Viewing page 2 of 4

[[header]]
[[double line across page]]
26        THE LIBERATOR        FEBRUARY 17.
[[double line across page]]
[[/header]]

[[start column]]
From the Dedham Gazette.

DOUGLAS AND HIS PLOT AGAINST LIBERTY.

Of all our public men, S. A. Douglas, the Mississippi slaveholder and Illinois Senator, stands pre-eminently the most dangerous demagogue with which our country is cursed.  Possessing an intellect of the highest order, combined with inordinate ambition and an almost total absence of moral and political principle, he occupies the position, and presents the appearance, in the United States Senate, of a great moral carbuncle.  With a mendacity unparalleled in the history of American statesmen, and an effrontery that would bring a blush of shame upon the countenance of the most brazen-faced villain, this libel upon humanity, who disgraces a seat in the National Senate, deliberately proposes to trample the rights of millions in the dust, to violate the most sacred obligations and compacts between the two antagonistic sections of the country, and to establish slavery--that nightmare of our country--over a free territory, twelve times as large as the State of Ohio.  His arguments in the recent debates in Congress, in support of his diabolical scheme, are well worthy the source from whence they emanated, and would disgrace any previously known man-hater of which we have any history.  We can conceive of but one parallel instance, and that, the arguments of Satan to his satellites, in the Pandemonium which Milton painted, upon the question of extending the black domain of hell over the smiling heritage of the Son of God.  With similar objects (personal power at the expense of human wretchedness) we may well conceive of a similarity of arguments made use of by these two worthies, in defense of their equally infernal plots against God and humanity.  In one respect, we think Senator Douglas out-Satans Satan.  For with all his duplicity and presumptuous scoundrelism, we do not believe the father of liars urged as an argument for the extension of his authority that it was [[italics]] right [[/italics]]--that it would be conducive of more happiness and prosperity to the realm in questions, than the just authority of Heaven.  Here is where Mr. Douglas exceeds his great prototype--for he urges that slavery is RIGHT, and declares that he 'can see no reason why it should be restricted by arbitrary lines of demarcation,' and that as much right exists to establish slavery as to establish freedom, in any territory of the United States.

Such is a sample of the arguments advanced in the United States Senate--the 'model Republic'--which has for upwards of three-quarters of a century been a star of hope to an oppressed world, glimmering in its dark political horizon!  How will the republicans of the old world look upon this movement--this death-blow to human freedom--this utter extinguishment of the principles as well as the practice of Kossuth, Mazzini, and their compatriots, in the cause of down-trodden humanity?  Will such evidence of the emptiness of our pretensions to freedom aid them in their struggle for European emancipation? will it make them envious of our institutions and desirous of imitating them? Will they throw off a government which only robs them, to say the worst, or their civil and religious rights, for one which robs them of every right--civil, religious domestic, and every other which God bestowed upon men? Will not the despotisms of the earth, whose bowels are rumbling as with hidden earthquake fires, omens of revolution, death to tyranny, and the uprising of new-born freedom, take courage at this evidence that absolutism has able champions in this country, and that they are sowing the seeds of oppression broadcast over a vast territory?  How the Haynaus of Austria will rejoice at this consecration of a territory, twice as large as itself, to legalized [[italic]]woman[[/italic]]-whipping and baby-stealing!  And will not the Old Nicks (both of Russia and the 'empire down below') 'grin horribly a ghastly smile' in view of such huge acquisitions to their domains?  We think so; especially his sooty majesty, should a diplomatic intercourse ever become necessary between this country and the last named empire--and which, judging from the Nebraska bill, the fast assimilation of interests and institutions will soon demand--we suggest the name of Mr. Douglas as minister plenipotentiary to this monarch's court.  We will warrant he will be [[italic]]warmly[[/italic]] received.

We are aware that we are using strong language.  But we believe the case merits it.  In the annals of civilized or barbaric legislation, there cannot be found a more unblushing, bold, villainous project--one more self-evidently diabolical in its conception, and the manner in which it is intended to be passed through Congress--than this Nebraska bill.  We also believe the man who introduced it, and whose very existence seems connected with its passage, to be a villain of the deepest dye.  We do not say this because he is an opponent of Free Soilism, merely--or because he is a slaveholder: but because he has shown a desire, aye, an [[italic]]intention[[/italic]] of extinguishing every vestige of freedom in the country--and because he contends that slavery is [[italic]]right[[/italic]] both in theory and in practice--as much so, and even better, than the greatest boon of God--LIBERTY!  If Mr. Douglas is right in his position, then is humanity a humbug and Christianity a lie, and if Mr. Douglas is not right, and knows it, then is he an unmitigated scoundrel, and deserves the concentrated punishment of the universe!  With no excuse, save to perpetuate slavery for the sake of slavery, has Mr. Douglas introduced that bill.  He has not even the basest of all excuses, which the craven souls now animating the Northern [[italic]]dough[[/italic]], which the people of the North have sent to represent them in the councils of the nation, may urge in extenuation of their votes upon the question--that of a fear of administrative power.

