fields of the South, and waft the scent
of the cotton, rice and sugar plantations, to the nostrils of the
money-loving northerners. Let the cargoes of bleached cottons and
handsome prints, slave-tools, hats, boots and shoes, whiskey, and all
other northern goods, as they sail into southern ports, testify. Let the
ships freighted with produce from one southern port to another, the
great carrying trade, for which our fathers bartered their virtue,
loudly respond. There goes not a vessel from the North to Savannah,
Charleston or New Orleans, but it carries within its timbers and on its
decks, proof to the slave-holder of northern readiness to sustain him in
his foul business. In proof of this, let me ask who voted for Taylor at
the recent election more than the great merchants of the North? Did not
capitalists universally cry out, "Great is Zachary Taylor!" Was not
Abbott Lawrence, the prince of northern manufacturers, loudest in his
professions of zeal for "Old Zach?" Go throughout our country, up and
down all its cities and villages, and enquire who in those places voted
for Taylor, and you will be told that the great manufacturers, the rich
merchants of those towns and cities did. That they poured out their
ill-gotten gains in behalf of Gen. Taylor's election; that the South
might be pleased, and northern industry protected! Perish the word
industry from the vocabulary of man, if this is the basis upon which it
rests. What! northern industry only protected by electing the greatest
of idlers to the presidential chair? Who feels less sympathy for
northern workingmen than the man who drives three hundred laborers to
their daily toil, with the crack of the whip sounding in their ears, and
who robs them of nearly all their earnings, and forces them to live in a
state of prostitution? Is such a man a friend to the rights of northern
laborers?

But it is these pretended friends of home industry, which means any
thing but their own industry, who stand pledged to support the South. It
is they who are so anxious to see Slavery extended, because they can
sell as, they think, a few more goods for the use of the newly imported
Slaves! Yes, they are ready, as one friend of the Slave has remarked,
"to annex themselves to perdition, if by so doing, they could sell
cotton cloth to its inhabitants for six cents a yard." They are
unwilling to have Slavery abolished, for that would open one of the
finest countries in the world, to the ingress of free laborers, who
could manufacture their own goods, and would not purchase so many of
Abbott Lawrence & Co., as they at present send to the South. But they
are short sighted even in this; for the abolition of Slavery would open
a market for many more goods than could be manufactured South, which
would enrich the North much more than her present losing trade with the
South does. They do not comprehend this problem, for if they did, the
Couriers, Daily Advertisers, and Atlases, would be filled to overflowing
with denunciations of Slavery, just as they were of the Mexican War,
when political capital could be made out of such denunciations. Then the
tariff must be upheld, or the North will go to ruin, and they hope to
obtain the aid of the South in this matter, by assisting them to sustain
Slavery. The great body of northern manufacturers, care as little for
the existence of Slavery, as they do for the sufferings of men perishing
on the scaffold, for crimes against law and order.

They are almost wholly selfish, as is evinced by the character of the
men they set up for office. They care not whether 3,000,000 of Slaves
clank their chains in their hearing or not, so long as the busy hum of
their cotton-mills at Lowell and Manchester, and the noise of their
trip-hammers in Pennsylvania, are heard to resound above these cries.
The music of silver dollars rattling in their vaults, as drawer after
drawer is deposited by their cashiers, is sufficiently beautiful to
them, to operate as an offset against the shrieks and wailings of the
Slaves. What though the Lord of Sabbaoth lends a listening ear to the
sobs of the bondmen, it matters not to them, as long as the gold clinks
in their chests. All heaven may cease its songs of joy, to listen to the
shrieks of the Slave; but worlds of Slaves might shriek and groan, until
the noise shook old earth from its foundations, and sounded in the ears
of saints like the sound of "many waters" to the apostle John; and
these men would not turn from the dull music of their water-wheels, or
the clatter of their spinning-jennies. Indeed, it is a question, whether
they would turn from their tables of discount, and their columns of bank
stock, if God himself should speak from heaven, and request sympathy
from them. Sympathy! they have none! Their hearts are made of silver and
gold, polished to an icy coldness. If the blood of the slave-driver's
lash should increase until it flowed over the entire South, and turned
to red the color of the element upon which their ships sailed; it would
not mar the harmony between them and the South, until it rusted the
bottom of their vessels, and rendered them unfit for the carrying trade.

