Viewing page 1 of 4

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[double line]]
[[three columns]]
[[column 1]]
--AT THE--
[[horizontal divider]]
ROBERT F. WALLCUT, General Agent.
[[horizontal divider]]
[[image: line drawing of hand pointing right]] TERMS--Two dollars and fifty cents per annum, in advance.
[[image: line drawing of hand pointing right]]Five copies will be sent to one address for TEN DOLLARS, if payment be made in advance.
[[image: line drawing of hand pointing right]]All remittances are to be made, and all letters relating to the pecuniary concerns of the paper are to be directed, (POST PAID,) to the General Agent.
[[image: line drawing of hand pointing right]]Advertisements making less than one square inserted three times for 75 cents--one square for $1.00.
[[image: line drawing of hand pointing right]]The Agents of the American, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan Anti-Slavery Societies are authorized to receive subscriptions for THE LIBERATOR.
[[image: line drawing of hand pointing right]] The following gentlemen constitute the Financial Committee, but are not responsible for any of the debts of the paper, viz:--FRANCIS JACKSON, FELLIS GRAY LORING, EDMUND QUINCY, SAMUEL PHILBRICK, and WENDELL PHILLIPS. [[/column 1]]
[[column 2]]  [Image:  masthead of THE LIBERATOR depicting a slave sale on one side, Jesus in the middle, and freed slaves on the right]] [[/column 2]]
[[column 3]]
The United States Constitution is a 'covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.'
[[image: line drawing of hand pointing right]] 'The free States are the guardians and essential supports of slavery.  we are the jailers and constables of the institution. . . .  There is some excuse for communities, when, under a generous impulse, they espouse the cause of the oppressed in other States, and by force restore their rights; but[[in italics]] they are without excuse in aiding other States in binding on men an unrighteous yoke.[[in italics]]  On this subject, OUR FATHERS, IN FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION, SWERVED FROM THE RIGHT.  We their children, at the end of half a century, see the path of duty more clearly than they, and[[in italics]] must walk in it.[[in italics]]  To this point the public mind has long been tending, and the time has come for looking at it fully, dispassionately, and with manly and Christian resolution. . . .  No blessing of the Union can be a compensation for taking part in the enslaving of our fellow-creatures; nor ought this bond to be perpetuated, if experience shall demonstrate that it can only continue through our participation in wrong doing.  To this conviction the free States are tending.'--WILLIAM ELLERY CHANNING. [[/column 3]]

WM. LLOYD GARRISON, Editor.  Our Country is the World, our Countrymen are all Mankind.   J. B. YERRINTON & SON, Printers.
[[6 columns]]

[[column 1]]

From the Rochester Daily Democrat, Feb. 13th.

It is fortunate that the population of this Northern country is large, and that education is diffused very extensively among the people of all classes. Our free institutions, the perfect tolerance in all matters of creed and opinion, and the diversity of human characteristics, ensure the subdivision of every community, however small, into many different sects; and every Communion will have its distinct coteries, agreeing on fundamental ideas, but holding their individual sentiments on collateral questions. This does not prevent good-fellowship and harmonious action, however it may make neighboring families strangers to each other, and fill the breasts of a single congregation with oppositions and antagonism akin to bitterness of spirit. There is no danger now of with burning, Quaker whipping, or pelting poor Abolitionists. Truth left free, sways the axiom, will vanquish error, left equally without legal restraint. On this theory, our system if founded. And it works well. Abstract truth is not always prevalent over practical error--if it were, we should have a commencement of the good time that, as things are, is still to come.

Within the present week, our city has been favored (readers may differ with us as to the participle) with the presence of certain distinguished advocates of a political theory which has few supporters, and is discountenanced by people who are regarded as radical in their notions of reform. They are able persons, devoting their whole thoughts to the ideas they promulgate, and religiously sincere. At least this is the case with the leader of this small party, Mr. Garrison. We can therefore tolerate his doctrines. Our readers have been advised of his peculiar sentiments, through the publication of a series of resolutions offered by him. It is seen that he takes a position at the very extreme point, on the question discussed. He is not satisfied with anything short of the sublimation of perfection. We find extremes meeting in this, as in most other ultraisms. The Garrisonians contend that a dissolution of the Union is the only cure for the evil of slavery. The Secessionists of the South consider the breach of the confederacy as the only means of perpetuating the blessings of slavery confers upon that section. The Northern disunionists scoff at the Church, because it does not accept their political creed; just as the confessed pro-slavery party does, and for the same reason. We find the Liberator and the Democratic press joining in a crusade against all existing religious organizations. These opposites seek to attain their widely different ends by the same means. It is safe to say that neither will succeed. In reasoning as in theory, these parties show similitudes. One argues that the Constitution is a pro-slavery document, and the other agrees with them-one desires it to be destroyed if it is, and the other if it is not. Both rest their arguments upon independent clauses, and upon the whole body and tenor of the instrument. The Democratic party and the Garrisonians come to like conclusions, from not very different premises. The Democrats and Garrisonians equally dislike Republicans. As non-religionists admire schismatics in the church, so wicked politicians look with a sort of favor upon the Garrisonians. We need not continue the parallel.