It is possible, however, that Mr. Douglas is [[italic]]diving[[/italic]] for the Presidency--which bauble now lies at the [[italic]]bottom[[/italic]] of the 'lowest deep,' over which the putrid ocean of slavery rolls its death-crested waves.  Away down through this slime and filth, which no plummet can fathom, must the Presidential aspirant go.  Douglas made a daring dive, and is now paddling down, [[italic]]down[[/italic]], DOWN, beneath this 'stench of the world.'  But he'll find another there before him, and will lose his labor.  The present occupant of the Presidential chair is [[italic]]down there[[/italic]].  Like a polywog, he is at home in dirty water--the more of slavery.  He has been swimming in it from boyhood, and need fear no competition in his native element.

[[decorative line]]

MR. EVERETT ON THE NEBRASKA QUESTION.

On the 8th inst., Mr. Everett addressed the Senate on the subject of the Nebraska bill.  His speech is a very clear and candid statement of the whole case, and puts the matter into a shape perfectly intelligible to the common sense of common men.--His objections to the bill are manifold, and show pretty convincingly that it was concocted in a reckless and inconsiderate manner, without properly considering the grounds of the measure or its inevitable consequences.  A well-founded objection exists to the granting of territorial authorities of the first order to a tract of country like the one in question, which contains but 600 white inhabitants, and gave only 200 votes in electing a delegate to Congress, and yet according to the proposed bill is to be erected into [[italic]]two[[/italic]] territories, each with its Governor, Legislature, Courts, &c.!

Mr. Everett further objects to the bill as being in fact a repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which he holds to be binding upon the country at the present day, in testimony of which he appeals to the uniform tenor of legislation on the subject of slavery, new States and territories, &c., from that day to the present time, as well as to the unequivocal declaration of Mr. Webster respecting what was done in the case of Utah and New Mexico, indicating that the Missouri Compromise was irrepealable.  No such doctrine as that avowed by the Nebraska bill has ever been recognized, either by the legislation of the United States or the declared opinions of public men from that time till the introduction into the Senate of Mr. Douglas's bill.  Mr. Everett speaks of the compromise of 1850, which he pronounced to be the wisest and most effective measure that could have been adopted in that crisis of our national affairs.  This work he would not undo if he could--on the contrary, he would stand by it, because he believes the safety of the country requires it.  He regretted that any attempt had been made to repeal the Missouri Compromise, and deprecated every movement having a tendency hostile to the union of the States.  He held Northern opinions and was animated by Northern feelings on the general subject of slavery; he regarded slavery as an evil, but was tolerant of the opinions of those who differed from him.  He look-

[[end column]]
[[begin column]]

ed for the final extirpation of the evil, but was sensible that it could not be accomplished in a day, and he trusted that the evil would be ultimately turned to great good for Africa itself.--[[italic]]Boston Courier.[[/italic]]

[[double line across column]]

THE LIBERATOR.

[[decorative line]]

No Union with Slaveholders.

[[decorative line]]

BOSTON. FEBRUARY 17, 1854.

[[double line across column]]

HENRY WARD BEECHER'S LECTURE IN PARK ST. CHURCH.

DEAR GARRISON:

If you possessed that charity which believeth [[italic]]all[[/italic]] things, you must have rejoiced in the prospect of the new thing under the sun, with which we Bostonians have begun to be favored. The delivery of a course of lectures on Slavery, chiefly by clergymen, and those clergymen chiefly of, or connected with, the Beecher family, looks, far more than anything we have seen lately, as if the church were now really coming to the help of the Lord, in the small minority in which he has hitherto found himself.  If these lectures shall prove indeed to be [[italic]]Anti[[/italic]]-Slavery, the aid will be material, and most encouraging.

The first lecture was given by Henry Ward Beecher, in Park St. Church, and was heard most attentively by as large an audience as ever assembled in that spacious house.  It was brilliant, eloquent, full of wit, vigor and point, and frequently interrupted by hearty applause, notwithstanding the [[italic]]sh[[/italic]]-es of a portion of the audience, who seemed to think the solemnity of the place unduly infringed on.

The lecturer depicted with great power the characteristics of slavery, and its ruinous influences upon the prosperity of a country, specifying its relation to agriculture, manufactures, and the habits, manners, morals and religion of the people.  He also showed very ably how, after the first great mistake of admitting slavery into the federal Constitution, the slaveholders had constantly demanded one concession after another, and how their appetite had grown by what it fed on, so that the Missouri Compromise, the admission of Texas, the Mexican war and the Compromise of 1850 had only stimulated them now to make the most extensive and most impudent claim of all.  The Nebraska bill, however, he thought, would exhaust the patient long-suffering of the North.  The mask was now thrown off.  This last demand was too gross and bare-faced to be tolerated, and the North, which had unwillingly yielded these many times from love of country, and unwillingness to see the Union dissolved, would now arise in its might, refuse further concessions and make an effectual stand for freedom--as far as the new territories are concerned.  The lecturer closed by earnestly exhorting his audience, as the one practical point of action now required by the North in relation to slavery, to refuse to admit Nebraska and Kansas as slave States, and never to cease agitation of the subject until this point was gained.