To be sure all the people who vote aid these cotton lords in sustaining
Slavery; but let them pursue a different course; let the leaders of the
two great political parties of the North, adopt another principle than
that of subserviency to the slave-power, and the people would not long
object. The result of the last election has fully shown the willingness
of the people to adopt the watch-word of their party, whatever it may
be, and it would be arguing a great amount of villany on their part to
suppose, that they would refuse to follow them in the paths of
righteousness, when they clung so closely to them, as they took the most
conspicuous part of the broad road. Certainly the great body of the
Whigs and Democrats, would not refuse to travel towards heaven, if their
leaders should say so, when they have sprung with such alacrity to join
them in the road to hell. How it would be with the rank and file of the
Free Soil party we know not. As they have shown a readiness to burst
party bonds, these would not operate upon them so much; but charity
prompts us to believe, that if the leaders of this party were to propose
the measure of a secession from the Union, the Anti-Slavery feeling of
their followers would willingly respond to the call. It is then to the
leaders of both church and state, that the rebuke of Nathan to David
applies, "thou art the man." It is the prominent men in all parties who
are to blame for the existence of Slavery.

A word now respecting the abolition of the laws which uphold Slavery; or
in other words in regard to the amendment of the Constitution. If this
can be carried out without dissolving the Union, we should like to know
it; but how can it? What is it to alter the Constitution, but in fact to
dissolve the Union? The Constitution is the _bond_ of Union; the
instrument which binds the North and South together. How, then, can you
change it, in its important features, without, for the time being,
dissolving the Union between the North and South? Let us see. A proposal
is made to Congress for an alteration of the Constitution, in respect to
Slavery. That is, the North is tired of the bargain she made through her
fathers with the South, and wishes a new one. Of course, if this new
bargain is made, the old one must be declared no longer binding; and we
have virtually a dissolution of the Union, although a _re_-union may
have followed. This shows that the dissolution of the Union will not
necessarily create civil war, any more than the passage of any other law
by Congress.

The great question is, how shall this alteration of the Constitution be
brought about? Of course, as long as we assert that it is good enough
already, we shall not wish to change it; therefore we must first be
convinced of its wicked character, which we hope all our readers are
convinced of by this time; but as some of them may not be, we will dwell
awhile on this point. No intelligent man will deny that it was the
intention of our fathers to sustain Slavery. Mr. Lysander Spooner
himself admits it. Sufficient proof exists of this fact to satisfy every
reasonable mind. Almost all politicians admit it, certainly all honest
ones. No one doubts that our fathers meant to uphold Slavery, when they
adopted the Constitution; and the question now with us is, not so much
the technical meaning of the Constitution, as its real import. We know
that honesty always leads us to decide upon the meaning of an author, by
understanding the circumstances under which he wrote. For instance, if
an editor speaks of "fighting earnestly" in the approaching campaign; he
would be deemed a very dishonest man, who should assert from the
authority of this language, that the editor recommended physical
fighting, and was in favor of bloodshed; but he would be no more so, it
seems to us, than one who knowing what our fathers were debating about,
should contend that they did not mean Slaves, because they said "persons
held to service." Of course, being partners in the guilt of the
transaction, they did not wish to brand themselves with infamy, by
inserting the word Slaves, any more than the duellist is willing to term
himself a murderer, instead of "a gentleman of honor;" or a lewd woman a
harlot, instead of "a lady of pleasure."

Intoxication is alluded to, by its victims, in various genteel terms,
instead of the plain one--drunkenness; and robbing and stealing on the
ocean in time of war is termed by the mild name of privateering. So with
all villany. Robbers are only lightening the pockets of their victims;
thieves only picking up the crumbs of the rich; and slave-holders are
only masters; Slaves, "persons held to service," or "other persons," or
something else, to hide the shame of the guilty ones. Go to the South,
and you will never hear the word Slave spoken; but it is "my people,"
"my boy," "my girl," &c. If you go so strictly by names, you might never
know by living at the South, that they consider their servants Slaves.

