Viewing page 2 of 4

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[double line]]
98           T H E   L I B E R A T O R .        JUNE 19.
[[double line]]

[[column 1]]
oath they were able to invent; yet this party selected Gen. Taylor, the chief actor in that war, and by 'spontaneous combustion' made him President of the United States.  From that time the degradation of the American people has become more and more apparent.  The repeal of the Missouri Compromise followed; and the prophets of the Republican party are now praying, as the highest desire of their souls, that there may be a millennial return to them of that old compromise--a compromise so infamous, that Henry Clay, with all his eloquence, was scarcely able to impose it upon the country.  All those predictions have transpired with such accuracy, that, had the author of them lived in the days of Jeremiah, we should now have,--I know not how many books of prophecy.  If we had sat on the Mount of Vision, and predicted all those events which have since transpired, and which are but the legitimate offspring of slavery, we should have met with the same treatment which honored the martyrs of past ages.

Having foretold these events––the annexation of Texas, the war with Mexico, the passage of the Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850, there was still another chapter of horrors to be read.  The original Missouri Compromise gave only half the country to slavery; its repeal gave up the whole!  Then came the scenes enacted in Kansas, by the Slave Power pouring out its vials of wrath upon that unhappy land; and then the outrage in the Congress of the United States, in which a Senator from Massachusetts was smitten down by ruffian blows, his blood staining the floor of the Senate Chamber.  The victim is borne away senseless, while the ruffian goes home, receives every mark of honor at the hands of his constituents, and sweet kisses from a thousand lips, and is then returned to his place in Congress without a dissenting voice!

Then followed the election of James Buchanan, and the decision of the Supreme Court in reference to the case of Dred Scott:--all these in quick succession.  And when all this has been done, the leader of the best political party the country can furnish,--standing as it were in the blood of Sumner, and in presence of his empty chair, the South pouring in upon him every form of insult and outrage--styling him 'a mean, empty-headed Natick cobler,' and his constituency 'a miserable conglomeration of greasy mechanics and moon-struck theorists'--rises in his place, and, bowing gracefully, declares that Massachusetts will ever be loyal to the Union; that she had rather have a slaveholder for President of the United States than a Northern man; that he will vindicate the right of South Carolina to hold slaves, and will visit every man, North or South, with a traitor's doom, who may dare to lay his hand upon the Union to destroy it!  All this must be added to the catalogue of events, during the last twenty years of our country's history.

What do you think, to-day, of the Abolitionists?  You ridiculed us as fools in 1837; you cursed us in 1838; and you cursed us again when we would not join you in the war against Mexico.  In 1850, we were mobbed in the city of New York.  Some of us knew what it was to be mobbed in four towns in a single week.  All that we predicted, and more than we predicted, has now, at the end of twenty years, proved true.

While these events are transpiring, we have many revivals of religion, thousands are gathered into the folds of the Church; the number of ministers is increased, Sunday schools multiplied, and the Western wilderness, through these influences, buds and blossoms as the rose.  But, in all this time, we have never heard of the emancipation of a single slave.  Roman Catholic Mexico became independent of Spain, and, while we were building Protestant churches, she abolished slavery.  While she emancipated her slaves, we built up Methodism and Congregationalism, and the next ten years was marked with those other events to which I have referred.  Mexico was invaded by Protestant powers; and when we had conquered her by murdering one hundred thousand of her people, our Protestant ministers hastened to their temples to thank God that Roman Catholic Mexico was then in a condition to receive the Gospel!  During the past year, there have been many revivals--so we are told by the different religious bodies now holding their anniversaries in the city; but it has never been my fortune to happen in a place where one of these revivals occurred.  The boy was told, that at the end of a certain rainbow might be found a pot of money.  The difficulty was in finding an end to the rainbow; and this has been my experience in searching for revivals of religion.  Here is one fact worthy of notice: not the least alarm is felt, throughout the entire South, in consequence of the outpouring of the Spirit here at the North; while our little meeting will spread terror there!  No other meeting held in Boston during this Anniversary week will create such alarm in the ranks of the slaveholder as this.  We have, then, the assurance that our movement is deserving of your support and encouragement.  Our cause is stamped with the impress of divinity; and though mobocracy may temporarily crush it to the earth, it is immortal, and can no more die than God himself.

[[dividing line]]


Mr. POWELL said, that he believed it to be our duty to hold up all to the people of this country the difference between true Anti-Slavery and that which springs from expediency; for while we have evinced a desire for the abolition of slavery, we have failed to make this discrimination.

We are thankful that so much sympathy for our movement exists; we need it all; but sympathy alone will not accomplish the work.  Our friend (Mr. Stetson) has spoken approvingly of Mr. Cheever's address this morning, at Music Hall.  No man can, I believe, listen to Dr. C. without being deeply impressed with his eloquent words; yet these are nothing, unless followed by consistent action on the part of him who speaks them.  Is the action of Dr. Cheever in accordance with his words?  If so, then he is among the most eloquent men of our time.  We can say this of a Phillips, because with his eloquent words we see consistent action.  It is not so with Dr. Cheever.  All must agree that his words are words of earnestness and power, pronounced, as it were, a spirit of prophecy; yet, judging from the past, his oratory is not followed by consistent action.  It may in the future be consistent; if so, our admiration and commendation can have no limit.