Although this lecture gave abundant evidence of earnestness and zeal on the part of its author, its position in morals was of the same half-way character with the Free Soil movement in politics.  Like the U. S. Constitution, (established to secure and perpetuate liberty, yet making three distinct and important provisions for the benefit of slavery,) it abounded in self-contradictions.  With one breath inveighing against the enormous and inseparable vices of slavery, with the next it bestowed unqualified eulogy upon three men who lived and died slaveholders.  Yes, amazing as it may seem, the position of Washington, Jefferson, and Zachary Taylor towards slavery was referred to as eminently satisfactory.  Now, the lecturer blamed the want of sound religious principle, which had made so many concessions to the slave power, even from love of country, (which he represented as the predominating motive;) but anon he declared his readiness to abandon and discountenance all 'agitation,' and allow to slavery and the slave-trade undisturbed and indefinite continuance within their present limits, if they could be restrained from occupancy of any new territories.  He ridiculed unsparingly the common excuse for tolerating slavery, that it is not a sin 'per se,' and yet of necessity either took the same ground himself, or else pledged his word that his own clerical lips should be sealed to silence respecting that sin, if it should be confined to its present immense territorial limit.  Accustomed, as an orthodox minister, to preach intolerance of all [[italic]]sin[[/italic]], he not only admitted the 'right' of residents in the South to hold slaves, and even to take them into the Nebraska territory, but illustrated his position by a case in which he conceded the 'right' of a young man to practise drunkenness, gambling and debauchery, if they would take the risk, the one of rejection by a hoped-for wife, and the others of the non-admittance of Nebraska into the Union.

It is true that Mr. Beecher assumes, and doubtless expects, that the unprofitableness of slavery in a restricted territory would bring it speedily to an end.  But even if he can consent to sully his conscience by deliberate acquiescence in so gross a sin, even for twenty or thirty years, he should remember that profit is not the only incitement to slave-holding, and that great numbers of people will pay largely to gratify their lust, their ostentation, and their aristocratic pride.  Even putting the matter upon the footing of profit and loss alone, and assuming that with the present agricultural products of the South, slavery must come to an end in the time I have named, is Mr. Beecher so sure that no new article can be profitably raised from the soils exhausted by cotton, sugar and corn, or so sure that no cheap and easily-obtained stimulus to the soil will be discovered, to make the old lands still available, that he dares to risk a promise of permanent abstinence from 'agitation' (that is [[italic]]preaching[[/italic]] against slavery) while the present limits of that infernal system are retained?  I hope, for his credit, that he may confess himself to have said this without due consideration.

Although the lecture contained several incidental references to the mercenary character of the Northern people, and to the extent to which their consciences are subordinated to pecuniary interests, it was clearly stated that love of country, or in other words, a fear of the dissolution of the Union, was the one great cause of their continued tolerance of slavery.  It seems to me that Mr. Beecher has overlooked abundance of evidence, easily to be found by the seeker, conclusively proving that the former of these causes is the vital and efficient one, while the latter has been merely a decent pretence, deliberately forged by the leaders, and repeated, parrot-like, by the followers of all parties.

The innocent and confiding assurance with which Mr Beecher announced that, the mask being now torn off, and the veil fallen, the North can no longer by cajoled, but will arise in her might and sternly refuse any further concessions to the slave power, marks a very [[italic]]new[[/italic]] laborer in this department.  Deeper scrutiny into the past, and a wider survey of the present, will show him that a real [[italic]]Anti[[/italic]]-slavery [[italic]]feeling[[/italic]] even (not to speak of principle) can no more truly be affirmed of the North than of the South; that the moving, influential, efficacious portion of the inhabitants of the Northern, Middle and Western States are just as willing to acquiesce in the holding of slaves, as the Southern people are to hold them; that as long as profit is to be gained by Southern trade, and office by advocacy of Southern oppression, the active minority will so vigorously lead, and the passive majority so instinctively follow, in that direction, that Southern wickedness cannot alarm, nor Southern aggressions stimulate, nor Southern insults kick them into resistance.  Nebraska will follow in the footsteps of Texas; and after a little fuming, and fretting, and complaining, and threatening, boy-like, that they won't be so imposed upon again, the North will again acquiesce, and be ready to repeat the same movements when Cuba and Hayti are called for.

There is but one effectual mode of resistance to these movements, and that, alas! is a very slow process.  It is the inculcation, throughout the mass of the people, of 

[[end column]]
[[start column]

[[italic]]sound principles[[/italic]] respecting liberty and human rights.  Spasmodic efforts, however zealous, against the [[italic]]extension[[/italic]] of slavery, while its [[italic]]unmolested continuance[[/italic]] in its present limits is guarantied by clergymen and moralists, are a mere pruning of the Upas tree; in Scripture phrase, a 'daubing with untempered mortar.'  Until it is firmly fixed in the majority of Northern minds that a man's hand, foot, head, body, cannot possibly, under any circumstances, be more the property of another person than of himself, that no man has, or ever had, a right to acquiesce in the existence of slavery, and that no promise to acquiesce to it, however solemnly made, is, or ever was, of the slightest binding force, until then, I say, the North cannot act efficiently to prevent even the extension of slavery.  While the whole matter is looked upon as one of expediency, and not of principle, expediency will be sure to lead in the direction of present pecuniary profit.