What, then, did our fathers mean, by "other persons?" The clause reads
as follows:


     "Representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned * * by
     adding to the whole number of _free_ persons, including those bound
     to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
     three-fifths of all _other persons_."


Our enquiry is not what the Constitution can be made to mean, but what
is the natural and fair import of its language? Of course, we can
pervert the meaning of any instrument, and by false reasoning and wordy
controversy, make black appear white, and _vice versa_. When I say
"John, come to dinner," to a fair, impartial listener, my meaning would
appear plain; but to a technical quibbler, I might be made to be a great
tyrant. For instance, I assert authority. I utter a command. I do not
ask John to come to dinner, but I require him to come, and a long
argument might be entered into to prove my tyrannical nature, such as
that I was forcing John to eat whether he wished to or not; that I
required him to eat a good deal, a dinner, instead of a little, and
above all, that I was disposed to force him to _obey me_. By such
reasoning, the kindest of parents might be proved to be severe and
hardhearted. On the contrary, if I say "dinner is ready, John," the same
quibbler might accuse me of indifference to my child's welfare, that I
did not care whether he came or not, and so on.

Now in all these cases, that sterling quality, common sense, is to be
brought into requisition. When I promise to carry my friend to ride
to-morrow, unforeseen accidents are of course considered as an excuse
for the non-fulfilment of my promise; but Mr. Lysander Spooner, in
behalf of my friend, might enter an action in law against me; for there
are my words in writing, "I will take you to ride to-morrow;" but common
sense would excuse me, if my horse should be sick, or my carriage be
stolen. Mr. Spooner argues like an earnest man, to prove that these
expressions do not mean Slaves, because they cannot be proved to have
reference to such a class, by the exact meaning of the words. "The word
free is not the correlative of Slavery; for a variety of reasons," he
says. He thinks "all persons" mean aliens. Now, what an absurdity. Who
ever heard of three-fifths of the aliens in each State being added to
the naturalized citizens in making out the apportionment of
representatives? How many representatives have seats in Congress, in
consequence of aliens residing in their districts? Not one, and yet
twenty-five men are seated there, in consequence of Slaves residing in
their districts. It is a burning shame for a man to prostitute such
noble powers of thought as Mr. Spooner possesses, to such a silly and
contemptible mode of reasoning. Why, if his arguments are correct, all
poetry and figures of speech are wrong; all metaphorical language, and
personifications in writing are out of place; and nothing is left us but
plain, straight forward words, which have a precise meaning, and can
mean nothing else. If I say "the wind blows," I lie, for wind is an
action of something else, and, of course, it is absurd to talk of its
blowing. If I say "I am in pain," it is not true, for the pain is in me;
and if I talk of God's moving the world by his arm, it is false, for he
has no arm. If I say "the giant of Slavery stalks abroad, over our
land," it is false, for there is no such moving thing as Slavery, for
Slavery is merely the term applied to a particular act of a man; but who
accuses me of falsehood in speaking of these things? To put the
strictest literal construction upon every word of the Constitution,
would involve us in some of J. C. Calhoun's criticisms, such as _men_
not being born, and not being born _equal_, &c.

Let us follow Mr. Spooner's idea a little, in relation to free persons,
meaning naturalized citizens. Mr. Spooner says that all the State
Constitutions, at the time of the adoption of the U. S. Constitution,
used this word in no other sense than the one signified in the English
law, and of course that the U. S. Constitution used the word in that
sense only. This argument, if it proves anything, proves too much; and
we apprehend will operate fully as much against Mr. S.'s idea, as in
favor of it. According to this law, the word _free_, Mr. S. assures us,
means "persons possessing citizenship, or some other franchise or
peculiar privilege, as distinguished from aliens, and persons not
possessed of such franchise or privilege." Then the word free in this
instance, must mean only the opposite of aliens. Aliens are those not
entitled to vote, or to hold office. These are, I believe, the only
privileges which they are debarred from. Then as the word free, means
those possessing the privileges which aliens do not possess, it cannot
mean either women or children, for they do not possess either of these
privileges.

