Viewing page 4 of 15
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
324 DOUGLASS' MONTHLY. SEPTEMBER, 1860. [[line]] [[3 columns]] [[column 1]] WHAT IS THE DUTY OF RADICAL ABOLITIONISTS IN THE PRESENT CAMPAIGN? [[line]] The great modern movement against American slavery has brought out two quite distinct schools of political philosophers, each acting from much the same impulses, but differing widely on the question of principles and measures. The better class of political thinkers in this country, embracing that great host of voters who desire to use the ballot box to enlarge the area of freedom, and contract and restrict the dominion and power of slavery, are distinctly divided on the question of the extent and boundaries of their anti-slavery action. Incomparably the largest anti slavery party in America——embracing from fifteen to eighteen hundred thousand voters—takes the position, that for the present and near future at least, the policy in harmony with which we are compelled to act, is that of limiting, restricting and indirectly crippling the power of slavery. They admit that the institution is all wrong from foundation to cap stone——that it is inhuman and a disgrace to the age and the nation ; but their organs insist that there are such formidable obstacles in the way of its immediate demolition, that our present duty in the premises is limited to the work of cutting off its future supplies, and discouraging its growth and circumscribing its power. On the other hand, there are a few hundred men in the country who insist that slavery is a crime, so matchless in the enormity of its wickedness, that no sanctions of time or defences of legislation ought to stand in the way of its immediate, unconditional and complete annihilation, and that he who fails to adjust his political activities to the stern demands of this high principle, is a traitor to the cause of freedom, and to the claims of four millions of slaves upon his suffrage.——This class of men maintain with that great eloquence and power born of earnest conviction, the doctrine that the farthest verge of ideal right should always be the present object of political action, and that he who even temporarily acts with those who from any cause come short of such present aim, is unfaithful to his political obligations. It is the earnestness, talent, and high toned moral character of this class of political philosophers, rather than their numbers and practical power, which gives importance to the discussion of their position ; and we propose to bring out the strong points of the two systems of political philosophy above stated, for the purpose of laying a general view of both before our readers at a glance. We shall not speak as a special champion of either class, in this article, but rather as a deeply interested inquirer searching for the track of truth. On the question of the moral character of slavery, there is little difference of opinion or feeling between the radical and conservative anti-slavery men. Both parties hold it in utter abhorrence, only differing in the degree of intensity with which this feeling is cherished But on the question of practical measures and political principles they divide on the following points: The Radicals hold that all the legislative enactments by State or National Legislatures, which sanction or in any way defend and support the holding of man as property, are to be treated as null and void, and trampled upon as legislative conspiracies against human liberty, instead of being respected or obeyed as law. The Republicans hold, on the other hand, that all these enactments are wrong and wicked, but that, owing to the peculiar structure of our Government, the wrong does not admit of a present complete remedy, and must be met, not by direct abolition legislation, but its abolition must wait the slow process of generally discouraging indirect governmental action. They are still held captive in the meshes of that absurd and baseless dogma, that the Constitution of the United States sanctions and guarantees the existence of slavery as a State institution, and therefore they cannot act directly for its overthrow in the States. The Radicals hold, on the other hand, that the Constitution is an anti-slavery document, and that its principles, fairly obeyed and carried out by the administrators of the Government, would disenthrall every slave in the nation. Now, we do not propose, in the present paper, to discuss the question as to which of these positions is true, although we have decided convictions of our own on that subject; but we propose to raise the far more practical question, namely, whether the difference is so great, and so immediately practical, that the two factions cannot act in harmony in the present political campaign. Is not the issue between the two factions one which lies ahead in the future, rather than one which is practical in the present? Do not the roads proposed to be traveled by the different factions run parallel with each other for several political stages immediately ahead of us, and divide again farther on in the progress of anti-slavery action? Can we not travel these preliminary stages in company, and if we must divide, wait until we reach the divergent points in our enterprize? In order to appreciate these questions, let us first state wherein the Radicals and Republicans do agree, and discover, if possible, how far they may proceed in company before their principles impel them to part: 1. They agree in general abhorrence of slavery as a social, moral and political evil. 2. They agree in the desire to prevent its spread into new Territory. 3. They agree in objecting to the admission of any more slave States. Although a portion of the tender-footed Republican leaders are doubtful on this point, yet an overwhelming majority of the masses are decidedly opposed to such admission. 4. They agree on the necessity of efficient measures to suppress the foreign slave trade. 5. They agree on the necessity of rescuing the reins of Government from the hands of the tools of the Slave Power, and wielding its power and patronage so as to discourage and cripple the institution of slavery. Now, assuming it as true that this programme of measures comes far short of what will be finally necessary in order to dispose of this slavery question righteously, the point of our inquiry is, whether it does not lay out a sufficient amount of work for four years to come——work which lies immediately before us——to induce even the radical man to postpone the application of his tests of political fellowship, until this preliminary work is all accomplished, and the practical demand for his more far-reaching measures arises in the natural order of events. Is he who acts upon this view of the question to be charged with apostacy from his more radical principles, because he acts in common with those who are willing to go through the first stages of the application of his principles, but who hesitate or declare their determinaton not to go forward beyond these preliminary measures? Can we not co-operate with men in doing a part of the right, even though they will not go with us in doing the whole of the right? Must we refuse to co-operate with a man in forwarding the temperance cause, for the reason that he will not act with us in the anti-slavery cause? Are we bound to refuse co-operation with our neighbors in keeping slavery out of Kansas, because they will not act with us in driving slavery out of the Carolinas? May we not join with our fellows in a single campaign for the purpose of routing the forces of a basely pro-slavery and hopelessly corrupt Administration, even though the new Administration to come into power comes but partially up to the demands of the principles which a hopeless and helpless minority regards as the true guide to the administration of government? We put these questions as an honest inquirer, rather than as a partisan. We believe that the present exigencies of our political history demand for them a candid and searching discussion. Suppose, as an illustration of this whole subject, that the French and English allies in the Crimean war had differed as to the extent to which they ought to push the siege of Sebastopol, and as to the principles upon which the war should be conducted. The French General and his staff insist upon it that the town must be stormed and taken by general assault. The English officers, on the other hand, insist that the siege must go on by the slower process of regular approaches——that the supplies must be cut off——reinforcements be prevented from entering the town——outposts driven in, and the enemy be weakened by all indirect and collateral means, and finally starved out. How shall these differences be reconciled? The French are far too weak to assault the town alone, and would surely be defeated. The English may be too weak to continue the siege alone, and may be compelled to retreat. What is to be done? The enemy is ready to take advantage of this division, and to raise the siege. Should not the French council of war say, 'Very well; we differ with you as to this matter ; but we are not strong enough to act efficiently alone. We will, therefore, unite with you in going as far as you are willing to go. We will help you cut off supplies and keep back reinforcements, and cut off straggling enemies, and labor to convince you of the duty of more efficient measures in the meantime ; but if we fail in that, we will gather strength as fast as possible, and make the assault at the first practicable moment. Your half way measures will help weaken the enemy, and pave the way for our easier success in the end.——We will act together as far as you will go, and only leave you behind when we have reached the point where our differing plans begin to diverge.' The application of this comparison is so obvious that we need not enlarge upon it.——With an ardor begotten by the union of high-toned moral principle with tender-hearted philanthropy, the Radical Abolitionist insists upon storming the infernal citadel of slavery, and carrying it by general assault at a single