When Mr. Beecher said that the South imported her whips, handcuffs, ploughs, hoes, ministers and other tools from the North, the statement was received with a hearty laugh by his clerical father and brothers in the pulpit behind him, and with loud applause by the audience.  Did he mean this, and did they receive it, as a mere joke?  Unquestionably true as the statement is, and suited to excite shame at the baseness of the North, and indignation at the clergymen who offer themselves as the tools of slavery, it is just such people as constituted the mass of that audience who hiss and clamor down that very sentiment, when they chance to hear it in a meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society, and who then go away and stigmatize the speakers as infidels and enemies of Christianity.

Whether the above statement were made in jest or earnest, the lecturer might well have asked himself, while he was vaunting the sound principle and true-heartedness of the North, how it happens that they still furnish, as they always have furnished, whips, handcuffs and ministers for the Southern market.  Will the manufacturers of these, and other slave apparatus, be [[italic]]very[[/italic]] desirous to see slavery abolished and their market stopped?  Will the Theological seminary that supplies perfectly satisfactory preachers for the South, be likely to make very strongly Anti-Slavery ministers for Northern service?  It is because the North has little understanding of the true meaning and value of liberty, that she grasps so eagerly at Southern office, and submits so meanly to Southern insult and aggression.  The mass of the people have yet to be converted to those republican ideas of which they suppose themselves a perfect and illustrious example to European nations.

When, in the preliminary prayer of old Dr. Beecher, I heard the petition against revolutions, I could not help thinking, by contrast, of the invariable petition, every Sunday, of old Dr. Spring of Newberyport, 'Oh! Lord, overturn, [[italic]]overturn[[/italic]] and OVERTURN, till he whose right it is shall rule.'  In the days of our fathers, imperfect as they were, oppression was more dreaded than revolution.

The key-note of Mr. Beecher's lecture was appropriately struck by Rev. Edward Beecher, who, before introducing the lecturer to the audience, significantly announced that the course then to be commenced had no connection with any previously-existing association.  Whether the design of this movement is to proceed, by fine graduated degrees, to something stronger than a mere protest against the [[italic]]extension[[/italic]] of slavery, we shall soon see; but it projectors will find ([[italic]]if[[/italic]] they make the experiment) that really [[italic]]Anti[[/italic]]-Slavery work will bring upon them an Anti-Slavery reputation.  C. K. W.

[[decorative line across column]]

SPEECH OP JOSEPH BARKER, OF OHIO, 
Before the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, 
THURSDAY EVENING, JAN. 26, 1854.
[[line]]
[PHONOGRAPHIC REPORT BY MR. YERRINTON.] 
[[line]]

Mr. CHAIRMAN:--

I know of no arguments in favor of freedom abroad, that are not equally appropriate, and that do not apply with equal force, in favor of freedom in this country. I know of no argument which can be employed against European tyranny and despotism, which would not answer as well when employed against American slaveholding despotism. Every American, therefore, who feels himself at liberty or called upon to complain against European despotism, ought, if he would be consistent, to complain against American despotism, wherever it exists. Every man who feels called upon to lift his voice in favor of European nations, and demand, in the name of humanity, the recognition of the rights of the oppressed and plundered in a distant country, ought also to feel called upon to lift his voice in behalf of the oppressed and plundered in this country, and ought to demand equal rights, in the name of Humanity, for them. It seems to me that every one who bears the name of American, every one who glories in Republicanism, ought by all means to do his utmost to render Republicanism in this country universal, and to bring all the institutions and laws of the land into harmony with the great Democratic principles which lie at the foundations of its government. 

It seems to me that a sense of justice, as well as a regard to consistency, should make us all abolitionists. We have no right to complain, so long as no greater evil falls upon us, than we are content to see fall upon others. If we can quietly look on, while the greatest curse of all curses falls upon another, we have no right to be surprised if the same tremendous curse falls at length upon ourselves. We have no right, it seems to me, to expect that we shall be permitted to live in the continual enjoyment of greater blessings, than those which we covet for our neighbors; and if we do not covet the inestimable blessing of liberty for them, we have no right to expect to be kept in the enjoyment of that great blessing ourselves. 

Indeed, the enlightened and truly benevolent man cannot enjoy his own freedom to the fullest advantage, so long as others are left without that blessing ; and every man, who feels for humanity as he ought to feel, will necessarily share, to some extent, the heavy burdens which he sees crushing another portion of his fellow-creatures. 

If I were young, if I had to begin life again, I know of no object of life that I could feel free to propose to myself, but, first, my own improvement, elevation and perfection; and, second, the improvement, elevation and perfection of my fellow-men; and I know of no course of life that I could comfortably pursue, but a life of earnest effort for the freedom, the improvement, and the happiness of my race. I do trust that the young men and young women who are here to-night, will consider with themselves, what is the highest thing for which they can live, and what is the noblest course which they can pursue through life. They must, if they once think upon the matter,--unless they are strangers to the best and noblest feelings of human nature,--they must perceive that the highest end for which they can live, is to secure the greatest good of all mankind; and that the best and noblest course that they can pursue in life, is a course of steady, persevering, and ever-increasing efforts in the cause of philanthropy, benevolence, and humanity. (Loud cheers.) 

