Viewing page 1 of 4

Is Published
Every Friday Morning,
At the
Anti-Slavery Office, 21, Cornhill.
Robert F. Wallcut, General Agent.

[[image - hand with finger pointing to the right]] - Two dollars and fifty cents per annum, in advance.

[[image - hand with finger pointing to the right]] Five copies will be sent to one address for TEN DOLLARS, if payment be made in advance.

[[image - hand with finger pointing to the 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 - hand with finger pointing to the right]] Advertisements making less than one square inserted three times for 75 cents - one square for $1.00.

[[image - hand with finger pointing to the right]] The Agents of the American, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan Anti-Slavery Societies are authored to receive subscriptions for The Liberator.

[[image - hand with finger pointing to the right]] The following gentlemen constitue the Financial Committee, but are not responsible for any of the debts of the paper, viz: - Francis Jackson, Ellis Gray Loring, Edmund Quincy, Samuel Philbrick, and Wendell Phillips.

[[image - The Liberator masthead showing slave tradeing on the left, and former slaves walking toward emancipation on the right. The center of the image shows the liberator freeing slaves]]

No Union With Slaveholders.

The United States Constitution is 'a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell'

[[image - hand with finger pointing to the 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, ^[[handwritten note]]25.00 [[B beu?]][[/handwritten note]] the espouse the cause of the oppressed in other States, and by force restore their rights; but they are without excuse in aiding other States in binding on men an unrighteous yoke. 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 must walk in it. 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.

WM. Lloyd Garrison, Editor.
Our Country is the World, our Countryman are all Mankind.
J. B. Yerrinton & Son, Printers.

VOL. XXVII. No. 25.
Boston, Friday, June 19, 1857.
Whole Number, 1380.

Refuge of Oppression.

[[image - hand with finger pointing to the right]] The following ribaldrous diatribe is aimed (to its credit) at the late excellent anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society at New York.

From the N.Y. Dispatch

The Carnival of Fanaticism.

The annual saturnalia of fanaticism and overrighteousness has passed. It has relieved itself, as usual, by violent excesses in speech, and unrestricted indulgences in nonsense, and it is to be hoped that the oratorical revellers who for the last week have perplexed the public mind with a Babelian impression of confused sound and fury, will feel no ill effects from their fantastic performances. This anniversary carnival of wild invective and unheeded treason is no doubt a necessary and useful custom; a safeguard of the [[italics]]meus sana[[/italics]] in the feeble and fretful bodies of the shrewish gentlemen of both sexes, who visit us every May from New England, to scream their denunciations against all men and things, except Sambo - their dark and dear beloved. Negromania is a fearful disease; its pangs can only be alleviated by a periodical indulgence in fierce abuse and objurgation, or perhaps by an occasional fit of profane swearing, which is admitted to be a good saftey-valve for the escape of redundant bitterness. The license of speech, therefore, permitted at the anniversaries, probably saves us the humiliating spectacle seeing philanthropy in its acute crisis, seeking relief in paroxysms of profanity. It is unfortunate that philanthropy produces bile in its victims, but any fatal effects from the unhealthy secretion are prevented by the copious public vomitings permitted at anniversary meetings; common charity demands that we bear with the contortions and unpleasant retching of the sufferers from this poignant virtue. It may be sport to us, but it is a serious matter with them, nothing less than a desperate preventive of disastrous collapse!

But notwithstanding the exceeding latitude which public opinion is prepared to allow, one week in the year, to the self-exhibition of these strange philosophers, they suffered themselves to pass it on this occasion. Not content with outraging the decency and sense of the community, they seemed determined to exhaust its forbearance. Reverend amateurs of more violent explosive power than ever were brought forward to discharge themselves in this city, scattering blasphemy, treason, and disgust, with a tremendous voice. Their aim seems to be to take notoriety by storm, to gain a name by violence, to out-bellow Boanerges, out-Garrison Garrison himself.

The eloquence of fanaticism is improving in style; it is illuminated by the same kind of wit that puny witlings indulge in by facetious distortions of Scripture. It gathers courage from impunity, and becomes [[yearly?]] [[Page has small tear in it, folded toward this side, displaying "D" and partial letters from the next page]] [[?ler]] and more reckless in its blasphemy and [[hidden by same tear as above]] but fortunately for all parties, its venom is rendered innocuous by the contempt it awakens. Such ravings have been heard before, and are, we believe, nothing new to the keepers of lunatic asylums.