Thus, according to this definition, free persons are only voters and
apprentices, and "all other persons," are foreigners not naturalized,
and women and children. But Slaves do not possess, and never have
possessed these "peculiar privileges," always having been debarred from
the right of voting and holding office, and surely cannot rank as the
opposites of aliens, any more than women and children, and therefore
come under the head of "all other persons." If free persons are the
opposite of aliens, and aliens are those deprived of peculiar
privileges, then none can be free persons who do not possess these
privileges. But Slaves never have been known to possess them, therefore
they cannot be free persons. Free persons, Mr. Spooner says, are those
possessing some franchise or privilege which aliens do not. Now, in the
name of common sense, we ask what privileges have Slaves ever possessed,
which aliens do not? Let their scarred backs, gaping wounds, and broken
limbs answer. Slaves possessing privileges! and yet this is the
definition Mr. Spooner chooses to give to the word _free_: "Persons
possessing citizenship, or some other franchise or privilege, _not
possessed by aliens_."

But a few words from the original adopters of the Constitution will
settle this whole difficulty. Says Alexander Hamilton in the New York
convention:


     "The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a
     representation for three-fifths of the negroes. * * Without this
     indulgence no union could possibly have been formed."


In Virginia, Mr. Madison said:


     "Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess.
     At present, if any Slave elopes to any of those States where Slaves
     are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the
     States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this
     Constitution, 'no person held to service or labor in one State,
     under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence
     of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service,
     or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom
     such service or labor may be due.' This _clause was expressly
     inserted to enable owners of Slaves to reclaim them_. This is a
     better security than any that now exists."


Gen. Pinkney in the South Carolina convention, observed:


     "We have obtained a right to recover our Slaves in whatever part of
     America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before."


But the great question after all, is not what the Constitution says in
words, but what use is made of it? If it is a suitable one for a free
nation, it could not be capable of such an awful perversion as has been
made of it by the legislation of the country ever since its adoption,
Mr. Spooner's idea being correct. If it is Anti-Slavery, it is the first
Anti-Slavery document, and the only one, Calhoun &. Co. were ever known
to cherish and swear by. How remarkably keen-sighted must these wily
southerners be, not to detect the Anti-Slavery spirit of the
Constitution; and be hugging an abolition monster, when they fancy they
are pressing to their bosoms their own bill of rights to hold Slaves.
The southerners are not generally duped this way, and it is strange they
should be so much so, in this case. For our own part, the very fact that
the Constitution is valued so highly by the South, casts a shadow of
suspicion over it, and induces us to reject it as an Anti-Slavery
instrument. The South excludes even Sunday school books, tainted with
Anti-Slavery, and poems alluding to freedom, are hardly allowed a
circulation there; how strange then, that this great _magna charta_ of
human liberty should be so eulogised by them. The fact is, it suits them
well. They never have complained of its not being pro-slavery enough,
but have always rested satisfied with it, as their supporter and guide;
and yet northern Anti-Slavery men will talk of its being an Anti-Slavery
instrument. As well might the robber press to his bosom the precepts of
Jesus Christ, or the gambler and drunkard, works on morality, as the
slave-holder the Constitution, if he believed it Anti-Slavery.