I can myself conceive of nothing so desirable, of nothing to be compared with the great object which I have just named. If it were left with me, I would allow no race of human beings to be extirpated, nor any portion of the human family to labor under continued and crushing disadvantages. It has always seemed to me a melancholy thing, that the weaker races should have been so little cared for; that the stronger and more powerful races should have so unfeelingly driven them first into a corner, and then out of existence. It seems a pity, and more than a pity, it seems too melancholy to be thought of, that any race of human beings, however inferior, apparently, in some respects, should have been allowed to sink forever out of being. It seems to me, that the stronger portions of the human race ought to pay special attention to the weaker. The weak most need our help, and we should rather employ extra efforts in order to elevate them to the standard of perfect manhood, than use our power to destroy them. There is some good in every race; something better in every race 
[[end column]]
[[start column]]
of human beings, than in any other race. One race of men may excel every other in point of intellect, in point of logical power; another may excel every other race in point of affectional power; and another may excel all others in matters of taste and order, beauty and neatness; and all should be spared. We ought to make it our care, if we think ourselves higher in the scale of being than others, not to crush them lower, but to raise them higher--not to extinguish them, but to perfect them; and I hope that the time will come, when that which is good in each will be diffused through all, and when the universal family of man shall relinquish the vices, and incorporate within itself the excellences, of every separate race, and form one great, most glorious, and most happy order of beings. (Loud applause.) 

It is worthy of consideration, that those who at present are not living for the good of their fellow-men, still admire and reverence those who, in past times, have lived for that end. Even those who feel disposed to quarrel with the philanthropists and benefactors of the present day, still speak highly of the philanthropists and benefactors of days gone by. Men reverence Howard and Penn, even when they fail to prize the same traits of character for which they admire them, in the philanthropists and reformers who are living and moving around them. We can all appreciate and admire philanthropy and beneficence, when afar off, and some of us even in those who are near; but are we cultivating that in ourselves which we admire in others?--are we pursuing ourselves the course which we so warmly commend others for pursuing? In proportion to our admiration for the great philanthropists and benefactors of past ages and of distant nations, should be our self-reproach, and the censure and condemnation of our own short-comings and unfaithfulness, if we fail to be philanthropists and benefactors ourselves. (Applause.) 

I would like to say one word, before passing to other topics, on a subject that has already received considerable attention here. John Mitchel comes to America and proclaims that, he is no more an abolitionist than was Moses, or Socrates, or Jesus. Well, does he lay down the principle, then, that he is not to excel Moses, or Socrates, or Jesus, or go beyond them in any thing;--that provided he comes up to their standard, in any particular, that is enough, and that he would subject himself to censure if he were to go beyond their standard? If he does, he speaks without knowing what he says, or else with a view of deceiving others. Suppose he lays down that principle--that he is not bound to move a single step in advance of those ancient worthies whose names he takes in vain. If he ought not to be more an abolitionist than Moses, then he ought not to be more a republican than Moses. If he ought not to be any more an abolitionist than Moses, he ought not to be any more of a political reformer than he. Now, it so happens that Moses does not appear to have been a pure Republican, an unmixed Democrat. He appears to have had considerable reverence for the priestly element. Indeed, his object appears to have been to establish what is called a Theocracy, but what, in reality always proves to be a system of priestly domination. With respect to Jesus, he took no part in politics at all. He seems to have been content to allow, not slaveholders merely, but such men as Nero, to have their way unchecked. When he was asked in regard to the duty of paying taxes to the Roman Emperor, all that he demanded was to see the current coin of the country, and ascertain whose image and superscription it bore. Seeing the image and superscription of Caesar, he said, Why, you are Caesar's subjects. Caesar is your lord; the coin is his; and when he taxes, you must pay;--'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.' These were the politics of Jesus, Obey the powers established. But John Mitchel is not content with that. The current coin of the British Empire bears the image and superscription of Queen Victoria; and when Queen Victoria demands her taxes, he ought to pay them quietly, unless he intends to be a little in advance of Jesus. (Laughter and cheers.) Jesus would say, 'Show me the tribute money; let me look on your pence, your shillings, your half crowns, crowns, and sovereigns;' and having seen the symbols they bear, he would say, 'Why, the image and superscription of Queen Victoria are on them. Then, John Mitchel, please render to Victoria her own, and be quiet, if not thankful, under her protection!' (Applause.) 