It is not difficult to detect one powerful motive that animates the performers in these moral Harlequinades--vanity. The squalid witticism aimed at the most sacred traditions of patriotism; the curt profanity that jars upon our religious feelings; the shallow antithesis, the pert epithet, the quaint distortions of truth, and the reckless avowal of treason that shocks every sentiment of propriety, courtesy, and patriotism, are all intended for display; all studied with an eye to effect in newspaper reports. Let the daily press publish the resident verbosity's of these amateur traitors, and they will speedily turn their attention to less harmless pursuits. Any person who has been present at their exhibitions, must have perceived that the exciting occupation in which they are engaged is decidedly too much for the majority of them. A pallid being, enfeebled by an enormity of beard and hair, is not exactly the kind of person to hurl anathemas against the Constitution, and the early heroes and patriots of the United States. The Constitution will surely kill him, if he does not desist from his ambitious assaults upon it; and as this kind of individual is a fair sample of the new and noisy recruits to the abolition cause, no encouragement ought to be given them in the suicidal course their vanity impels them to adopt. If the press would let them alone, they would soon relapse into silence, better health, and in the course of time, perhaps, common sense and usefulness.
From the Pittsburgh Visitor.
There are five or six men in New England, of the disunion school of Abolitionists, who are certainly on the high road to the mad-house. Their utterances indicate insanity of a peculiar stamp, a monomania on the subject of slavery which we fear is incurable. From hating and denouncing slavery, they have come to hate and denounce everything else, and nothing is too sacred, nothing too pure, to escape the profanation and defilement of their ribaldry. The only thing we regret is, that among these half-dozen men is Wendell Phillips, one of the most eloquent and polished orators of Massachusetts. If he were not among them, the country could well spare the rest.

The principal object of their denunciations at present is the Republican party. At the New England Anti-Slavery Convention, on Friday, the speakers forgot slavery altogether, and turned their batteries upon the Republicans. Nothing was said against the Democracy. One speaker thought the Republicans a dangerous party, and wished them to be speedily overthrown. The reason was that they were in favor of the Union. Another speaker said that Judge Taney's decision was in perfect unison with the Constitution of the United States, and hoped the day would come 'when Senator Toombs shall crack his whip over the backs of his slaves under the shadow of Bunker Hill Monument--not black slaves, but white ones, slaves as white as himself.' What wonder that Garrison and his few followers find no place in the public sympathy?
To save the Union in 1860, it is necessary not only that the Northern democracy should gain ground, but the slaveholding States must stand together in compact column, to sustain and reinforce our friends, who bear the brunt of the battle with abolitionism on its own soil. It is by no means impossible, that at the next Presidential election we may lose one or more of the Northern States that stood by us in November.

Organize a new party in the slaveholding States, and we have it once a division of our forces which emboldens the aggressors, encourages abolitionism in its machinations against us for the next Presidential contest. Late experience proves that if there are two parties in the South, each will have its candidate for the Presidency; and the same experience also attests the fact, that the enemies of slavery are two entirely absorbed on the subject to observe on their part any such suicidal policy.--[[italics]]Richmond Enquirer[[/italics]].
[[end column one]]
[[start column two]]

The American Tract Society has heretofore excluded the subject of slavery from the matter of its publications; but, like the Young Men's Christian Association, it has at last given way to Abolition control. At the late Anniversary meeting of the Society at New York, it unanimously adopted a Report, which lays down the principles by which its future publications are to be directed--'that, while the political aspects of slavery are clearly beyond the province of the Society's publications, those "moral duties which grow out of the existence of slavery, as well as those moral evils and vices which it is known to promote, do fall within the province of the Society, and can and ought to be discussed."'