Now, for ourselves, we regret to admit that the Constitution is susceptible of the different constructions sought to be put upon it. That great instrument partakes of the imperfections of human nature; and as men are disposed to construe it, so they will interpret it. Self-interest gives a strong bias to opinion. The Republican party regard it, in intention and in fact, anti-slavery. Its framers so intended it to be, undoubtedly; for they had no idea but that slavery would cease to exist while their country, under the beneficent influence of free institutions, would still be in the gristle of youth. Nothing was admitted in its phraseology which should serve to remind the world, when the era of entire of entire freedom should arise, that a different state of things ever existed in our country. But even were the intention different, we are not bound by that. Whatever a plain reading of the instrument gives to popular rights we are entitled to. Shakspeare's law applies admirably to this case. The Republicans differ from both Garrisonians and Democrats in their views of principles and policy. Nearly all, at the North, profess to condemn slavery. One would have it abolished on the instant - another would confine it to its limits, and operate upon the minds of slaveholders to induce them to consent to let slavery exist forever, if the slaveholders desire it. And this latter class are, moreover, willing to see it extended into any community which may think it desirable to have slaves. One would destroy the Constitution, and thus bring about civil war; another would leave this exciting question open for contest between the people in favor and opposed - the third would have the original policy of inhibiting its extension, and thus preventing interference and clashing of interests, adhered to.

Here is the evil of the 'Popular Sovereignty' system. Were it a settled thing - as it has been - that slavery cannot go beyond fixed limits, there could be no contest between it and freedom, in the settlement of virgin countries by slaveholders and non-slaveholders. Permit a contest, and might must decide it. Kansas has been made the theatre of one such contest - may still bleed in the same dispute. If it is devoted to a renewal of the war between antagonistic institutions, the Democratic party are already responsible. Such scenes may occur in Southern States, but the time is distant for such a struggle. Missouri may be the first. Indications point to such a thing.

Not to lengthen this article, we leave that branch of the subject where it is, for the present. We have not published the discussions of the Garrisonian Convention, because we did not think it profitable. Neither do we regard it as very harmful. People love to talk of politics. They have always discussed 'affairs of State.' Before the 'good old times,' when telegraphs and railroads and free-schools existed, the country inn was the place

'Where village statesmen talked, with looks profound, And new much older than their ale went 'round.'
The 'Village Statesman' and the quid nune of the town will still continue to discuss the Constitution, Acts of Congress, the last murder - and do all their part toward saving or disrupting the Union. Who would prevent them? Surely not those who are for liberty of speech. Not long since, a metropolitan print, ambitious of 'universal circulation,' taught the country press that their duty was simply to purvey such matters as may be of local occurrence and interest, and that they had nothing to do with politics, foreign or domestic. Confine the country press to neighborhood incidents and gossip, and deny them the ancient privilege of discussing national affairs and foreign relations! Preposterous idea.

There were some reprehensible utterances in the late convocation; and we can readily see why it is that those who use such hard words should provoke ometimes the retort of hard knocks. Mr. GARRISON was the first almost-martyr to the anti-slavery

[[/column 1]]
[[column 2]]

sentiment. He survives as a monument to mark the progress of opinion on that subject. He can scarcely be spared; for he is an able representative man, however few his followers. We do not see that he now courts a repetition of former knock-down arguments-- argumentum ad hominem -- which went so little way toward convincing him of error. If he did desire fresh persecution of that sort, he needs but to show his shining face and gentle bearing a few rods below Mason and Dixon's line. Some of his compatriots, however, show what Yankees call 'sauciness,' and were they not under the protection of their mild leader, might be punished by some impulsive persons, who have not learned that hard words require no more substantial response than a 'soft answer.' If it be true that the white people of this latitude, where bleached skins predominate, have an indomitable repugnance to people of the opposite color, and modify their sympathy when those of the contrasting hue are sufferers, the fact may explain why some may have thought a slander of the illustrious dead deserved such punishment as is inflicted upon 'persons held to service' in another section of the country. But a community that laughed at the irate and Quixotic Simms, can afford to pass by such provocations as we allude to.