We are aware of all that can be said in favor of independence of mind;
we would by no means wish to bind any man down to the opinions of the
past, or to say to any bold departure from established usages and
opinions, "You are wrong, because you differ from great and learned
men;" but still we would ask, if the Constitution is as Anti-Slavery as
Mr. Spooner asserts it to be, how happens it that such egregious
mistakes have been made concerning it? Can a real Anti-Slavery document
be so misconstrued, as to satisfy slave-holders, who dread the least
appearance of Anti-Slavery, as Satan does the truth of God? We will
grant for the sake of argument, that it does not directly sanction
Slavery; still we assert that it is a pro-slavery document for the
following reason. Anti-Slavery is a bold, outspoken, and unmistakable
thing. It is "known and read of all men, a living epistle," and can be
no more mistaken for pro-slavery, than the shining of the sun, for total
darkness. The difference between the two is so great, that they can
never be mistaken, the one for the other; or at least genuine
Anti-Slavery can never be regarded as pro-slavery to the full
satisfaction of slave-holders. We cast our eyes over the history of our
country, and from the commencement of its political existence until the
present time, we see Slavery justified by the Constitution. From the
President seated in the chair of State, to the representative of the
smallest village in the most insignificant State of the Union; from the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the petty
lawyer and esquire of the country village; from the wisest statesman,
to the most ignorant politician; from all who ever filled the
presidential chair, down to him who hopes to fill it soon; from
politicians of all parties, to men who abjure politics; we hear but one
voice respecting the character of the Constitution, excepting a few
persons like our friend Spooner, who seem to be disposed, for want of
better employment, to test the power of their minds in arguing its
Anti-Slavery character; as the philosophers of olden times, polished
their logical weapons in discussing such questions, as "Whether God
loved a possible unexisting angel, better than an existing insect;" or
"whether an angel in travelling from point to point, passed through the
intermediate points;" and "whether more than one can exist in the same
space, at the same moment." Those mighty enquiries were the intellectual
jousts and tournaments of the age of chivalry and knight errantry. Happy
will it be for us, if a moral Don Quixotism does not intrude itself into
our efforts for true reform. There is to us a great similarity between
that celebrated genius's battle with the wind-mill, and our friend's
long and laborious fight, to prove the Anti-Slavery character of the
Constitution; for after he has made good his arguments, and proved, to
the demonstration of all, that technically the Constitution does not
uphold Slavery, what good has he accomplished? He has indeed fought the
letter, and perhaps come off victorious; but does he invalidate its
_spirit_? He rests like the knight of olden time, upon the field of
chivalric combat, with a deep sense of having been engaged in mortal
warfare; he has fought hard and valiantly; but alas, his foe still
stands as powerful as ever, and not at all disposed to yield the field.

If the Constitution, as we sail across the waters of political life,
affords us no sure and certain guide, but is like a chart, which has
always misled the mariner, and instead of pointing the way to a city of
civilization and virtue, has directed him to the rocky shores of some
cannibal island, of what earthly use is it to us? We are sailing over a
troublesome ocean. Dark and ominous clouds hang over our vessel. The sky
begins to gather blackness. The red lightning shoots its lurid flashes
before our eyes. The thunder utters its dismal groan in our ears. The
waves begin to lash and foam against each other. Our course is
uncertain; but amid the gathering darkness, we discern a light-house,
dimly visible in the distance. We look upon our chart, not knowing where
we are. That describes our past route, and asserts that a light-house is
erected at the entrance of the harbor we wish to enter. We consult our
compass. It indeed agrees not with the delineations of the chart; but a
lawyer stands at our side and proves the correctness of the chart. We
accordingly steer our vessel towards the light, but to our dismay find
that it is but a false one, held out by miserable wreckers. Our chart
was wrong. It had misled us. We tacked about and escaped the snare. We
were not quite wrecked. Other seamen have experienced the same danger,
but we still cling to the chart. We refuse to cast it from us, and even
hearken to the suggestions of one who would tell us, that the _chart_ is
right enough. It is only our wrong way of reading it that has led us
into danger. We resume our voyage, confident that we shall this time
avoid all harm, for we now know what our chart means. Accordingly we
hoist all our sails, and proceed in confidence to our destined haven.
But a blacker cloud than before casts its dismal shadow over our vessel.
We can hardly discern the words of our chart. The efforts to correct its
false interpretations, have so marred its surface, that we can get no
light from it. At one moment it seems to direct us as we are now
sailing, then immediately in an almost totally opposite course, so that
bewildered and confused, we drop it entirely. We then look to the
unerring needle of our compass, and by its undeviating direction to the
star of hope to the mariner, as well as to the fugitive Slave, we are
able to keep from destruction, until a correct chart is procured--one
which admits of no evasion, nor contradiction, and by which we are able
to steer our course, until we reach the haven desired.