This is all the Abolitionists want. The political aspects of slavery--that is, it's relations under the Constitution of the United States, and the protection that Constitution is bound to afford to the institution of slavery--of course they do not care to discuss; but 'those duties which grow out of the existence of slavery, as well as those moral evils and vices which it is known to promote, do fall within the province of the Society.' Of course, we suppose that this decision of the American Tract Society has sealed its doom is an institution common to the North and South. Like the Methodist Church, the Society must be rent in twain, and the South set up a Southern Tract Society. We trust the most speedy and effectual means will be taken to this end. That the Southern people will contribute their money to support such a Society, the Northern people themselves will hardly expect. They mean a separation. Let us gracefully accept the position they force upon us. What will our friends who are constantly declaring that Abolition in the North is dead, say to this new development of its designs and power? If submitted to by the South, it constitutes, in our judgment, the most formidable instrumentality for overthrowing the institution of slavery that has ever been put in operation.--[[italics]]Charleston Mercury.[[/italics]]
The Southern [[italics]]Presbyterian[[/italics]], published at Charleston, S.C., thinks the resolutions, past at the late meeting of the Tract Society in New York, are very indefinite and equivocal, and may mean little or much just as they happened to be interpreted. It adds:--

'Let a book containing any sentiment offensive to Southern Christians issue from the Society, and its circulation will be instantly and effectively proscribed. Not a book merchant, agent, colporteur will be tolerated in giving it currency. Let it be understood that the Society is engaged in publishing books or tracts designed to undermine or disturb our social relations, and that moment's depositories will be closed, and its agents of every description will retire from that service, or be expelled from the land. We speak from a personal knowledge of the temper of our people, who were never so determined and so united in all parts of the South as at the present day. The means of self-protection are in our own hands, and are so simple that they can be applied at a moments notice. The books hitherto published by the Society are good, are unexceptionable to us; let them be dispersed abroad among our people as widely as possible. Wendy Society departs from its original principles, we can renounce all connection with it, and ought to and will do so. When it publishes what would be injurious to us, we can and shall take the proper measures to protect ourselves against its designs.'
It is idle for the Tract Society to attempt to distinguish between the moral and political relations of Slavery and to allow discussion of the subject in its religious aspects only. The morality of Slavery but, in its incidents as well as its essence, cannot be ignored considering it as a political institution, any more than we can avoid its political relations, in treating it as a matter of moral consequence.

But, the fact is, the Society expressly warrants a war upon Slavery, when it inculcates an exposure of [[italics]]those moral evils and vices which it is known to promote, and which are condemned in Scripture, and so much deplored by evangelical Christians[[/italics]]. Within the limits of this language, the most ultra Abolitionist can expatiate to his heart's content. It is a charter, in truth, for any and all attacks upon Slavery; and its effect will soon be seen in the character and tendency of the Society's publications.

The South may now regard the American Tract Society as among its adversaries. For decency's sake, a little time may be allowed to relapse before its antagonism to Slavery is discovered in its publications; but meanwhile its authority should be discredited by an exposure of its purposes. When we remember that its annual expenditure amounts to $400,000, and its annual publications to 300,000,000 of pages, we may appreciate the powerful influence which the American Tract Society will exert in the interest of Abolitionism.--[[italics]]From the South, (Richmond, Va.)
Heretofore, it has not intermeddled with the question of slavery; but at its late meeting, a report was submitted and adopted, which takes the ground that the Society, in order to accomplish its mission of good, must deal even-handedly and impartially with all forms of fundamental doctrinal error and practical immorality, no matter where prevailing. As such, it declares that while the political aspects of slavery are clearly beyond the province of the Society's publications, 'those moral duties which grow out of the existence of slavery, as well as those moral evils and vices which it is known to promote, do fall within the province of the Society, and can and ought to be discussed.'

The [[italics]]'Journal of Commerce'[[/italics]] thinks that the publishing committee will execute nothing rashly.

Be this as it may, this decision of the Society has sealed its doom, we hope, as a common institution. Let our Southern denominational brethren separate from it at once, and set up a Southern Tract Society for themselves. It must not, it cannot be submitted to by Southern ministers or Southern layman. It carries with it, if they do, the seeds of destruction and death.--[[italics]]Newberry (S.C.) Rising Sun.[[/italics]]
The Abolitionists are about making a regular onslaught upon the American Bible and Tract societies, with the hope of being able to split them into fragments, as they have the New York Young Men's Christian Association. It is to be hoped that the conservative members of these bodies will be able to rally in strength enough to save them from the ruin which fanaticism would bring upon them. What is it that these madman have succeeded in abolishing? Churches, Christian Associations, national unity, with the prospect of abolishing the Bible Society, the Tract Society, And the American Union--abolishing everything, in short, but slavery, which is stronger now, and far more profitable, then when they commenced their labors, twenty years ago.--[[italics]]Richmond Dispatch.[[/italics]]
[[end second column]]
[[start third column]]
The Liberator.
[[Double line]]
At the Melodeon, Thursday Evening, May 27, 1857.