An unusual interest has sprung up recently on the subject of schools and school teachers, and the periodicals all over the country are discussing them, and we are free to confess our pleasure at the favorable sign.

We wish to say a few words in regard to the practice a great many parents have fallen into, of employing teachers from abroad to instruct their children. We propose to give a few reasons for opposing the ruinous feeling, that Northern instructors are as good as Southern.
In the first place, when such a course is pursued, it is virtually saying our own countrymen are incapable of performing this task, which is doing them a manifest injustice.  Must it be said of the South that she has not men and women capable of teaching her children?  Must it be said, that we are compelled to look abroad for individuals to perform the task that thousands would be glad to assume, not only for the sake of benefiting others, but also themselves?  Must it be said of that section of the Union which has ever been noted for her uncompromising adherence to the general plan--of its noble and sacrificing devotion to the Constitution, and for its chivalric bearing and State's pride, must it be said of her that she cannot find within her borders spirits congenial to her own, in whom she can repose confidence enough to trust them with the responsible task of instructing youth?  Let this be said no longer!  Let our political opponents exult no longer over our want [[obscured due to fold in page]] our citizens!  We tell you that in nine cases out of ten, [[obscured due to fold in page]]  Northern teachers, you press a viper to your bosom, that will sting you by infusing into the mind of his pupils thoughts, feelings and tastes opposed to Southern interests and Southern institutions--who will strive to impress on their young minds the necessity of abolishing slavery--who will endeavor to infuse into their pliant dispositions Northern prejudices, at a time too, when these impressions can be made as easily as upon soft putty.  The young mind has been compared to a blank sheet of paper, on which one can write with ease, and when Abolition notions are once stamped thereon, it is a difficult thing to extricate them.  The teacher's powers for good or evil are unlimited, and birth and education have made him an Abolitionist, and it would be contrary to nature to teach one way and think another.

Again, a Northern teacher would necessarily be often brought in contact with the negro, and he may do much to injure the prospects of his blind employers. He can talk to them of freedom, and the advantages they can derive from it, and make great promises if they will run away ad go to some free State, until he gets the minds of the poor deluded wretches worked up to such a pitch that they feel compelled to break the bonds which bind them to their owners.  You may say, this is all imaginary, and has never occurred, but begging your pardon, we point you to the Southampton Insurrection.  That appalling massacre was effected in this very manner of approach--by appealing to the slave instead of the owner.  This underhanded manner in dealing with us is quite prevalent in the South, and we ought  now to make a beginning towards putting a stop to it, by refusing to employ teachers from the North.
Shall we continue this odious practice?  Why, we ask, has this abominable practice been so much in vogue with us?  At the same time we pay Southerners too little, we pay more than they do in New England.  The salaries are not sufficient to justify our own country engaging in it to any extent, but are enough to bring down a horde of our enemies upon us.  Are our young people to be ruined for the sake of saving a few dollars?  'Tell it not in Gath.'  Then let us increase our wages -- put far from us all such small and mean ideas as 'Ruin the child to save a dollar,' and come out in a noble, generous, patriotic light.  There are hosts of young men and ladies who would be willing to devote their time and talents to this honorable profession, if patrons would give them enough to live decently and respectably on. The time will soon come when we shall see the necessity much plainer, and why not take time by the forelock?  No! but like a nation of laggards, we must wait until the evil comes upon us with crushing force before we begin to move in the matter.
Associations form ideas. Then let our children be put under out own people. Remember, that "just as the twig is bent the tree's inclined."
Put far from you all such people who say they are Northern men with Southern feeling. It is not so-at least, if it is, they are only worthy of contempt. --North Carolina paper.