Thus with the Constitution. It has misled us until we were well nigh
wrecked on the shores of southern oppression. We now are not able to
discover what it does mean. Its literal meaning conflicts with its real
one. Shall we continue to trust the safety of the ship of State to such
a Constitution; one which has misdirected us long, and the meaning of
which all its interpreters have decided erroneously; or shall we abandon
it, and trust temporarily to the northern star of hope; to the light
which gleams from the hearts of those Anti-Slavery men, who are living
Anti-Slavery epistles, and true apostles of liberty; to the faithful
pointing of the needle of principle, as it ever inclines in an opposite
direction from the South, and thus preserve our liberties until a true
and safe Constitution can be adopted? Shall we trust to the dubious and
contradictory readings of a bit of parchment, composed by men like
ourselves; or shall we cut loose from all connexion with the dangerous
islands of human oppression lying southward, surrendering our profitable
trade with worse than cannibals; and launch our vessel upon the high sea
of freedom and liberty, away from the rocky shores of these islands of
death, steering with an undeviating course for some northern harbor,
where we may moor our vessel, and safely land our passengers? What is
there in the Constitution, after all, so much in favor of liberty, as to
satisfy the sons of freemen? It may, indeed, do for such freemen as
could fight for themselves, and yet bind chains upon their brethren; but
for those who wish to abjure all oppression it will not answer. The
constitutions of the true sons of liberty must be like their hearts,
polished brightly; and free from the _dust_ of pro-slavery, as well as
from its grosser filth.

But Constitution or no Constitution, it is human liberty we are
contending for. We cannot stop in our labors for the oppressed, to
prove the truthfulness of our enemies' weapons. We cannot step aside
amid the heat and dust of the conflict between light and darkness, to
read lessons upon legal technicalities. The cries of the bleeding
bondman sound too loudly in our ears, to allow us to deviate from our
course so much as to descend to arguing for the sanctity of human
constitutions. As we hear the noise of the wailings of the Slave, and
every breeze wafted from the South is laden with the cries of 3,000,000
of stricken ones, how can we care whether constitutions or churches, are
in the way of their emancipation, any more than a mother would care for
the flames around her, while endeavoring to rescue her child from a
burning dwelling? The fires of Slavery, tended by northern priests, and
fed by northern politicians, have burnt fiercely these many years,
scorching and blistering even those who stood by and watched over them;
the Slave's form has become almost a blackened corpse; the little ones
of a fond mother's love, are already gasping in the agonies of death;
and the shrieks of the living are reaching heaven, while the glaring
flames, have illuminated the firmament, like the flames of burning
Moscow; and shall we turn the streams of the water of life away from
these terrible flames, because forsooth sacred idols block the wheels of
our engines? No, let us rather flood them all, Slavery, pro-slavery,
churches and constitutions, with such a deluge of celestial waters, as
shall as effectually sweep from the land all these supporters of
Slavery, as Noah's flood, removed from the earth the sinners of his day.
If we would abolish Slavery, we must be destructionists. The word has
gone forth from the mouth of the Almighty, that Slavery shall be
destroyed. The advancing spirit of the age in which we live, has decreed
its overthrow; its fate is even now registered on the scroll of destiny,
which contains the end of all oppression, and we cannot thwart this
inevitable tendency. Reform has commenced to ride triumphantly across
our earth. Error is fleeing to its native dwellings, in the rocks and
caves of the earth; and truth with her holiday dress, is ascending the
throne of the hearts of mankind. Truth, too long hidden in the
fastnesses of the forests, almost afraid to exhibit its face, although
thickly veiled, is removing her garb of concealment; is stepping from
her wilderness retreat, and is boldly disputing the reign of the earth,
with the monsters who have so long ruled it, but to curse it, and reign
over it, but to mar its life. Henceforward, although many a long and
bloody battle is to be fought, between the enemies of God and man; yet
truth shall conquer. Man is arousing himself to noble deeds. Slavery,
that giant of despair, so long planted in the road pursued by the
pilgrims of truth, like Bunyan's gloomy giant of Doubting Castle, is
retreating from all its former strongholds. There is scarcely a country
within the bounds of this green earth, upon which the warm sun of heaven
sheds its benignant rays, but what is delivering itself from this foul
blot, _America only excepted_! Britons and French, Danes and Norwegians,
Russians and Turks, Seminole Indians and Mexicans, Algerines and
Tunisites, themselves, are all casting the execrable system from them,
as a reproach to their fair names; but young America, loudest in her
boasts of purity, freedom and piety, is lagging behind. She only, of all
the nations of the earth, seems unwilling to let the captive go free.
She who fought for her own liberty, the greatest of tyrants, almost the
only Pharoah of the earth!