I am glad that both the hour, and the thoroughness with which all those topics presented to the Convention have been discussed, rendered unnecessary that I should detain you any length of time. I believe that we have done justice both to our own view, and that of our opponents, and to the obstacles that beset us. We have but two levers--two instrumentalities by which to carry forward the movement which is to result in the emancipation of the slave: one, the omnipotent power public opinion; the other, Bring to Bear Directly, both upon the slave and the master, the great principle which underlies government--the laws of trade, of profit and loss. Man is made up of two qualities--consciousness of right, and the stimulus of selfishness; and, to be successful, we must work with reference to this fact. We have endeavored, in action and discussion the last two days, to keep these two points in view. The [[italics]]Traveller[[/italics]] is nothing to us; we do not care whether it fails or succeeds; but, as a test of Boston character, and as a type of the Republican element, it is of some importance that it's character be exposed to the community. Its manner of reporting our meetings excites in me no surprise. I knew what it was when it summoned Bolles to its head. The Boston [[italics]]Traveler[[/italics]] itself had vice enough to quench all the little virtues of those papers with which it united; it had surplus wickedness to supply the whole four. Its editor is the man who was instrumental in getting up a mob in Springfield against GEORGE THOMPSON, by placarding the city with bills. The windows of the hotel at which he (Mr. T.) was stopping, were broken by boys and rowdies, the landlord himself refusing to interfere. When Mr. Thompson, in opening the meeting, charged to this editor with printing these bills, he asked what proof he had of the fact (!!)--Like the rascal who rises in court and says, 'If I have stolen, prove it.' He demanded the evidence. Now he comes to Boston. This is a specimen of the Republican Party; the [[italics]]Traveler[[/italics]] is its organ--the best paper that can live in Massachusetts. Can your rely on such a party?

Those men could ask us to announce from this platform, that Cheever would speak [[rest of line obscured by fold of paper]] could rely on our generosity to do this, at the risk of emptying our benches. They knew us well. Then they can load us, in return, with this scurrillity and falsehood. So much for one straw showing which way the wind blows.

Dark as that picture is, there is still a darker one. Park Street Church would not allow a man to hold his pew, because he was black; yet that church, this afternoon, rang with the eloquence of a Cheever, a capstone, a Tyng, till they out-garrisoned Garrison himself! All honor to the brave words that leap from the lips of such men in a good cause! All honor to the words of rebuke they utter against their brothers in the church! What we ask of them, in no spirit of fault-finding, is, not only to speak, but to act in such a way as to annihilate the opinion which makes slaveholding respectable in this country. There were good Protestants before Luther--men who hated papal corruption before him.  Why then was he the head of Protestantism? Simply because he took the only course which could be taken to disarm public opinion in favor of the church. He cut the bonds which bound corruption to respectability; he took from vice the companionship of respectability. The sin of the slaveholder is not alone his own fault; but the fault of being considered respectable by the church. Why do four thousand men applaud when Cheever speaks in Music Hall, when, if Pillsbury or Foster had spoken the same words, the audience would have left the hall? A friend of mine, a member of the New York Senate, happened to be boarding at a house full of sincere anti-masons. He bore it as long as he could, and then changed to a house where such men as Seward, Weed and others were boarding; and on being asked why he did so, replied that he could not bear anti-masons. 'But you are not in any better quarters now! Weed and Seward talk against the masons as bad as anybody.' 'True--but they don't mean anything.' So with the so with the Church. Acknowledge me a Christian and you may abuse me from A to Z--it means nothing. So long as I can sit at the communion table among decent men, you may belch forth Foster every day of the week. That is what takes the sting from rebuke. Beecher is eloquent, but he stands inside the church, fellowshipping Adams and Spring. Let him slam the door that Brooklyn church against the Bible and Tract Societies, the Education and Missionary Societies, until they are ready to bring the slave in with them; and the clang of that door will be like the first gunpowder burnt at Lexington.