2 lines across column
[[in fancy font]]The Liberator[[in fancy font]]
2 lines across column

Earlville, La Salle co.,} Ill. Feb. 24, 1857.     }

Dear Mr.Garrison:

I am glad to see so many of the leading Abolitionists coming fully up to the sticking-point of endorsing, by speech and resolution, the efforts of the slave to gain his liberty by the same means that his oppressors use to keep him in bondage.
Admitting the Non-Resistant idea to be true,-and, as Parker Pillsbury says, "I fear it is,"-I see not why the non-resistant Abolitionist cannot sympathize with and even encourage slave insurrections.The existing relation of slave and slaveholder is one of intrinsic war, which results in the greatest injustice to the slave, and an appalling sacrifice of human life, all on one side! Let the case be partially reversed. The slave, by a successful rebellion, regains his liberty, justice is restored, and human life is sacrificed on the [[in italics]]other[[in italics]] side. Now supposing that those who believe in non-resistance had it entirely in their power to decide  
[[/end column 2]]
[[column 3]]
whether the former or latter policy shall prevail, which would be more consistent with non-resistance?  A man's duty is the same, be his influence great or small.  If ADIN BALLOU had an influence sufficiently powerful to produce the change supposed, his duty would remain the same; and would it be to preserve the present relation of slave and slaveholder, at the price of the slave's life, or would it be to restore the slave to freedom at the price, if need be, of the life of the master?  Clearly, the conclusion is, that if there is a reasonable prospect that the slaves of the South can gain their liberty by insurrection, non-resistants could aid them in doing so, for the reason that it is better to save life and do justice, than to destroy life that injustice be done.

Now, my non-resistant friend, if I have made out a clear case for your conscience, give a hearty Godspeed to the next slave rebellion, and help it all you can.  That brave old man and true, JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS, has lately declared, in the very ears of the slaveholders at Washington, that he would assist the slave in his efforts to be free.  The theory of emancipation has been pretty well discussed.  Twenty-five years of anti-slavery debate ought to have resulted at least in a programme of action--to have prepared the way for some practical steps toward bringing about the desired object.  Certainly, we are not going to continue the discussion twenty-five years longer without testing our theory by some practical experiments!  I would suggest that the time has come to hit the Slave Power whenever and wherever it seems to hurt the most, provided the blows do not recoil upon ourselves.  The only questions necessary to ask are, Is it wrong? and, Do the slaveholders like it?  If the answer is No, then pay on; the more they dislike it, the more they should take.  Nothing scares the slaveholders like insurrection.  The mere report of the secret intention of half-a-dozen slaves to rise turns every slaveholder south of Mason and Dixon's line pale as death--no matter what his natural complexion may be.  The bloody ghost of insurrection haunts the Slave Power perpetually with visions of a terrible retribution at the hands of those it has so long crushed and degraded.  While it yet trembles with the fright caused by the late rumors, let Abolitionists not fail to seize the moment to encourage the slave by a timely expression of sympathy in his behalf, and to remind the slaveholder that this sympathy is fast hardening into something more substantial--that peradventure it may take the form of lead and steel.  Would this be equivalent to revolution?  The justification is, [[obscured text]] revolution is the only hope of the slave; consequently, [[obscured text]].

The events of the last few years, and especially since the[[good guess?]] late Presidential election, are very satisfactory evidences  that liberty can never be established in the United States, except by a radical change in the organic structure of the existing government.  It may be said, too, that the late election shows, that the time has not fully come for revolution, by proving the fact that a majority of the people are for slavery.  Let a moment's attention be bestowed upon this point.  The election returns show that Buchanan had over 100,000 majority, it is true; but this is by no means certain data upon which to make the calculation, for illegal voting was the order of the day, and carried into effect extensively in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, and California, and in the Southern States generally.  Stephen Arnold Douglas had let it slip out in an unguarded moment, that the friends of freedom were to be subdued; and this was no idle threat, no mere brutum fulmen, but what was expressed was fully intended, and the means that were to be used in this 'subduing' process had been fully decided upon by the leaders of the Slavery party long before the day of election, and Atchison and Stringfellow had been sent to Kansas, to test the practicability of this new invention in 'subduing' the citizens of that territory, where it was found to work admirably.  It has proved quite as successful as was anticipated in the elevation of James Buchanan to the Presidency.