John Mitchel must go even further back, to be consistent. The Mormonites in the Salt Lake Valley ask, like John Mitchel, 'Do you want us to be wiser than our father Abraham, who is described as the Father of the faithful,' and as the man whom God adopted as his especial friend? How can you say that we are immoral, because we claim the right to have a plurality of wives?--would you have us to be better than Abraham?' Think, not of Socrates, but of Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived, or that ever was to live; would you have us wiser than he? It would be most unreasonable. Yet, he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines besides! Yet, John Mitchel does not recommend so many wives and concubines. He thinks himself wiser than Solomon. Pray, how wise would you be, John Mitchel? (Great cheering.) John Mitchel will not allow himself to be tied by his own cords. The truth is, there is something bad, at bottom in John Mitchel. (Cheers.) There was something of the trimmer in John Mitchel when he published his 'Felon' in Ireland, and there is something of the same bad character in John Mitchel now that he publishes his 'Citizen' in this country. I repeat, John Mitchel is not content with the wisdom of Solomon. He feels that he would get but badly along with seven hundred wives in his small house. (Great laughter and applause.) He would like to be a little wiser than the wisest man, and when his humor demands it, a little better political reformer than Moses, Socrates, or Jesus. Yes, if John Mitchel should get his plantation in Alabama, 'well stocked with healthy negroes,' he would no doubt presume to be wiser than even Jesus. If Jesus should go that way, he would tell John to sell all that he had, and give the proceeds to the poor; perhaps to his poor slaves. (Tumultuous applause.) He used to give such counsel, and even give a reason for it. If John Mitchel should ask him how he should get a living, when his goodly plantation was gone, he would say to him, 'Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink: let the morrow take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof.' (Cheers.) Nay, more; if he heard him talking about the possession of a plantation, where he was to be absolute lord, and all the rest his abject slaves, he would say to him--'The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; for whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; for ye shall all be brethren.' (Renewed cheering.) And perhaps he would further say to him, If you wish to be great and honored, be content to become the least, the lowliest; for the truly great are those who voluntarily serve the humblest; and, John Mitchel, if you want to be a great man, prove your greatness by your readiness to elevate the despised and down-trodden. (Loud cheers.) 

One thing is certain, either John Mitchel is wiser than Moses, and Socrates, and Jesus, or else he is a great deal more of a fool; (laughter and applause;) and it would be well for him, before he tries again to skulk behind these men, to consider all that is meant by their names. 

For myself, I should not be content to go to the past for my standard. Many great names are blazing on the page of history, and great men lived before history was written; for there were great warriors before the days of Agamemnon, and great law-givers before the days of Moses, and great reformers before the days of Jesus, and great philosophers before the days of Plato and Socrates. But what is the past to me? My standard? No. The past is not to limit the future; but the future to excel the past. Progress is the law of the Universe. The days of Socrates were better than those of Moses; the days of Moses were better than those of Noah. The further you go back, in the earth's history, the lower are all vegetable and animal productions, un-
[[end column]]
[[start column]]
til you reach the period when not a single vegetable germ is unfolded, nor a single animal found creeping or crawling in the mud. Shall the ideas and principles of the past, be held up as the standard of the present and all future time? As well may the far past state of the earth, when there were no vegetables, be held up as the standard for all coming ages; as well may the past, when there were but four-footed and creeping things, be held up as our model. But we are not disposed to go down in the dust, and walk on all fours. We look, not only higher than that which has been, but higher than that which is. We aspire to conformity with the highest idea of intellectual and moral perfection that we can form. I do not despise the past; but it must not rule me. We ought, when we look into the past, to gather all the good and beautiful traits in the characters of the great and good ones, whose lives are recorded on the pages of history or whose deeds are sung in poetry, and, leaving out all that is imperfect or bad about them, frame to ourselves a perfect character, and make that our model. We should leave the bad, gather up the good, and unite it with all the good we see in the present, then try to heighten, expand and ennoble our ideas to the utmost; and from the whole, form one round, complete and glorious character, and place that before us as the example which we should try to equal. Go back for our examples! Refuse to be better than the men of two, three, or four thousand years ago! The idea is ridiculous. As well go back to the beginning, and refuse to be at all, as refuse to be better than the first rude specimens of humanity. Onward and upward is our motto; and John Mitchel will have it for his, when it suits him. He has a purpose in going to the past. (Applause.) 

I am much mistaken, if John Mitchel has not out-witted himself. My conviction is, that he will not accomplish the end he aimed at, whatever that end might be. However, his end was not the highest nor the noblest, I imagine, and therefore I shall be all the less concerned when I find he has been disappointed. But we leave John Mitchel for the present. He belongs to the past. 

I should suppose that every American would like to be able to glory in his country; to speak of her without a blush, and without being under the necessity of framing any excuse or apology for her laws, her institutions, or her conduct in any particular. I should suppose that every American would desire to be able to tell the whole story of his country's history, and fully describe her position and character, without any reservations or misgivings, or the slightest tinge of shame. I know I should, if I were an American. As far as I have been able, I have become an American citizen; and as soon as I can, I expect to become an American citizen in full. I have chosen this country for my home, and, with their consent, as the home of my children, and my children's children. I would wish to be able to glory in the country of my adoption. It would be a great comfort to me. It is a comfort to be able to glory in a father and mother, in one's brothers and sisters. We like to be able to hear all that can be said of them, without being obliged to blush for them. So in respect to one's country. I would wish the character of my country to be free from every stain. I would wish to see her character defiled by no immoral or dishonorable blot. I want to see in it nothing which would mar its beauty, but every thing which could add to its glory. Do you not feel so? I believe that every American who thinks at all, who has the nobler elements of humanity in him, must feel so. When your ministers go abroad, they wish to be able to boast of their country; and, in many respects, they can boast of it. Your statesmen wish to be able to boast of it, and to be able to show that it will bear comparison with any other country on the face of the earth. What, then, shall we do, in order that we may be able thus to glory in our country. We can already glory in its Republicanism, so far as it is Republican. We can glory in its common schools, and in the diffusion of the advantages of education to so great an extent through the land. We can, to some extent, glory in the absence of a State Church. We can glory in the absence of an hereditary Monarchy and Aristocracy. We	can glory in the absence of the land monopoles of the old world. We can glory of the better system of taxation. We can glory in the abolition of many bad laws by which other countries are disgraced. We can glory in the greater triumph of the temperance cause,--for no country has gone so far ahead in this reform, as America. But the country is stained by one foul blot--slavery. This is a deep, dark stain upon our character. And we can never stand erect before the nations and look mankind in the face, till it is wiped away. True, we can say to the nations of Europe, 'Though we have got slavery, you have got hereditary Monarchy and hereditary Aristocracy;' but that is a species of defence which no high-spirited or enlightened man would like to make. A man says, 'Your children are gamblers;' I reply, 'True; but yours are drunkards.' Would any of us like to have to make such a defence of our children? I should not. So with one's country. I should suppose that any American would wish to be able to say, 'We have not only not got your hereditary Monarchy and Aristocracy; but we have got rid of that curse of slavery too, introduced by your fathers. We have freed the country from all those abominations.' 