The people of the nation sit down under law. Slavery has the judiciary on its side. Until you make Massachusetts announce, in unequivocal terms, that she will not submit to a law which sustains slavery, and that it shall never be executed as law,--until you get public opinion up to this point, --our work cannot be done.  While one is ready to rebel, ninety-nine submit.  Many have reached this point theoretically. Governor Chase of Ohio told me that when Margaret Garner was in prison, he told his Sheriff not to open its door at the bidding of any United States Marshal or Judge.  That woman was free, and he would surround her prison with armed men, if need be, before a U.S. officer should lay his hand upon her.  But he did not do it.  Tempted by the hope of political preferment, and delighted with the hope of party triumph, he was swayed from his high purpose, and the moment which should have made his name immortal, was allowed to pass unimproved.  But what one man thinks, another attempts, and a third performs.  What no virtue in Chase was able to do, -- only to project,-- may create a man who will both plan and execute.

It is not in the Saxon blood to submit to the sword.  The French, Spanish and Italian branches of the same root, all know what it is to bite the dust beneath the edge of the despot's sword; but never since the Saxon came from his forest has he bowed to any

[[ end of column 3]]
[[ begin column 4]]
thing but to his own idea of law.  New England men are not cowards.  Convince Massachusetts -- let the pulpits convince Massachusetts men -- that it is not law to which they are bowing -- that it is despotism, and they [[will?]] not submit.  Rebellion! -- it is [[an ep?]]idemic in Massachusetts.  Hancock caught the disease, and inoculated us all.  We shall yet be able to educate this Northern heart of ours up to the point of rebellion.  Massachusetts is kept down by the South, by State street, Harvard College, with Facing-two-ways Winthrop, with Knownothing Everett.  Remove Massachusetts from these influences, and you will then see her true character.  Don't let us despair.  Preach comeoutism to Cheever.  Tell him to aim his sarcasm at the Northern doughface, the Southern slaveholder,the Missouri ruffian; and from the Church let him at once cut loose, and thus practically refuse to acknowledge the respectability of the system it sustains.

[[ Centered line]]


A paper has lately fallen under my notice, (the New York[[italics]] Tribune[[end italics]],) in which an attempt is made to explain the alleged inefficiency or unsuccessfulness of the labors of abolitionists.  The writer admits the men engaged in the Anti-Slavery movement to be earnest, zealous, sincere, philanthropic, able and eloquent; in short he gives us all we claim in these respects.  He then asks the question --'Why is it that such men make so few converts?' and answers it by assigning as the cause, a want of discrimination.  'They reason and act,' he says, 'as though the people of the North were in some measure answerable for the existence of slavery in the South.  They fail to make the distinction between the responsibility of the North, in regard to extension of slavery in new territory, and the responsibility of the North for the existence of slavery in the present slaveholding States of the Union.  If the slaveholders attempt to carry slavery into the territories, then we have something to do; but if Carolina sees fit to keep her slaves, her people alone are responsible.  I am ready to take issue on this point; and, instead of confessing a mistake, assert the mistake to be all on his side.  It is a mistake that the pro-slavery party have made from the beginning of our movement.  How comes it that slavery has the power [[to?]] effect an extension?  An old mechanician said he could move the earth, if he had a place to [[stand upon?]]  Now, where is the standing-point of [[looks like paper is ripped and text folded or missing]] on the [[rip or fold]] If slaveholders had no other power than [[wrinkle makes next line unreadable]]of the [[fold/tear]]South alone -- to accomplish their designs, they never [[would?]] attempt the introduction of slavery into new [[territory;? - wrinkle in word]] for such attempt would be fruitless, and would recoil upon them with defeat.  They look northward to their Democratic allies for aid; they not only look to [[italic]]them[[end italic]] for aid, but to the entire northern population.  By their alliance with the Democratic party, they are enabled to carry all their measures of general legislation; and by their alliance with the entire northern people, they are enabled to fully accomplish their designs.  Slavery is recognized by the Supreme Court and by the Congress of the United States.  Slaves by the are recognized as property, and Government has no right to discriminate between this and another species of property. -- The inference is, that slaveholders have a right to carry their property anywhere.  The inference is irresistible, that if a slaveholder wishes to go to Kansas, and take with him his slaves, he has no occasion to wait for congressional or territorial action.  His right to do this is established.  If so, it follows that the slaveholder has a right to bring his slaves into Massachusetts, and retain them here.  We have had no decision to this effect; the slaveholder has not required it; but the premises of the Court lead to this conclusion.  The Court is stopping midway.  The avalanche has started in its descent, and is now only resting.  You cannot stop it there.  Slaves are property -- not by virtue of the local legislation of Carolina and the South, but property under the recognition of the United States Government, and therefore property wherever the Constitution of the United States has jurisdiction; -- property, too, not in a qualified sense, but in the same sense, and to the same extent, with the domestic animals, with furniture, or any other species of property.  If I can go to Virginia, and retain these, the Virginian has a right to come here with his slaves, and continue to hold them here as long as he may deem it proper.  We cannot shirk this conclusion.  It may be true, that this legislation and judicial action, to which I refer, has its origin in the Democratic party alone; yet it is the purpose of the Slave Power to have it recognised by the North as legitimately and authoritatively binding on us.  What is the basis of their hopes and expectations?  Suppose Massachusetts should say, 'We are ready to do what honest men can do, for the sake of continuing in union with South Carolina; but there are certain things which honest men and lovers of liberty cannot consistently do; and to that limit having gone, we will not go beyond -- not even to save the Union, or keep the solid glove from crumbling beneath our feet.' -- Would there then be any hope of binding Massachusetts to assist the Slave Power in carrying slavery wherever it may see fit?  Take away the aid of the North and let it be understood that she stands independent and separate from slavery, and you would not find sufficient courage in the South to attempt an extension of the system.