How many illegal votes were returned can never be known; but with all that Buchanan gained by illegal voting and false returns, he would still have lost his election, had it not been for that fundamental advantage which slavery has in the Constitution.  The three fifths rule gave the South thirty electors.  Deduct these from Buchanan's electoral vote, and he lacks five votes of an election.  Again, add to the Fremont vote three fifths of the slaves, and it would give him 3,141,812 votes; while the united Fillmore and Buchanan vote amounts to only 2,707,392.  Then we are to take into account the thousands of non-slaveholding whites and free blacks at the South, who, if they had been allowed, would have voted for Fremont, together with the blacks in the free States who were denied the right of suffrage, and the Abolitionists who refuse to exercise it, and we have a large majority opposed to the incoming Administration, and who in the event of a revolution would sympathise with the slaves and their friends.

The outrages which constitute the history of the Slavery party and the expiring Administration for the last four years, are marked and remembered with abhorrence by thousands who voted for James Buchanan under the delusion that he would exert his power to make Kansas a free State.  When he disappoints them, as he most certainly will, they too will be with us.  When it shall be seen that the incoming Administration is part and parcel, 'bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh,' of the party which has shocked the moral sense of the civilized world by employing a horde of savages to murder a defenceless community in a distant territory, to burn their dwellings and destroy their public houses and printing presses, and finally to reduce them to vassalage, that slavery might be established on free soil; a party which had taken upon itself the defence of human slavery, whose rallying cry was and is, 'Man has a right to hold, buy, sell and use his fellow-man as property, the same as a horse or hog; a party which had ruthlessly trampled under its feet the ancient principles upon which the Constitution is based, together with every barrier which liberty has set up against the encroachments of tyranny, for the last five hundred years; a party which could plot and attempt the assassination of a Senator for exposing these crimes; a party which could secretly invent and carry into effect any organized system of ballot-box stuffing and election frauds, by which three millions of freemen were to be ignomin-
[[/end column 3]]
[[column 4]]
iously cheated out of their constitutional rights; and that Buchanan and Co. have laid down a still blacker programme of iniquities which are to be consummated during the next four years, millions of voters who helped to place it in power, as was the case with Frank Pierce's Administration, will repent in dust and ashes [good guess?] that they ever did so; and if not ready to rally under the banner of revolution, will at least sympathise with the party of freedom.

It may therefore be honestly doubted whether a majority of the American people endorse slavery and the party which is now in power.  On the other hand, the slave and his friends have a thousand encouragements, in the present state of American affairs, which never existed before.  And do not these new circumstances create new duties?  Does not this new aspect of our cause make it necessary to take some steps not heretofore deemed expedient?  Is it not time to endorse slave insurrections, and preach revolution?  Or shall Abolitionists counsel peace, and the Republicans prepare to meet the issue at the polls in 1860?  It certainly appears little else than madness, after the late proofs of the power of slavery to 'subdue,' to hope to triumph at the ballot-box four years hence.  This new system of Democratic warfare, introduced by the border-ruffians in Kansas, and so joyfully adopted by the Slavery party, both North and South, and so extensively and successfully carried into operation at the late elections, with four years more to ripen and perfect itself in, with the advantage of the three fifths rule, which will give slavery in 1860 thirty-four electors, with the immense power and influence incident to the control of the national treasury and every department of the government, with the probable admission of several new slaveholding States into the Union, the Slavery party can defy all opposition at the polls.  THEODORE PARKER says, 'it seemed to him before the election that it was the last opportunity for a peaceful settlement of the slavery question.'  It seems to me so still.  While we have not strength to meet this issue in the ordinary way, owing to the advantageous entrenchment of our enemies, we have strength to revolutionize.  We can count on the assistance of at least three million slaves in the enemy's country, who would join the standard of revolution, three fifths of whose strength would be against us in a political contest.  Change the interests of the Northern allies of slavery, and you would change their principles, and thereafter they would trouble us no more than weathercocks trouble the wind; so that, if we did not gain their strength, the party of slavery [[obscured text]]

[[obscured text]] Government to contend against.  The United States Government is the people, and if the people were with [[good guess?]] us, the Government is with us.  There is no power above the people, except a superstitious regard for the Constitution, and the moment the people will it, this great American Juggernaut will be broken in pieces, and an emancipated nation will be prepared to worship the true God.  Revolution, peaceably if we can, but--Revolution!