Besides that, I suppose every American would like to be able to feel that his country was secure against all violent agitations,--all danger of civil or of servile wars,--all political convulsions and commercial panics. But we cannot feel that we are secure from these, so long as slavery exists in the land. There is agitation, violent agitation--agitation which the leading parties seem agreed in deploring. The Whigs and the Democrats alike, at Baltimore, lamented over what they considered the great evil of agitation on the subject of slavery, and both agreed that something should be done to bring it to an end. Agitation, however, even violent agitation, so long as it keeps on this side of blows and bloodshed, is but a trifling evil. But who can say that it will always be kept within these limits? It may lead, in the South or the North, to secession. The patience of the North or of the South, may be tried beyond endurance; and there is a point, which may be reached, when we are not expecting it, when agitation shall terminate in a civil, or still worse, a servile war. 

It is desirable, then, that this violent agitation should be brought to a close. But how can it be done? So long as slavery exists, it is impossible to prevent agitation. There is but one way in which agitation can be brought to an end without abolishing slavery, and that is, by converting all the anti-slavery people into pro-slavery people, and then preventing all the pro-slavery people from ever becoming anti-slavery. But can you do this? While such 'obstinate' and 'pestilent fellows' as Garrison, Quincy, Phillips, and those other men and women about me, live, the thing is not to be hoped for. They will be talking about abolitionism (loud cheers) so long as they can talk at all. They are past redemption. True, you might put them into dungeons; but that would cause other people to begin thinking and talking on the subject; and perhaps for one tongue silenced, ten might be let loose. No; you cannot stop this agitation in this way. Even if you should bring all the present generation over to the ranks of the Slave Power, the next generation would get hold of some 'Uncle Tom's Cabin,' or 'White Slave,' or the 'Life of Solomon Northup,' and begin the work again. The youthful, uncorrupted hearts of your children would ask, 'Why should such a curse as slavery be tolerated in a land like this?' It is too late, I say, to put down agitation in this way. We have got an abolition literature; we have got abolition histories; we have got abolition biogrophies; we have abolition martyrs, abolition philanthropists, abolition orators, abolition preachers, abolition editors, abolition lawyers' and abolition statesmen; and you cannot silence them all, nor can you prevent the rising generation from being more zealous for freedom than their fathers. (Cheers.) It is impossible, then, that you should 'crush out' abolitionism. And, in truth, I do not believe that there is either Whig or Democrat, North or 
[[end column]]
[[start column]]
South, who is so great or so blind a fool, as to believe in the possibility of silencing agitation in this way. (Loud cheers.) 

Agitation can only be silenced by abolishing slavery. The cause must be removed, before the effect can cease. As long as there is inconsistency in the laws and institutions of a nation, there will be strife, there will be conflict. So long as liberty and slavery exist in the same land, there will be agitation. The men who cause agitation,--the men who endanger the peace of a country,--the men who cause revolts and insurrections,--the men who cause rebellions and civil wars, are those who first enact, and, having enacted, attempt to maintain and perpetuate bad laws, or to uphold an unjust and iniquitous institution. So long as there is evil in the world, the good that is in man will battle with it; you cannot prevent it. So long as there is drunkenness in the world, benevolent and sober men, who feel an interest in the welfare of their brethren, will try to expel it; you cannot prevent it. The laws of nature cannot be changed, and they are all in favor of freedom, virtue, righteousness. Good will war with evil, till evil receive the deadly blow which extirpates it. The whole history of the past, for countless ages, tells us, that the good in man must grow, and the bad decline; that the intellectual, the moral, the benevolent, and the godlike must evermore expand, and increase in power and efficiency; and that the low and grovelling in man must gradually diminish in power, and be brought within narrower bounds. This is the lesson which the whole past history of the silent earth, and the eternal past of all things, teaches us. It is the lesson, too, which the condition of every existing nation, political, moral, or intellectual, compels us to read. It is this eternal conflict between good and evil, right and wrong, which creates agitation; and we can only put an end to agitation by sweeping away unjust and inhuman laws, by reforming bad institutions, and by a well-directed and persevering effort to bring a country first into harmony with itself, and then into harmony with the eternal unchanging laws of man's nature, and God's great universe. (Loud applause.) That will end agitation, and nothing else can do it; and this is the only way in which we can secure a country against strife, insecurity, civil or servile wars, or bloody and ruinous political convulsions. 