But thanks to a few in her borders, even her proud heart begins to grow
faint; her limbs tremble slightly, and like the mariners in a storm, who
rush to the bottle to drink their fill for the last time, she is growing
desperate, and drinking more deeply than ever of the cup of Slavery, as
the last draught she can obtain from its noisome fountain.

Courage, friends of your race! Let the breath of the Almighty inspire
you, let his fiat strengthen you! Clothe yourselves in the panoply of
truth afresh; gird on the gospel armor anew, and make a bolder attack
than ever upon the Bastile of Slavery. This gloomy castle, which has so
long frowned upon our liberties, shall be razed to the ground, and its
pining inmates set free, to breathe the pure air of liberty.

Onward, friends of reform! Remember that "the battle is not to the
strong, nor the race to the swift only, but that stronger is the armor
of the Almighty, than all the weapons of your enemies." Gird on, not the
clumsy armor of King Saul, but the "breastplate of righteousness, the
helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit," the weapons which are
not "carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down the strong
holds of Satan."

One enquiry more remains for us to answer, which is, how shall we
dissolve the Union? It was asserted that if the Constitution could be
altered without dissolution, such a step would be unnecessary; but be it
remembered, that this event can never take place, until the South is
partly Anti-Slavery. The consent of the legislatures of three-fourths of
the several States, is necessary to accomplish this, and we leave it to
all candid persons to judge whether there is any hope of such consent
ever being given. The only remedy plainly is for us to abjure the
Constitution, proclaim ourselves free and independent of the South, and
organize a new and separate government at the North.

The steps necessary are briefly these. Let a convention of the people of
the Free States in favor of this movement be called; let the
legislatures of the several States withdraw their Representatives and
Senators from Congress, and let them meet together, and send delegates
to this general convention, as our fathers did to the convention where
the Declaration of Independence was adopted. Let them meet, and adopt a
Constitution, fix upon some conspicuous place for a seat of government,
Buffalo for instance, send home the constitution to be ratified by the
several northern States, and having thus formed their own government,
let them withdraw their portion of the Army and Navy from the South,
refuse to pay duties to the general government, and send a minister to
the southern government for the adjustment of all claims between the
two. Of course the South would be too busy in settling their own affairs
to disturb us for awhile; and if war come at last, it is easy to see who
would be victorious; the North with all her resources, or the South with
her 3,000,000 of Slaves in her borders. The whole territory north of
Mason and Dixon's line would then be open to the fleeing fugitive. No
Slave hunter would dare to venture on our soil, to recover his lost
victim. Thus Slave property would be useless in Virginia, Maryland,
Kentucky and Missouri, and probably those States would soon knock at our
doors for admission to our union. That would destroy the value of Slaves
still farther South, and eventually the whole country would become free.
But there is another view of it. The Slaves could then arise and demand
their freedom, and nought could prevent them from attaining it. "At the
first tap of the drum, there are 10,000 northern bayonets, ready to be
thrust into the bosoms of the Slaves, should they attempt an
insurrection," says Mr. Underwood of Kentucky, on the floor of Congress.
This danger would have vanished. No northern foe could then be ready to
strike down the Slave fighting for liberty, but millions would
sympathize with and assist him. Of course the people of the North must
be converted before this change can take place, but come it must. It is
the only remedy for Slavery that we have any confidence in, and there is
no time to be lost.