One year ago, we had not the eloquence of Cheever alone to stir the hearts of the citizens of Boston.  We had the eloquence of Sumner's prostrate form and bleeding head.  By some he was spoken of in terms of severe criticism.  'I will wait,' says one, 'before I criticise, and see what may be his future action.'  During the summer, he wrote a letter, in which he advised the citizens of the country to vote for Fremont, and sustain the policy of the Republican party.  This, then, was Sumner's action.  What was the result of this action is a question which concerns the slave, and those who represent him.  It tended to lower the standard of Anti-Slavery in the minds of many who would otherwise have remained consistent abolitionists; and the same may be said in reference to the action of Cheever, Ciddings, and the leaders of the Republican party generally, as well as that of the •Christian' Anti-Slavery movement, which to-day holds its Convention in Park street church.  Sumner's advice tended to perpetuate this Government and Union--that machinery by which the slaveholders of the country are enabled to perpetrate wrong and outrage upon their victims.  What difference can it make to the slave, whether Buchanan or Fremont administers the government?  Our first duty, as abolitionists, is to pursue an uncompromising and consistent course of action, and invite others to join us.  If the theory of our movement be correct, then let us draw the line closely.  There is no middle ground between right and wrong--between Anti-Slavery and Pro-Slavery.
[[/column 1]]

[[column 2]]
One remark of Dr. Cheever late last evening, (and it was highly applauded,) was, that 'Silence is positive complicity in the guilt of the slaveholder.  We cannot stand still without exerting influence in favor of slaveholding.'  The part which each individual performs in sustaining this government, owing to its peculiar character, makes him individually responsible for the existence of slavery in the land.  The strength of the Slave Power consists in our acquiescence in the measures which tend to perpetuate this slave oligarchy.  It rests with us to overthrow the institution, to commence at once the work of disunion.  A sense of justice to the slave leads us to purse this coure.  I therefore second the resolution, criticising the position of the so-called anti-slavery politicians of the country, and regret that those 'Christian abolitionists,' who, like Beecher and Cheever and others, stand connected with ecclesiastical bodies, and acknowledge slavery to be a sin [[italic]]per se[[/italic]], had not been included.  I do see how it is possible for Cheever to remain in any church which does not declare slavery to be a sin [[italic]]per se[[/italic]].  No matter how eloquent the word in behalf of liberty; if the personal attitude of the speaker is one which recognizes slavery as worthy the protecting and fostering care of the Church and the Government, that word can never be fully efficient.  Cheever's influence, if you persist in fellowshiping Nehemiah Adams and other clergymen who are in fraternal relations with the slaveholder, must be fatal to the true idea of Anti-Slavery.  That influence will have a tendency to lower the standard of action in all who admire him, thereby converting the anti-slavery ranks into a bulwark of the system we desire to overthrow.  'If,' say they, 'such a man as Cheever can fraternize with a pro-slavery church, we may do it;' and thus an uncompromising opposition to slavery is proportionally diminished.

There is no course for us to pursue, in carrying forward the work for which this Society was organized, but that of hostility to every influence in support of slavery.  There is no way in which we can build what we would have reared in this country, political and religious institutions dedicated to freedom, but to continually present to the mind the highest abstract idea of freedom.  That idea must have an existence in the heart, before it can be organized into institutions.  As the noble edifice must have existence in the brain, before it can be constructed by the mechanic, so must all, who would rear in this country institutions worthy the reverence of the friends of freedom, present the highest model of which we can conceive.  What is that model?  No government shall recognize property in man.  But this government is modelled after the architect of slavery.  The Fugitive Slave Law is one of its chief ornaments.  Our religious organizations are formed by the same architect, and horrible indeed are they in the eyes of the slave; but what would be the character of a religious organization, modelled after the architect of liberty?  It would be to slavery what the old Covenanters are: it would refuse to fellowship the supporters of slavery.  It is your duty and mine to see that our position is in accordance with the dictates of liberty, and then to labor with whatever power we may possess to build up a sentiment which shall create and fashion institutions dedicated to freedom.

[[dividing line]]


Mr. Foss said, that to him slavery was a self-evident wrong; and whatever strength and ability he possessed, he should devote to denouncing it.  There is nothing in it which commends it to the conscience and the affections; and if it were left unsustained by the government, the religion, and the institutions of the land, it would fall.  It is our duty to remove, as far as possible, the influences which support this great iniquity.  I have (said Mr. F.) fault to find with the clergy of our land.  From the outset, they have opposed our movement, and are more or less complicated with the wrong.  Beecher and Cheever speak brave words for liberty, but they stand directly connected with the Slave Power, and fellowship it as a Christian institution.  Beecher fellowships 'South-side' Adams as a Christian minister, but horse-thieves and pickpockets are rejected.  I hold it to be more necessary to criticize Cheever than Adams; the latter needs no criticism; he stands the devil confessed--the horns and hoof all exposed--while Cheever claims to be anti-slavery, and what he preaches passes for this.

The people of this country do not regard slavery as a crime.  They do not feel that it is a great social and political wrong.  Our churches do not believe it; and the great work of the Anti-Slavery Society is to convince them of this truth.  When this is done, the crime of man-stealing will be treated like other great crimes.

Dr. Waterbury says the Church needs repose!  Agitation is not favorable to piety!  Godliness does not consist in delivering four millions of slaves from their bonds, and giving them the privilege of reading the Bible!  Now, I believe heaven begins here; I believe in a working heaven; and I know of no greater or better heaven than in working for the elevation of our race.  For fear I may be misapprehended, I want to say that I have no regard for or fellowship with the religion of the land--I utterly repudiate it.  Nor do I fellowship the government.  The government is the offspring of the religion of the land. Both are responsible for the existence of slavery.