I mourn when I think of the danger to which this country is exposed, through the existence and growth of slavery. It is as certain that slavery must die, as that it now lives. It is opposed to all that is noblest and best in human nature. Die it must, either in peace or war; in quietness or in blood. But why not bring it to an end in peace? Those who wish to have it die in peace, should join their efforts at once, to bring it to an end. Those who will not join in such efforts, are laying a train of gunpowder which, if the horrible tendency of their proceedings be not checked by the efforts of wiser and better men, will cause an explosion which will shake and shock the world, and bury this great and mighty nation in blood and ruin. 

I am mistaken if there are not thousands and tens of thousands in America, who love liberty universally; who wish it for all mankind, as well as for themselves. I meet with such, go where I may. They lament that this country is not in a condition to exert a better and mightier influence on the nations of Europe in favor of freedom;--they lament that America is not qualified to be the bold and faithful and zealous preacher of true Republicanism that she ought to be. But what can they do, as things are? That great, black, hideous curse of slavery is a terrible affair. It is enough to choke any man, however great his intellect and eloquence may be, who attempts to preach the principles of progress in a country which crushes down full one sixth portion of its population have to stand up and denounce the despotic systems of the old world, and plead in behalf of the oppressed of other lands, when despotism, in its cruellest forms, is blighting and cursing one half of their own land. I say, to have to stand up and preach liberty to the world at large, to denounce tyranny and plead for the oppressed and plundered ones abroad, while we have an evil of so tremendous a chaacter at home, is not so easy a matter. 

I grant that the principle I laid down last night, ought to be acted upon. We ought not to wait until we are ourselves perfect, before we begin to point out the errors and crimes of others. We ought, though laboring under faults or infirmities ourselves, to be directing attention to the faults or infirmities of others; for the natural result will be, that those others--on the principle that one good turn deserves another--will call attention to our infirmities and fault. Through such mutual good officies, all will be instructed and benefited. We are as prone to return compliments of this kind, as to interchange favors of a more agreeable kind. It seems, how ever, to me, that we shall fail, to a great extent, if not entirely, as preachers of democracy and heralds of progress, until we are able to set an example to the world a little better than our present one. Slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law are too bad for any thing. We must get rid of them, if we are to do much good. (Cheers.) 

Is there any prospect that we can get rid of slavery? I think there is. I do believe that there is still ground to hope, that the labors of the abolitionists, and of the friends of freedom and humanity generally, will succeed. I cannot doubt that the cause of freedom will triumph, and the cause of oppression go down. I know that slavery is extending itself; but extension is not always strength. The British Empire in India is extending itself; but the further it extends, the weaker it becomes, both in its centre and its circumference. The farther it spreads, the nearer it is to its fall. So it may be with slavery. It may contrive to acquire new territory; but it will be by the sacrifice of its vital strength. The farther its black empire stretches its dark shadow, the sooner will it perish. Alexander sighed for other worlds to conquer; Rome became the mistress of nations; but the empire of Alexander speedily crumbled to pieces, and Rome became the prey of factions, and the sport of tyrants, and hastened rapidly to its fall. These vast and extended empires are unwieldy, especially where there is such an element as slavery within them. I say, then, that slavery, in extending the area of its dominion, may be weakening its centre, and giving signs of its approaching dissolution. I trust it may prove so. 

Then the churches and priestboods are on the side of slavery, but even they are not almighty. The Press, alone, in this age, is almighty, and from that instrumentality, it seems to me, we have much to hope. The Churches have changed, and may change again. When the Temperance Reformation became popular, the churches entered into the work; and when the cause of freedom has gained sufficient strength among the people, the churches and the priesthoods may think it worth their while to take the popular side. But, if not,--if the churches and the priesthoods will not grow wiser,--if they will not come over to the side of freedom, still, the cause of freedom will go forward, and the churches and priesthoods will perish. They are not so strong as they seem, even now. One true man can frighten a dozen priests. (Laughter.) The very strength of the priesthood is in a lie, and many begin to see this. The power of the priesthood is passing away, as the mists of the morning before the rising sun. (Cheers.) No, the Church is neither almighty nor unchangeable. Its power may be directed into the current which your labors are creating; but, if not,--if it continues to stand by the wrong,--when the overflowing flood comes, it will sweep away the Church and the priesthood with the wrong which they defended. They will have the fate of others who 'trust in lies, and make delusion their strong hold'; shame shall cover them forever. (Applause.) 

But I will not further occupy the time, for I know there are others, desirous of addressing you, to whom you will more gladly listen. I do believe that the cause of freedom will triumph. In some departments of abolition labor, it is even now meeting with great encouragement. You have no reason to be discouraged. There are many good hearts, not only among the mem-
[[end column]]   

Please note that the language and terminology used in this collection reflects the context and culture of the time of its creation, and may include culturally sensitive information. As an historical document, its contents may be at odds with contemporary views and terminology. The information within this collection does not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution, but is available in its original form to facilitate research. For questions or comments regarding sensitive content, access, and use related to this collection, please contact transcribe@si.edu.