It is amusing that such papers as the New York [[italics]]Tribune[[end italics]] need be told, that to help to commit a crime is to be guilty of that crime.  If I help hold slaves in Carolina, why am I not guilty of slaveholding?  If I hold slaves on my own responsibility, and with my own power here, I can fix the limits of the force which I put in operation.  I can decide the nature of their task, determine the quality of their food and clothing, and in all respects control their condition; but if I hold them in Carolina, while I am responsible for their enslavement, I have no power to control their condition.  I am like the mill-stream, that pours its tide upon the wheel, but which has no ability to guide the machinery.  There is the slave under the control of the slave-driver of Mississippi -- himself under no control of mine.  He can exercise his power over the slave as he may think proper, and I cannot interpose any barrier.

There is the only appreciable difference between slave-holding here and slaveholding in Carolina, through

[[end of column 4]]
[[begin column 5]]

the aid I give to that State in holding men as slaves.  Do you ask the evidence that the people of Massachusetts are actually engaged in slaveholding there?  If I were talking to the New York [[italics]]Tribune[[/italics]], or to the Boston [[italics]]Traveller[[/italics]], it might perhaps be necessary to go into an argument to prove this fact; but to you who have been accustomed to meet together, to read, to think, to discuss, it can hardly be necessary to spend words for this purpose; yet it may be possible there are those here who have read the [[italics]]Tribune[[/italics]]more that THE LIBERATOR, and I may be excused if I remind them that, as long as the Constitution of the United States pledges the North to return the slave to his master, and to put down slave insurrections, so long is the North involved in the guilt of slaveholding.  No matter how sincerely anti-slavery a man may profess to be, by virtue of his connection with the American Union, by virtue of his citizenship under the American Government and his confederacy with slaveholders, he is, wittingly or unwittinglly, a slaveholder.-- If there is any truth in the saying, that to help commit a wrong makes one responsible for the wrong, then it is plain that to help hold slaves in South Carolina makes us responsible for slavery there.

Some, it is true, deny the construction we put upon the Constitution, as being pro-slavery.  I know there are men who deny that there is one syllable or letter in the Constitution in support of slavery.  I am willing to concede, what I believe to be at variance with truth, that this opinion is correct. For the sake of argument, I am willing to waive my own opinion, and accept as true that of Spooner, Smith, and Goodell.  I respond to those who say that we of the North have no connection with slavery; that the great body of the people do not, and never have so understood it; that the legislative and judiciary departments of government concur in interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to make it our duty to return the slave to his master.  Be the letter of the Constitution what it may, the people in their administration have made it a pro-slavery instrument, and they have evinced a determination to administer it in accordance with that interpretation. It would have been a marvel indeed, had the people made an Anti-Slavery Constitution..--The Blacksmith does not make an axe, that he may have a scythe; and when the Constitution has been used as a scythe to mow down humanity from the beginning, the inference is clear, that this is what the people meant to make it.  There is no evidence that the people of the North do not mean to administer the Constitution as a pro-slave instrument.