I have some fault to find with the political parties of the day.  The Democratic party is composed of two classes--knaves and fools.  Cushing and Hallett belong to the former class; Tom, Dick and Harry to the latter.  I would not attempt to convert such men as Cushing and Hallett; they would not stick if we did; for they once professed to be friends of the Anti-Slavery cause.  I do not wish to convert them, but let them remain where they belong.  I have no criticism for the Democratic party: it stands undisguised.  There are honest men in the party, but they do not control it.

The rank-and-file of the Republican party are honest men; they suppose they are working effectually for the overthrow of slavery.  The speeches of Wilson and Hale, last winter, are so apologetic in reference to the course they aro pursuing, containing as they do so many promises of good behaviour and fealty to the Union, that I am led to doubt the honesty of these men.  Hale went to Congress a noble man.  He returns with the physical man reduced, and his soul is shriveled.  His speech last winter has done more to delay emancipation, then any speech he ever made has helped it.  I am pained at the conduct of these men.  This party came before the world, and said--no, they did not exactly say that it was anti-slavery--individuals in that party say this, but as a party they deny it.  It reminds me of a poor Englishman, who wished an abatement of church taxes.  He applied to each of the proper officers separately, and obtained their consent to abate; but when they came to act in their corporate capacity, they were unanimous against the measure.  Separately, Republicans would give no aid to slavery; no pledge to put down slave insurrections.  All together, they send Anthony Burns into slavery.  The Republican party are deceiving the community and themselves.  They believe they are aiding the cause of the slave, but they are actually drawing off the Anti-Slavery sentiment of the land.  This party taps our canal, and we have no water to turn the wheel which is to work the redemption of the slave.  This party is more dangerous to liberty and the cause of the slave than any other party that has ever existed in the land.  The Democratic party says, 'Let slavery go into the territories; let slave depots be erected in Boston; let slavery have its own way.'  But the Republican party says, 'No!  Let slavery live in South Carolina, and we will protect it there.'  They are for continuing this Union; they are willing to make concessions, and support such as now exist in favor of slavery; in short, they want to get the machine of government into their own hands.  No machine can produce any other work than that for which it
[[/column 2]]

[[start column 3]]
was made.  Run this machine of government the next seven years, and, Republicans! you will do no better with it than did your predecessors.  I complain, then, of this party, because it is leading true anti-slavery sentiment astray.  It is doing far it raises a false issue, which is not done by the Democratic party.

I know not what is to follow.  We acquiesce in whatever the Slave Power sees fit to impose upon us.  Texas is annexed; Mexico is invaded, and her citizens butchered; the Fugitive Slave Law is passed, and executed in Boston; the Kansas Nebraska law is enacted, and the freemen of Kansas are outraged and murdered.  Now we have the Dred Scott decision, and we still acquiesce!  There will be, within five years, a slave depot established in the city of New York.  Ships are now being fitted, constantly, from that port for the slave traffic on the African coast.  We submit for we have not spirit enough to resist.  We are non-resistants, not from principle, but from sordid considerations alone.  Until we are ready to sacrifice every interest to the cause of the slave, our efforts for his redemption will not succeed--till then, our labors will be in vain.



During the last few weeks, much has been said respecting the late decision of Judge Taney.  There are many who have approved of it from their regard for slavery; while others object to it as an outrage upon the Constitution and common humanity.  Some papers go so far as to declare that we may look in vain for a similar decision in any civilized country.  Without wishing to occupy time, he (Mr. Remond) would only say, that he held this decision to be in close keeping with the original design, spirit, and purpose of the American Constitution.  It is in perfect accordance with the usages of the American Government, from its formation to the present time.  With these, the decision is consistent, and he had no fault to find with it.  Now, let it be borne in mind, (said Mr. R.,) that while I believe the decision to be consistent with the spirit and purpose of the framers of the American Constitution, I am not here to concur in it, but to say that I hold the decision, and the men who made it, in inexpressible contempt.  If there is one man more fitting than another to be a hewer of wood and a drawer of water--more fitting to have the initials of a master's name branded into his cheek--to live out the most miserable existence fated to a human being; if there is a man who, in the language of Byron, should 'not find a shelter in the wilderness, a home on earth, a grave in the dust, nor receive a blessing from heaven, but who deserves a resting-place in hell itself'--that man is Judge Taney.  To this extent I am in unison with that celebrity, and in harmony with his decision--no farther.  'NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS'--the motto of this Society--I hold to be coincident with the idea of a dissolution of the Union; and I have no higher or holier mission here than to labor to accomplish this object, as the only means of saving the American people, and the only institutions in our land worth saving.  It matters little whether we have one railroad or a hundred; whether we shall have one bank or a thousand; whether American genius shall be recognised in Great Britain; whether American literature shall be felt on the Continent of Europe; whether American seamen, as against British seamen, shall make the most rapid passages across the Atlantic; or whether American generals shall out-general French generals.  But it does matter whether the American Revolution shall ever be completed; and whether these monuments, erected to mark the spot where men bled and died for liberty, shall be so many insults to the poor and oppressed of this land, or whether they shall be monuments around which shall cluster a pure Democracy and a genuine Christianity.

We are here to urge the claims of the oppressed of the land, though they may be as ignorant as Hottentots, or as barbarous as the barbarians of Barbary.—-The time is coming when the glowing picture of the American Union and American patriotism, so beautifully and eloquently drawn by such men as Webster, Seward, and Everett, will be scouted as it deserves to be.