Yours, for the slave, A. J. GROVER.
[[bold line]]


Fellow Citizens:--I appear before you this day to take a solemn oath that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States; and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

In entering upon this great office, I most humbly invoke the God of our fathers for wisdom and firmness to execute its high and responsible duties in such a manner as to restore harmony and the ancient friendship among the people of the several States, and to preserve our free institutions throughout many generations.  Convinced that I owe my election to the inherent love for the Constitution and the Union, which still animates the hearts of the American people, let me earnestly ask their powerful support in sustaining all just measures calculated to perpetuate these, and the richest political blessings which Heaven has ever bestowed upon any nation.  Having determined not to become a candidate for re-election, I shall have no motive to influence my conduct in administering the government, except the desire, ably and faithfully, to serve my country, and to live in the grateful memory of my countrymen.

We have recently passed through a Presidential contest, in which the passions of our fellow-citizens were excited to the highest degree, by questions of deep and vital importance; but when the people proclaimed their will, the tempest at once subsided, and all was calm.  The voice of the majority, speaking in the manner prescribed by the constitution, was heard, and instant submission followed.  Our own country could alone have exhibited so grand and striking a spectacle of the capacity of man for self-government.  What a happy conception then was it for Congress to apply this simple rule, that the will of the majority govern, to the settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the territories!  Congress is neither to legislate slavery into territories or States, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States as a natural consequence.

Congress has also prescribed that when the territory of Kansas shall be admitted as a State, it shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.  A different opinion has arisen in regard to the time when the people of a territory shall decide this question for themselves.  This is, happily, a matter of but little practical importance, and, besides, it is a judicial question, which, legitimately belongs to the Supreme Count of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally settled.  To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be.  Though it has been my individual opinion that, under the Nebraska Kansas act, the appropriate period will be when the number of actual residents in the territory shall justify the formatiou of a constitution, with a view to its admission as a State into the Union.  But, be this as it may, it is the imperative and indispensable duty of the government of the United Stases to secure to every resident inhabitant the free and independent expression of his opinion, by his vote.  This secured right of each individual must be preserved.  This being accomplished, nothing can be fairer than to leave the people of a territory free from all foreign interference to decide their constitution.  The whole territorial question, being thus settled upon the principles of squatter sovereignty, a principle as ancient as free government itself every thing of a prac-
[[/end column 4]]
[[column 5]]
tical nature has been decided, and no other question remains for adjustment, because all agree that, under the Constitution, slavery in the States is beyond the reach of any human power, except that of the respective States themselves wherein it exists.  May we not then hope, that the long agitation of this subject is approaching its end, and that the geographical parties to which it has given birth, so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, will speedily become extinct?  Most happily will it be for the country when the public mind shall be diverted from this question to others of more pressing and practical importance.  Throughout the whole progress of this agitation, which has scarcely known any intermission for more than twenty years, whilst it has been productive of no possible good to any human being, it has been the prolific source of great evils to the master, to the slave, and to the whole country.

It has alienated and estranged the people of the sister States from each other, and has even seriously endangered the very existence of the Union.  Nor has the danger yet entirely ceased.  Under our system, there is a remedy for all merely political evils in the sound sense and sober judgment of the people.  Time is a great corrective.  The political subjects which but a few years ago excited and exasperated the public mind, have passed away, and are nearly forgotten; but this question of domestic slavery is of far greater importance than any mere political question, because, should the agitation continue, it may eventually endanger the personal safety of a large portion of our countrymen where the institution exists.  In that event, no form of government, however admirable in itself, can compensate for the loss of peace and domestic security around the family altar.  Let every Union-loving man, therefore, exert his best influence to suppress this agitation, which, since the recent legislation of Congress, is without any legitimate object.

It is an evil of the times that men have undertaken to calculate the mere material value of the Union.  Estimates have been presented of the pecuniary profits and local advantages which would result to different States and sections from its dissolution--of the comparative injuries which such an event would inflict on other States and sections.  Even descending to this low and narrow view of the weighty question, all such calculations are at fault.  The bare reference to a single consideration will be conclusive on this point.  We at present enjoy a free trade throughout our extensive and expansive country, such as the world never witnessed.  This trade is conducted on railroads and canals, on noble rivers and arms of the sea, which bind together the North and the South--the East and the West of our confederation.