Massachusetts has the Personal Liberty Bill.  It is much longer than would be a Personal Liberty Bill which was really framed for the purpose of protecting the slave.  If the Legislature will consent to pass such a bill by a vote large enough to dispense with Gov. Gardner's signature, I will engage to make one which will make two lines only--'[[italics]]Be it enacted,[[/italics]] that no human being shall be claimed as a slave on the soil of Massachusetts.'  This everybody can understand.-- Everybody does not clearly understand the present bill.  It is not what an Anti-Slavry Constitution of the United States would require it to be.  Have they, who profess to be desirous of protecting the inhabitants of Massachusetts against the Slave Power, ever attempted to pass an act capable of being interpreted to mean that no man shall be claimed or given up as a slave?  In that bill, you have provisions for the employment of counsel, and for the attendance of witnesses in behalf of him who is claimed.  What are these provisions for?  You must have a jury trial--you must have counsel--to do what?  Witnesses--to testify to what?  Simply to decide whether the being before you in the form of a man, with all the characteristics of a man--whether he is a man or a beast.--Do you want twelve men to decide that question?  And if the decision chance to be in favor of the master, do you mean to give him up as a beast?  The statue implies all this.  You pledge yourselves, that if the evidence is sufficient to prove that the person claimed was a chattel, and belonged to his claimant, you will render a verdict in favor of that claimant, and in accordance with that verdict give the claimed up to the claimant to be held as a slave.  We do not want testimony to prove that men cannot be legitimately herded with four-footed beasts.  We can come to right conclusions without this.  Do we wish to employ an advocate to appeal to the minds of the jury in order to prove that men cannot, in accordance with the principles of true republicanism and Christianity, be degraded to the condition of slaves?  We know this now.  We need neither testimony or argument to convince us of this truth.  But all of this is mearly an attempt to protect the rights of those persons who may be wrongly charged--not to protect those who have been once in bondage; and we have pledged ourselves to accept of it as a matter of law.  We are thus implicated in the guilt of slaveholding.  If we send one person back into slavery, or pledge ourselves to do it, we are not only subjecting one man to slavery, but we consent to fasten the fetters upon all others.

It is said that whatever may be the terms of the law, it is the real purpose of the legislature to make the law effective in preventing any recapture of slaves; that if we required evidence that the man claimed is a slave, the first effect will be, few persons will incur the expense and inconvenience of prosecuting; and the next effect will be, very few cases which are tried will be sustained.  Now, if there be a claim the slaveholder may legitimately make, and having made, is able to maintain it, it is certainly our duty to grant the claim.  If the object of the bill is to defeat a just claim, this furnishes a new objection to the bill. On the other hand, if it be right for us to reject any claim of this character, then it is fair and manly for us to reject it, not by indirection, but by open and avowed effort.  If the bondman ought not to be returned, let us defend in an open manner any attempt to do it.

The same editor to whom I have alluded, denies the justice of our charge against the Republican party, namely, that they are giving strength and countenance to slavery.  'Such men,' he says, 'as Wilson, Chase, Sumner, and Giddings are not giving aid and countenance to slavery when they stand up in Congress, and pour out their denunciations against the system.'  I grant they are helping in the agitation of slavery, and striking heavy blows against the Slave Power; but, at the same time, they are counteracting their efforts in behalf of the slave, by continuing to

[[end column 5]]
[[begin column 6]]

uphold the Union, and the necessary conditions o(sic) that Union. Not a man of them has ever declared his dissent from the common interpretation of the Constitution, which requires the surrender of fugitive slaves. They differ only in regard to the manner of executing this provision.  If there is no authority which binds us to enact or enforce such a bill, or to aid the slaveholder in any way in returning his slave; if the only grant the Constitution makes to the slaveholder is simply a right to come here, and take his slave if he can, without our aid;  I answer, this is enough to constitute Massachusetts a slaveholder. No human power has a right to take a man from Massachusetts, upon any pretext whatever, without her consent.  When the slaveholder comes here, he comes under the authority of Massachusetts law.  When Massachusetts has ratified a law which opens the door to the kidnapper, then is she responsible for that which follows in consequence of this action.  It is clear, then, that any man who helps support this Union, and the necessary conditions of the Union, helps to keep the slaves in chains in Carolina, notwithstanding his efforts to the contrary.  A man may try to lift a trap-door, but his standing on that door will prevent the accomplishment of his object.