When Mr. Phillips declared that, among the obstacles to the Anti-Slavery cause, the most prominent was prejudice against color--who will deny it?  Why is not the Northern press a convert?  Simply because it is fashionable to regard colored men as objects to be despised.

Mr. R. said that he was glad the Union is in jeopardy; that such men as Choate, Winthrop, and others of the same clan, had some lost their own liberty in contempt of his; that freedom is prostrate in Kansas; and he hoped that Toombs would be soon be seen in Boston, cracking his whip, not over the heads of black men, but of living white men and women; for then the chains of the black slave will be broken.  He was glad that the richest man in Boston dare not go to Charleston, South Carolina.  In Washington, Newfoundland dogs have, in some cases, been trained to carry the mail from one point of the city to another, while it is against the law for a negro to touch the reins of horses used for that purpose!  Not long since, a gentleman remarked that he should like to see me in the streets of Charleston, for he should be likely to see some fun.  But, said I, 'Go there yourself, and act as a freeman should, and I shall see fun also.'--His wife, who was present, said that was too true.  Not long since, while travelling there, her husband dare not record upon the books of the hotel the name of the State to which he belonged!  If a merchant of the old aristocratic Bay State dare not write [[italics]] Massachusetts [[/italics]] under his name in Charleston, don't tell me there are not others interested in the cause of Anti-Slavery besides the black man!

Mr. R. said he had not strength to extend his remarks.  He would simply say, that if there was a person within the sound of his voice, whose mind was not made up as to his duty with reference to the Anti-Slavery cause as promulgated from this platform, and seen in the resolutions presented for our consideration, let that person go South, and endeavor to carry out that idea of human liberty as expressed in the Declaration of Independence; and if he don’t see the necessity of adopting the motto, ‘NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS,’ though I were an angel of light he would not be convinced.

[[double line]]

From the Practical Christian.


We attended the late New England Anti-Slavery Convention in Boston, and participated in no other of the anniversaries of the week, though there were several highly interesting public demonstrations which we would gladly have witnessed, had we not felt more interested at the Melodeon.  This confession, we are aware, will bring us no laurels of popular commendation.  Judging from sundry allusions reported to have been made by certain speakers at other meetings, and the contemptuous articles which graced the Boston [[italics]] Traveller [[/italics]] during the week, the Garrisonians would seem to be the veriest set of ‘impracticable fanatics,’ ‘mad-caps,’ and ‘disorganizers,’ that ever tried to turn this ‘world upside down.’  We happen, however, to have a better opinion of them, and so stuck rather closely to their much berated ‘conventicle.’  Reputation or no reputation, well reported or ill reported, so long as we prefer death to chattel slavery for ourself and those dearest to us, we shall consider deliberate, persistent slaveholding worse than murder; and so long as we consider it worse than murder, we shall prefer the company of those who uncompromisingly denounce and disfellowship it as [[italics]] such [[/italics]], rather than that of religionists and politicians who treat it as if it were only mal-economy, or an inconvenient natural evil, or a remnant of social barbarism, or at worst merely a deplorable, half-excusable fault.

We abhor slaveholding as something worse than all this,—-worse than petty larceny, or any common crime; we abhor it as a flagrant, [[italics]] capital [[/italics]]
[[/column 3]]

[[column 4]]
crime.  We abhor the original act of man-stealing, by which slavery was initiated.  We abhor the act of purchasing those stolen human beings when first landed from Africa.  We abhor the persistent holding of them and their posterity as slaves.  We abhor the continual kidnapping of their children and children’s children from the womb.  We abhor still more all laws which assume these foul outrages are innocent acts.  We abhor yet more all political compacts, confederations and organizations which treat slaveholding as equally commendable with land-holding, and which league non-slaveholders with slaveholders against their slaves to keep millions of them in hopeless bondage.  And most of all do we abhor religious and ecclesiastical organizations which, in the name of God and Jesus Christ, license slaveholding, or tolerate it as compatible with Christian righteousness.  In these views all Garrisonian Abolitionists sympathize.  So, in their case, as in all others, ‘birds of a feather flock together.’

Are we ashamed of such a moral position and companionship ?  No; we glory in it.  Why?  Because it is the only truthful, just, consistent, and defensible one.  The ultra slaveholders, [[italics]] or [[/italics]] the ultra Abolitionists, are right.  If slaveholding is any sin at all, it is one of the very greatest.  If no sin at all, [[italics]] per se [[/italics]], it is as innocent and laudable as landholding, cattle-owning, banking or manufacturing.  If so, it is right everywhere, and ought to be regulated and protected accordingly.  But if it be, as ultra Abolitionists contend, one of the greatest sins [[italics]] per se [[/italics]],——a capital crime, worse even than murder, all things considered,——then persistent slaveholding ought to be outlawed by State and Church, just as the United States have outlawed African slave-trading.  Why not?

Now the Garrisonian Abolitionists believe this; and they [[italics]] say [[italics]] it in a way to be understood, without partiality and without hypocrisy.  But thereby they make themselves hated, scorned and dreaded,  By whom?  By prominent ecclesiastics, politicians and all the devotees of established compacts and organizations.  Why?  Because these ecclesiastical and political organizations are in some way so tied up in union with slaveholders, that they cannot outlaw them without greater or less agitation, inconvenience, self-mortification and self-sacrifice.  For this they are not morally prepared; and therefore they hold on to their complicity with slaveholding.  But the Garrisonian Abolitionists are fully prepared to tell them the truth, and to rebuke their complicity with this monster crime of the age.  This is their peculiar mission.  Were they to fall away from this faithful testimony, they would become mere moral [[italics]] twaddlers [[/italics]], alike useless and contemptible as reformers.