Annihilate this trade--arrest its free progress by the geographical line of jealous and hostile States, and you destroy the prosperity and onward march of the whole and every part, and involve all in one common ruin.  But such considerations [[good guess?]] impor- [[obscured text]] when we reflect on the terrible evils which [[obscured text]] confederacy--to [[obscured text]] to every portion of the South--to the East not more [[obscured text]].  These I shall not attempt to portray, because I feel an humble confidence that the kind Providence which inspired our fathers with wisdom to frame the most perfect form of government and union ever devised by man, will not suffer it to perish until it shall have been peacefully instrumental, by its example, in the extension of civil and religious liberty throughout the world.

Next in importance to the maintenance of the Constitution and the Union, is the duty of preserving the government free from taint, or even the suspicion of corruption.  Public virtue is the vital spirit of republics, and history proves, that when this has decayed, and the love of money has usurped its place, although the forms of free government may remain for a season, the substance has departed forever.

Our financial condition is without a parallel in history.  No nation has ever before been embarrassed from too large a surplus in it treasury.  This, almost necessarily, gives birth to extravagant legislation.  It produces wild schemes of expenditure, and begets a race of speculators and jobbers, whose ingenuity is exerted in contriving and promoting expedients to obtain the public money.  The party, through its official agents, whether rightfully or wrongfully, is suspected, and the character of the government suffers in the estimation of the people.  This is, in itself, a very great evil.  The national mode of relief from this embarrassment is to appropriate the balance in its treasury to great national objects, for which a clear warrant can be found in the Constitution.  Among these, I might mention the extinguishment of the public debt; a reasonable increase of the navy, which is, at present, inadequate to the protection of our large tonnage afloat, now greater than that of any other nation, as well as the defence of our extended sea cost.

It is beyond all question the true policy, that no more revenue ought to be collected from the people than the amount necessary to defray the expenses of a wise and economical and efficient administration of the government.

To reach this point, it was necessary to resort to a modification of the tariff, and this has been accomplished in such a manner as to do as little injury as may have been practicable to our domestic manufactures, especially those necessary for the defence of the country.  Any discrimination against a particular branch for the purpose of benefitting favored corporations, individuals or interests, would have been unjust to the rest of the country, and inconsistent with that spirit of fairness and equality which ought to govern in the adjustment of a revenue tariff.

But the squandering of the public money sinks into comparative significance as a temptation to corruption when compared with the squandering of the public lands.  No nation in the tide of time has ever been blessed with so rich and noble an inheritance as we enjoy in the public lands.  In administering this important trust, while it may be wise to grant portions of them for the improvement of the remainder, yet we should never forget that it is our cardinal policy to preserve these lands as much as may be for actual settlers, and this at moderate prices.

We shall thus not only best promote the prosperity of the new States by furnishing them a hardy and independent race of honest and industrious citizens, but shall secure homes for our children and our children's children, as well as for those exiles from foreign shores who may seek, in this country, to improve their condition, and to enjoy the blessings of civil and religious liberty.  Such emigrants have done much to promote the growth and prosperity of the country.  They have proved faithful, both in peace and in war.  After becoming citizens, they are entitled, under the Constitution and laws, to be placed on perfect equality with native-born citizens, and in this character they should be kindly recognized [[good guess?]].

The Federal Constitution is a [[obscured text]] States to Congress of certain [[obscured text]] the question, whether [[obscured text]] or strictly construed [[obscured text]] politi-
[[/end column 5]]
[[column 6]]
cal parties from the beginning.  Without entering into the argument, I desire to state, at the commencement of my administration, that iong experience and observation have convinced me that a strict construction of the powers of the government is the only true, as well as the only safe, theory of the Constitution.

Whenever, in our past history, doubtful powers have been exercised by Congress, they have never failed to produce injuries and unhappy consequences.  Many such injuries might be adduced, if this were the proper occasion.  Neither is it necessary for the public service to strain the language of the Constitution, because all the great and useful powers required for a successful administration of the government, both in peace and in war, have been granted, either in express terms, or by the plainest implication.  Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate money towards the construction of a military road, when this is absolutely necessary for a defence of any State or territory of the Union against foreign invasion.

Under the Constitution, Congress has power to declare war--to raise and support armies--to provide and maintain a navy--and to call forth the militia to repel invasion.  Thus endowed in an ample manner with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that the United States shall protect each of them (the States) against invasion.