I am reminded that the legislature of Massachusetts are now considering a bill, making it a crime to hold a slave in Massachusetts, punishable by a fine of ten thousand dollars, or imprisonment for ten years.  The design of the law is to prevent the enforcement of the Dred Scott decision, and so far it is right.  If Massachusetts will refuse to recognize this decision as law, I shall rejoice.  But suppose we make the crime of slaveholding in Massachusetts a punishable offense--does that prevent a slave of Carolina from being dragged back into bondage?  I hope that Gov. Gardner will not fail to thrust Judge Loring from office, and that the legislature will pass this bill.  When all is done, we only stand where we stood twenty-five years ago; nay, lower.  You have not abolished the Fugitive Slave Bill, nor secured freedom to Kansas or Texas.  Thus we are by virtue of our Union connected with slavery as allies and supporters thereof.

Men say we can abolish slavery without abolishing the Union.  I have no right to continue in partnership with thieves; I must first withdraw from such partnership, and then I can with clean hands rebuke my associates.  This ought to be a sufficient answer to those who mean to be guided by moral principle rather than expediency.  To be true to principle, and consistent with [[??-remainder of line is illegible]]
this slavery-perpetuating Union. If each man separately is bound to avow his purpose to prevent the recapture of slaves, the same men while acting together should avow the same purpose.  I every citizen North is bound to make it known to the South, that when a slave reaches a free State, he shall be treated as a freeman, the same declaration should be made in legislative halls, as well as by public meetings and newspapers.  When you make this declaration through the Governor's proclamation and legislative enactments, that instant you cut the cord that binds you to the Union.  The Union is what the parties to it understand it to mean.  Can you escape that conclusion?  Then, either be true to humanity, and faithful to the slave, by dissolving the Union, or, on the other hand, by continuing the Union, be false to the slave, false to humanity and to God!

[[short line separating articles]]


Mr Pillsbury said that his connection with the Anti-Slavery movement commenced twenty years ago; and during that time, he had been a constant observer of events which had transpired in this country.  He was at that time connected with a theological institution -- not the most favorable position in which to view theA nti-Slavery(sic) movement; yet he well remembered an address delivered in the Anti-Slavery Convention in 1837, by Mr. GARRISON, containing some startling predictions which his associates themselves could scarcely believe.  They regarded him as a young man, with more zeal, perhaps, than knowledge, and with a good deal more determination and resolution than discretion and wisdom.  In that address was the prediction of the annexation of Texas, and the events which were to follow in its train.  Very few of his friends supposed such an event possible; none but the Abolitionists believed the Slave Power competent to perform such work as that of the dismemberment of a sister State, and annexation of it to this Republic. Then came the prophecy of the degradation of the Northern people, in consequence of this measure; the organization of the Slave Power in the government; and, finally, the war with Mexico.  In 1837, nobody thought Texas could become part of the Union; the Democratic party even, could not believe it; but the occurrence has taken place, and, as a consequence, the degradation of the people of the North.

I believe it to be true, that a people when losing their liberty are never conscious of it.  Rome was never more boastful of her liberty than during the hundred years it was rapidly passing away; and on the very day she resigned her scepter, she was filled with boasting patriots as before.  I never could understand how slaves could be happy in their condition, till I learned the submission of the North to the South.  In 1838 and 1839, annexation was looked upon as an event likely to occur, though in 1841, the Whig and Democratic party of the North were still in unbelief; but in 1843, the Whig party began to open its eyes; and at that time originated in Boston a type of Whigism, known as 'Conscience Whigs.' This party issued a manifesto, calling upon the people of the North, rather than submit to annexation, to dash the Union in pieces. The whole Whig party responded to the sentiment, and for a time these opponents to the administration really seemed ready to dissolve the Union, rather than the Republic of Mexico should be dismembered, and made slave territory under the United States Government.  In 1844-5, the Democratic party came into power; and in 1846, the measure of annexation was carried; and the degradation may date from that time, as the commencement of a new era.  Then followed the was with Mexico, in exact fulfillment of the prediction to which I have referred.  The Whig party sat up nights, and ransacked the vocabulary of language to find terms with which to curse that war.  They cursed it in the name of all the gods of liberty and religion, and with every



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