Yet their opposers seem to speak of them as if their transformation into such compromising twaddlers would be their regeneration—-a glorious translation out of [[italics] ]madcapism [[/italics]] and [[italics]] infidel disorganizationism [[/italics]] into true religious and political holiness.  This is the wisdom of compromisers—-of men who are just as [[italics]] anti [[/italics]]-slavery and just as [[italics]] pro [[/italics]]-slavery as the circumstances of the times most render expedient
for their beloved church, religious sect, or political party.  With them nothing is good, wise and practicable that will not in some way accommodate itself to the present comfort and advancement of [[italics]] their [[/italics]] ‘Zion,’ [[italics]] their [[/italics]] ‘platform,’ [[italics]] their [[/italics]] ‘Union.’  With one breath they denounce slavery as the meanest, vilest, most accursed thing under the sun; with the next they swear to give it protection and defence in its strong-holds, even though they should be obliged to shed rivers of blood to fulfill their covenant.  At one moment they vilify slaveholders as ‘tyrants,’ ‘robbers’ and ‘ruffians,’ and split the air with their invectives; in the next, perhaps, they will address one of them as a ‘dear Christian brother,’ an ‘honorable gentleman,’ or a most ‘patriotic citizen’!  No wonder that such religionists and politicians cry out against Garrison, Phillips and their associates; for they cannot stand a moment before the word of their testimony.  No wonder that those men of upright life, pure motives, clear vision, resistless logic and burning eloquence carry moral terror into the ranks of such inconsistent pretenders to wisdom and virtue.  No wonder that ultra slaveholders at the South, in the rankness of their wicked consistency, spurn all two-sided compromisers.  They hate the Garrisonians, yet are obliged to respect them.  But they [[italics]] despise [[/italics]], as well as hate, the whole race of religionists and politicians whose boasted wisdom consists in compounding anti-slavery with pro-slavery in exactly the proportions necessary to each day's exigency and convenience.

'Great is truth, and it will prevail.'  Let rightousness reign, though all the old sects and parties should be dissolved in the crucible of regeneration.  For then will come the 'new heavens and new earth,' wherein shall be no more sin nor woe.

[[dividing line]]


The American A. S. Society is the oldest national organization in America which makes the extinction of human bondage its exclusive aim, and has for twenty years numbered many able and eloquent men among its members.  Its strength in the ability and energy of its master spirits is out of all proportion to its numbers; its journals and speakers are eminent in power and interest; while the moral character and devotedness of its leaders are such as to command general admiration.  Why is it, then, that this Society gains no ascendancy in an township or ward throughout the Union?  Bad as the world is, it is not a desert without oases; and, if the Garrisonians were wholly right, it is hardly possible that they should be everywhere outnumbered.

In our judgment, the radical defect of this Society inheres in its stubborn refusal to perceive vital and palpable distinctions, to recognise manifest and essential limitations, and to regard inevitable facts.—-Its general policy resembles that of a pedestrian who, being in New York, bound for Pittsburgh, should draw a bee-line from his starting-point to his destination, and insist on following it throughout, regardless of whatever rivers, mountains or morasses might oppose his progress.  Take, for illustration, the following resolve adopted at their late Anniversary:—-

Resolved, That while the North gives its sanction and support to slavery in fifteen States of the Union, it can make no consistent moral resistance to its extension in the Territories; that we tell the Republican party, that if it would be a curse and crime to plant it in Kansas, it is no less criminal and disastrous to perpetuate it in Carolina; that it is equally absurd and immoral to make it a question of soil and climate, of latitude and longitude, or of bargain and compromise; that if it be compatible with Christianity and Republicanism to hold four millions of slaves as property, it is no less so to hold four hundred millions in the same condition; that to license oppression is to lose the power to limit it; and that any other issue with slavery in this country, except that of its immediate and total abolition, is wild and delusive.

The mistaken assumptions in this Resolve are as follows:—-lst. That the North, by its Union with the South to attain certain ends in which they are mutually interested, does necessarily ‘give its sanction and support to slavery.’  We hold, in opposition to this view, that the North, as represented in Congress by Seward and Sumner and Giddings, and in the State Governments by Chase and Hamlin and Holley, does not ‘give its sanction and support to slavery,’ but does all it may rightfully do to limit and cure that dreadful evil.  There are Northern statesmen who give their sanction and support to slavery, but the North as such does not, and the Union does not require such sanction and support at our hands.  We are morally bound by the spirit and genius of the Union not to make that Union a lever for the overthrow of the domestic institutions of sister States; and they are morally bound, on the other hand, not to require us, in virtue of the Union, to implicate ourselves in the guilt and shame of slavery.  The Union no more involves us necessarily in the crime of the slaveholder than our treaties with Russia and France implicate us in the serfdom of the former, or the imperial despotism of the latter.