How is it possible to afford this protection to California, and our Pacific possessions, except by means of a military road through the territory of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and expel the invaders?  In case of war with a naval power much stronger than our own, we should have no other available access to the Pacific coast, because such a power would instantly close the route across the Isthmus of Central America.  It is impossible to conceive that, whilst the Constitution has expressly required Congress to defend all the States, I should yet deny to them, by any fair construction, the only possible means by which one of these States can be defended.  Besides, the government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads.  It might also be wise to consider, whether the love for the Union, which now animates our citizens on the Pacific coast, may not be impaired by our neglect or refusal to provide for them, in their remote and isolated condition, the only means by which the power of the States, on this side of the Rocky Mountains, can reach them in sufficient time to protet them against invasion?  I forbear, for the present, from expressing an opinion as to the wisest and most economical mode in which the government can lend its aid in accomplishing this great [[obscured text]] ry work.  I believe that many [[obscured text]] which now appear [[obscured text]] degree [[obscured text]]satisfactorily ascertained.

It may be right that, on this occasion, I should make some brief remarks as to our rights and duties as a member of the great family of nations.

[[obscured text]] with them, there are some from which we should [[obscured text]] by our own experience, [[obscured text]] We ought to cultivate peace, commerce, and [[obscured text]] nations; and this not merely as the best means of promoting our own material interests, but in a spirit of Christian benevolence towards our fellow-men, wherever their lot may be cast.  Our diplomacy should be direct and frank, neither seeking to obtain more, nor accepting less than is our due. 

We ought to cherish a sacred regard for the independence of all nations, and never attempt to interfere in the domestic concerns of any, unless this shall be imperatively required by the great law of self-preservation.  To avoid entangling alliances has been a maxim of our policy ever since the days of Washington; and its wisdom no one will attempt to dispute.  In short, we ought to do justice from them in return.

It is our glory, that while other nations have extended their dominion by the sword, we have never acquired any territory except by fair purchase, or, as in the case of Texas, by the voluntary determination of a brave, kindred and independent people to blend their destinies with our own.  Even our acquisitions from Mexico form no exception.  Unwilling to take advantage of the fortune of war against a sister republic, we purchased those possessions under the treaty of peace for a sum which was considered at the time a fair equivalent.

Our past history forbids that we shall in the future acquire territory, unless this be sanctioned by the laws of justice and honor.  Acting on this principle, no nation will have a right to interfere or to complain, if, in the progress of events, we shall still further extend our possessions.  Hitherto, in all our acquisitions, the people under the protection of the American flag have enjoyed a civil and religious liberty as well as equal and just laws, and have been contented, prosperous and happy.  Their trade with the rest of the world has rapidly increased, and thus every commercial nation has shared largely in their successful progress.

I shall now proceed to take the oath prescribed by the Constitution, whilst humbly invoking the blessing of Divine Providence on this great people.



From the New York Tribune.
The telegraph informed us some days since of the passage, in the Missouri Legislature, of a resolution on the subject of the emancipation of the slaves in that State.  That resolution, as reported in the St. Louis papers, was in the following terms:--

'Whereas, Circumstances have rendered it necessary, and it is due to the constituent body of our fellow-citizens of the State of Missouri, that the Legislature of the State should give an unequivocal expression of opinion in regard to the subject of the emancipation of slaves in the State:

'Be it therefore resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, That the emancipation of the slaves, held as property in this State, would be not only impracticable, but that any movement having such an object in view would be inexpedient, impolitic, unwise and unjust, and should, in the opinion of this General Assembly, be discountenanced by the people of the State.'

In the Senate, a motion to lay this resolution on the table was lost--nays 23, yeas 6.  A motion [[good guess?]] to suspend the rules to allow it to be read a [[obscured text]] was then carried, 26 to 4, when the [[obscured text]] was adopted--yeas 24, nays 4. [[obscured text]] of the four Senators who had the [[obscured text]] sagacity to record their names in the [[obscured text]] Messrs. Blow, Runnels, Holm [[obscured text]].  Three of the four belonged [[obscured text]] delegation.

[[obscured text]] having come down to the House, it [[obscured text]] in an able speech by Mr. Brown of St. [[obscured text]].  He took the ground that the emancipation of her slaves would be a most decided benefit to the State of Missouri.  This speech drew a large audience, and we are glad to learn from the Missouri Democrat, that a full report of it is to be published.
[[/end column 6]]
[[/end page]]

Transcription Notes:
I'm not sure of the name of the font The Liberator in the second column between stories is. There are a couple of folds in the page that are causing some obscured text.