Come it must, did we say? It has already come in one sense. The people,
the bone and sinew of the country, are nearly ready for the change. The
workingmen of the North can perceive the disadvantage Slavery is to
them; how it degrades labor, and prevents the exaltation of the laborer;
but their leaders are wily, and will endeavor to persuade them, that
the Union is of more consequence than the abolition of Slavery. There
can be no question, if it were not for the leaders in church and state,
that a dissolution of the Union would be speedily brought about; but
these men, always the curses of society, stand in the way of all
improvement in this respect. If the people had been allowed to act
according to their own impulses, would Zachary Taylor have been elected
President of this nation? Witness the mighty gathering of freedom's
hosts at Buffalo; and see to what a pitch popular feeling arose, when
the nomination of men known to be thoroughly opposed to slavery
extension was made known! The noise of acclamation, arising from nearly
50,000 hearts, sounded throughout this nation, like a thunder-clap in
the ears of selfish and unprincipled leaders. No event ever produced
such a change in the policy of corrupt men, as this demonstration of the
first fruits of the spirit of freedom. Politicians as corrupt as
putridity itself, trembled and cried aloud for help. A universal howl of
despair went up from the hell of Slavery; but the faces of the sons of
freedom every where grew bright, as the countenance of the mother is lit
up with joy when she beholds her first-born child lying in her arms. If
such a mighty change took place as the result of this, the morning light
of freedom, what will be the howlings of the wicked, and the rejoicings
of the good, when the sun of emancipation, shall shine in all the
brightness of its meridian splendor, upon the dark and gloomy caverns of
Slavery, as will be the case when a similar convention shall nominate a
man for the presidency of the _Northern Union_?

If the faces of the southerners and their allies were elongated then,
what will be their length when the news of such a convention shall reach
their ears? We repeat it, the people are nearly ready for this change;
and only need the word of command from their leaders, to adopt as their
watchword, "No more union with slave-holders." But unprincipled leaders
never will be converted only by the people advancing before them;
therefore our work lies with the people.

Men and women of America, descendants of those pioneers of freedom, who
braved the vicissitudes of fortune in a new and wilderness land, that
liberty might be bestowed upon their children; sons and daughters of the
warriors of Lexington and Bunker Hill; children of the patriots of the
revolution; is there none of that spirit of liberty which actuated your
fathers, remaining within your hearts? Have the fires of freedom become
so nearly extinct in your breasts, as to leave no spark of liberty
there, which can be made to ignite the hearts of cotton which surround
you? Burns there no flame of indignation in your souls, at the
remembrance of the insults you have received at the hands of the South?
Say, ye children of proud and tyranny-hating parents, are ye sunk in
such abject submission to your oppressors, that no trampling under foot
your own and the Slave's rights, can arouse ye from your stupor? O, is
there no portion of that hatred of tyranny, which prompted your fathers
to say, "resistance to tyrants is obedience to God," left within your
bosoms? Then, indeed, are you recreant to the principles your fathers
struggled with adversity's power to establish, the base and degenerate
sons of noble and energetic sires.

One word more, and our task is finished. What is the South, that ye
should cling so closely to her? Is she not a polluting harlot, deceiving
you by her gay attire, and attempting to seduce you from the path of
virtue by her blandishments? Yea, has she not already beguiled your
simple hearts, and now that she has bewitched you, and obtained power
over you, seeking but to insult and cast contempt upon you? O, let us
break away from her polluting embraces, and return to virtue and
integrity. "Come out from her, my people, and be not partakers of her
sins, that ye receive not of her plagues."





End of Project Gutenberg's The Way to Abolish Slavery, by Charles Stearns