The Garrison resolve proceeds to say that, under the Union, the North can make no consistent moral resistance to slavery in the Territories, because, ‘if it would be a curse and crime to plant it in Kansas, it is no less criminal and disastrous to perpetuate it in Carolina.’  Yes: but the Republican party, which opposes the planting in Kansas, [[italics]] does not [[/italics]] perpetuate it in Carolina.  It has [[italics]] power [[/italics]] over the question of planting slavery in Kansas; it has no power over, consequently no responsibility for, its perpetuation in Carolina.  Why is not this distinction a plain one?  By what charter, constitution, compact, were the people of New York or New England ever authorized to modify the laws of South Carolina?  We know of none.  But if any one asks what rightful power they have to legislate on slavery in Kansas, we answer, That is a portion of the great territory belonging, not specially to New England or Carolina, but to the whole American people; consequently to be governed, so long as it shall remain their territory, according to their collective judg-
[[/column 4]]

[[column 5]]
ment and conscience as to what is right or wrong, expedient or unfit.  A Carolinian in Congress, who conscientiously believes in slavery, properly votes that slavery shall go thither; a New Yorker or Pennsylvanian, believing slavery unjust and pernicious, has an equally clear right to vote against it.

The Resolve proceeds to ring several changes on the same idea, closing with the assertion that 'any other issue with slavery in this country, save that of its immediate and total abolition, is wild and delusive.'  To this we reply that slavery in the old States has in a generation been kept vital and aggressive by means of successive additions of territory, whereby slaves were rendered valuable, and slave-breeding profitable; and that slavery would have died out ere this, after becoming an intolerable burden to the masters, but for these annexations, which the Free States had the right to prevent, while they had no legal power over, consequently no right to abolish, slavery in Virginia.

It would seem needless to adduce considerations and insist on distinctions so obvious and palpable; but when we see men of undoubted ability and moral worth beating the air, and leading others astray through lack of their perception, we cannot refrain from speaking, though we know that, so far as the apostles of this misdirection are concerned, all remonstrance is in vain.  They will persevere as they have begun, being effective mainly in the utterance of sweeping phillipics against the Christian Church and the American Union, just adapted to being eagerly caught up and dilated on by pro-slavery orators and journals, in order to bury the Republican movement under the undeserved reproach of being hostile to Christianity and hostile to the Union.-—[[italics]] New York Tribune. [[/italics]]

[[dividing line]]


Commenting upon the late action of the American Tract Society, in the adoption of sundry jesuitical resolutions on the subject of slavery, the [[italics]] Practical Christian [[/italics]] says:--

It is announced that these resolutions have satisfied both the pro-slavery and anti-slavery wings of the Society.  The pro-slavery wing has the very best of reasons for being satisfied, especially after seeing the Rev. Nehemiah Adams, of 'South-side' notoriety, retained on the Society's Publishing Committee.  As to the anti-slavery wing, it seems to have required only a little [[italics]] humoring [[/italics]] to render it quiescent.  Popery, Unitarianism, Universalism, intemperance, gambling, Sabbath-breaking, and the grosser abuses of slavery, are all to receive a dab of rebuke whenever the Publishing Committee judge it expedient.  Moreover, if the Committee are disposed to publish any tract or book that assails slavery, they are not to expurgate it of such-like offensive matters.  They are of course to be discreet enough not to publish at all any tract or book that will endanger the unity of the Evangelicals.  As to slavery in its [[italics]] political aspects [[/italics]], they are respectfully to let it alone.  Most ludicrous and pitiful exhibition of sectarian wisdom!

To be a Roman Catholic, a Unitarian, or a Universalist, is damnable.  To be an Evangelical slave-holder according to law, in a decent way, is no sin at all!  Such is the conscience of the American Tract Society.  It has no inherent, spontaneous abhorrence of slaveholding [[italics]] per se [[/italics]].  Nothing but a moral pressure, originating in a hated outside source, forces it to name anti-slavery.  All this is perfectly obvious to enlightened and impartial observers.  What follows?  That the American Tract Society will be as pro-slavery as it dares to be, until the revolution in public sentiment, which was commenced and has been mainly propelled by the hated Garrisonians, shall have rendered it expedient for them to come out [[italics]] thunderingly [[/italics]] against slavery.  Just then will they thunder terribly.  Mark the prediction.  At the same time, they will hit the 'infidel' pioneers a kick, and claim to be Simon Pures.  Less than twenty-five years (perhaps less than ten) will verify this prediction.

Well, what of it?  Nothing strange.  This is the way of the world, and the natural course of human progress.  So has it been in the past.  So will it be in the future.  Reform is cradled in a manger, ignored at first by the wise and prudent, afterwards hated, mobbed, martyred, and finally canonized by succeeding generations.  Thus fare the ministers of true reform and progress.  On the other hand, the Orthodox religionists of each to-day, the established governmentalists of each to-day, the honored literati of each to-day, all the respectableocracy of each to-day, first ignore, then sneer at, then denounce, then hate and persecute Reformers,—-then yield by inches, then gradually compromise with the new order of things, and finally take on its conditions with perhaps its new name; enough of the old leaven still remaining to induce another similar fermentation so soon as the next occasion arises.

If any one honestly deems the American Tract Society a great engine for the propagation and perpetuation of theological dogmas dishonorable to God as universal Father and repugnant to the love of mankind as a common Brotherhood, he will rejoice to see it reveal itself just as it does.  If it were good enough to be spontaneously anti-slavery-—to lead off, and take the wind out of the sails of the original Abolitionist ship, then might he fear that its Evangelical Calvinism was the truth, or at least, that such sterling virtue would preserve its moral reputation for a long time.  But now, from its affinity with and tenderness towards persistent man-stealing, that blackest of crimes, we may confidently infer that its theology and ecclesiasticism are radically erroneous, and that its ultimate decay is certain.  The same final doom awaits every religious and political organization which has not internal virtue and wisdom enough to treat that monster sin as [[italics]] absolutely intolerable [[/italics]].  Coming ages, if not our own, will demonstrate all this.

[[double line across column]]

The Liberator.
[[decorative line]]
[[decorative line]]
BOSTON, JUNE 19, 1857.

[[double line across column]]


The Anniversary of American Independence will be celebrated as usual, (under the direction of the Managers of the MASSACHUSETTS ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,) by a MASS MEETING of the friends of Universal Emancipation, at FRAMINGHAM; and all such, wherever they happen to reside, are cordially invited to give us their presence and co-operation on that occasion, that it may be made signally effective in the furtherance of the Anti-Slavery movement—-in reproving our national hypocrisy and corruption—-in rehearsing the barbarities and horrors of Southern slavery-—in encouraging the hearts and strengthening the hands of all who are laboring to break every yoke, and to set every captive free-—that thus the Declaration of Independence may be the boast and heritage of all on the American soil, by the possession of equal and impartial liberty.

[[image: line drawing of hand with finger pointing to the right]] Special trains of cars, for the Grove, will leave Boston, Worcester, Milford, and Northboro', at 9 o'clock, also Millbury at half-past 8, A. M., stopping at way stations.

FARES as follows:—-

Boston, to the Grove and back, } Sixty cts. for adults,
Worcester,       "    "   "    } Thirty cts. for
Millbury,        "    "   "    } children

Millford, to the Grove and back, and Northboro', to the Grove and back, Fifty cents for adults and Twenty-five cents for children.

All way stations, on main road and branches, to the Grove and back, Fifty cents for adults and Twenty-five cents for children.

Returning, leave the Grove from 5 to 6 o'clock, P. M.

[[image: line drawing of hand with finger pointing to the right]] The house at the Grove will be open for refreshments.

[[image: line drawing of hand with finger pointing to the right]] WAVERLY HALL, in the immediate vicinity of the Railroad Station in Framingham, is engaged for the meeting, in case of unpleasant weather.

The following gentlemen constitute the Committee of Arrangements:-—FRANCIS JACKSON, CHARLES F. HOVEY, SAMUEL MAY, Jr., DR. H. O. STONE, and JOHN T. SARGENT.

In behalf of the Managers of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society,

FRANCIS JACKSON, [[italics]] President. [[/italics]]
ROBERT F. WALLCUT, [[italics]] Sec. [[/italics]]
[[/column 5]]

[[column 6]]

The folly of attempting to sit on two stools, at the same time, is proverbial; and the result of trying to serve Christ so as not to offend Belial always terminates disastrously.  A sneak is sure to bring down upon himself the jeers of the multitude, and it is human nature to prefer the most determined opponent to a cowardly go-between.  Even 'He that hath the seven Spirits of God' saith—-'I know they works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.'  The character of Mr. Smooth-Tongue, and Mr. Pliant, and Mr. Facing-both-ways, in Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress,' is any thing but flattering or desirable.  'If the Lord be God,' said right-up-and-down Elijah, 'serve him; if Baal, then serve him.'

From the time of its formation till now, the American Tract Society, in obedience to the pro-slavery spirit of the country, has systematically excluded the wretched slaves at the South from the pale of its sympathies, and carefully expunged from its publications every sentiment reflecting upon slaveholders as transgressors of the law of God.  But the growth of Anti-slavery feeling and sentiment has been such, at last,—-in spite of the combined powers of Church and State to crush it,-—as to compel the Tract Society, for self-preservation, not for bleeding humanity's sake, to try to conciliate it in a manner to give no serious offence to the dealers in human flesh, by adopting sundry resolutions of a thoroughly non-committal character, in relation to the subject of slavery.  And what has naturally followed?  The uncompromising friends of freedom in the North are grieved and indignant at such time-serving, and enter their strongest testimony against it.  And in what light is it regarded by the supporters of slavery at the South?  Turn to the 'Refuge of Oppression,' on our first page, and see.  The Charleston '[[italics]] Mercury [[/italics]]' declares that the Society is 'doomed as an institution common to the North and South,' that it 'must be rent in twain,' and that a Southern Tract Society must be set up.  The Richmond '[[italics]] South [[/italics]]' says it is idle and fallacious for the Tract Society to attempt to distinguish between the moral and political relations of slavery, and that 'the South may now regard the Society among its adversaries.'  The S. C. '[[italics]] Rising Sun [[/italics]]' says 'it must not and cannot be submitted to by Southern ministers or laymen,' and calls for a separation at once.  The '[[italics]] Southern Presbyterian [[/italics]],' published at Charleston, says that a book merchant, agent, or colporteur, will not be allowed to circulate any of the publications of the Tract Society, 'designed to undermine or disturb our social relations': they will be expelled forthwith.

What will the New York [[italics]] Observer [[/italics]] say now?  Respecting the action of the Tract Society, it complacently said:—-

'It leaves slavery as an abstract question altogether alone; it does not meddle with it. . . . It certainly does contain a virtual denial of the radical doctrine of modern abolitionists, that the holding of a slave is essentially, always and everywhere, sinful.  If this doctrine were true, there would be no moral duties growing out of it; there would be but one duty, and that, to forsake it at once, without regard to consequences.'

And yet the ungrateful South is swelling with indignation, and will not be appease by all the 'charming.'  In vain did the Tract Society, (in the language of the N. Y. [[italics]] Christian Inquirer [[/italics]],) 'relaxing its stern visage a moment, breaks out into a smile, and clapped its hands in Dr. Hutton's church, when the Jesuitical resolutions of its Investigating Committee promised to extricate it from the peril of foundering on the rock of human rights.'  To intimate that slavery has any evils or vices attending to it is, in Southern estimation, almost as unpardonable an act as to demand its immediate abolition as a sin [[italics]] per se [[/italics]].

The New York [[italics]] Journal of Commerce [[/italics]] exults at the re-election of the Rev. Nehemiah Adams of Boston, on the Publishing Committee of the Tract Society; whereupon the [[italics]] Independent [[/italics]] makes the following apologetical and explanatory statement:—-

1. The retention of Dr. Adams's name upon the Committee by those who got up the [[italics]] only [[/italics]] ticket that was circulated at the meeting of the directors-—i.e. the official printed ticket—-was one of those [[italics]] uncomfortable necessities of courtesy [[/italics]] toward an associate, from which some of them would gladly have been relieved.

2. A warm friend of Dr. Adams entreated sundry members of the Board to suffer his name to stand for 
[[italics]] this [[/italics]] year, on the ground that the [[italics]] Report just adopted [[/italics]] was as much as the [[italics]] chronic disease [[/italics]] of Southern [[italics]] Christianity [[/italics]] could at present endure; and promised that next year the ticket should be improved.  It does not follow that because, two years ago, [[italics]] an amiable weakness toward his personal friends at the South [[/italics]] betrayed Dr. Adams into writing the 'South-Side View,' he would now refuse to sanction a tract upon the duty of masters to give their servants just wages, and to guard their rights in the family relation.  The Tract Society has laid down certain principles for its Publishing Committee to follow.  It remains to be seen how, not Dr. Nehemiah Adams only, but the whole Committee, will fulfil their instructions.

3. Gentlemen who had taken an active part in procuring the Committee of Investigation, and who felt that an entire reform in the policy of the Tract Society was accomplished through the Report of that Committee, were unwilling to raise a [[italics]] personal [[/italics]] issue to any officer of the Society.

4. There was [[italics]] no [[/italics]] concerted attempt to elect another gentleman in the place of Dr. N. Adams;' no opposition ticket had been prepared; a [[italics]] printed [[/italics]] ticket was distributed with the name of Dr. N. Adams on the list, and the ballots were immediately called for; a large audience were awaiting the anniversary exercises, and no one cared to provoke a personal discussion.  The Executive Committee were voted for as a whole, and no other ticket was circulated.

5. The re-election of that gentleman is in no sense an endorsement of the 'South-Side View,' or a personal compliment, but rather [[italics]]an act of sufferance[[/italics]].— He is placed on probation. (!!)

We should have been silent upon this matter but for the impression which the [[italics]] Journal of Commerce [[/italics]] seeks to create.  [[italics]] For Dr. N. Adams, as a Christian minister [[/italics]] and scholar, we entertain a high respect.—-[[italics]] We would not say a word to wound his sensibilities. [[/italics]]  But as a member of the Publishing Committee of the Tract Society, he does not represent the views of Congregationalists any more than Mr. [[italics]] Wendell Phillips [[/italics]] would represent those views.

Now, what a flimsy, ludicrous, foolish defence is this!  What if Dr. Adams had changed any one of his theological tenets?  Would he then have had a re-election, on the plea of 'courtesy,' or of an 'uncomfortable necessity,' or of an 'unwillingness to raise a personal issue'?  Or would the [[italics]] Independent [[/italics]] speak of it as 'an amiable weakness, and proceed to avow its 'high respect' for him as a 'Christian minister'?  No indeed.  But seeing as Dr. Adams has [[italics]] only [[/italics]] published as vile a work as was ever written, in apology and defence of 'the sum of all villanies,' why, it would savor of discourtesy to part company with him, and be outrageous to doubt his Christian character!  Will any one tell us what is the exact [[italics]] moral [[/italics]] difference between the [[italics]] Independent [[/italics]] and the [[italics]] Observer [[/italics]] on the question of slavery?

The reasons given by the [[italics]] Independent [[/italics]] for not opposing the re-election of Dr. Adams are matched by the considerations which induced the Republican members of Congress, at the last session, to allow the 'Border Ruffian' Representative from Kansas, Gen. Whitfield, to take his seat, without availing themselves of their parliamentary right to prevent it.  Read the following confession of a Republican organ:—-

'The Republicans had it in their power to prevent Mr. Whitfield's admission, by a resort to the parliamentary tactics so successfully used by the Democrats to prevent the election of Speaker, but the Americans having united with the Democrats on this question, the Republicans did not wish to obstruct the transaction of [[italics]] the regular business of the session [[/italics]], and permitted the final vote to be taken, which it was known would admit Mr. Whitfield.  The Republicans in Congress deemed it better to submit to the infliction of the wrong, than to obstruct and retard the public business.'

What an appreciation of the wrongs of 'bleeding Kansas'!  What vigilance and jealously lest the sacred cause of liberty should be betrayed!

From such politics and such religion, what has the slave to hope?  O, for moral consistency!
[[/column 6]]

Transcription Notes:
Column 2: transcribed typos as written ("purse this coure" should presumably be "pursue this course"; "they aro pursuing" should be "they are pursuing"). Column 3: found the missing words (from torn area) using . Column 6: a fold obscures part of "one of those uncomfortable necessities of courtesy", but later the same article speaks of an "'uncomfortable necessity'" so "uncomfortable" is the missing word. Later: confirmed using .