Viewing page 5 of 15

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

September, 1860. DOUGLASS' MONTHLY. 325
[[line]]

charge. Would to Heaven he could inspire the American people with the same holy zeal! But this is utterly and hopelessly impracticable in this generation.  The moral and philanthropic sense of this American people must have many years of gradual and persevering culture and growth before they will be equal to such a deed of humanitarian chivalry.  They may now be led to the frontiers of the holy land of freedom, and prompted to weaken the power and contract the territory of the oppressors; but they are quite too undisciplined to be brought up to the assault of the hordes who guard the sepulchre of American liberty.  What shall the PETERS and WALTERS, the GODFREYS and RICHARDS do in the premises?  Shall they act with this great, but timid and irresolute host, breathing the tone of their more far-seeing minds and more heroic spirits into the masses?  or shall they insist upon nothing short of instant assault upon the stronghold of the foe, and wear ou their energies in a weary and hopeless waiting for recruits?  Had they not better join in the effort to hem in and weaken the enemy for the present, and use their influence and example to discipline this great vacillating army for the final assault in the future?  We do not answer this question, but leave the answer to the reader.

To all this the radical rightarian will say, 'We cannot compromise our conviction; we cannot join a multitude to do even a small evil, that a great good may come.' Grant all that, my much respected friend; but does this language state the case quite farely? Is it true that you do compromise your convictions in co-operating with others who hold to but one half of your convictions, and are ready to ensure the practical triumph of that half with your co-operation thus far, but who refuse to act up to the other half of your convictions? Will the one half of your convictions, to which you hold alone, be deminished in power by the practical triumph of the other half, which you share in common with two millions of other people? Do you necessarily diminish your power to act against slavery in the Carolinas, because you unite with two millions of others against slavery in Kansas. When that first part of the work is accomplished – if your host of associates stop there, can you not go along with its second half quite as efficiently, and much more hopefully, than as if you had refused to march in their company thus far? Will not these associates be far more likely to join your farther efforts, then as if you had stood aloof up to this time? Will the opportunity to connect these half converted associates be without results? Will the defeat of the pro-slavery hosts be useless, even though the battle which routs them be fought on the frontiers rather than in the streets of their capital? Will not such frontier defeat open a road to the capital, enhancing your march thither? – Where is the compromise in all this? Can any body tell?

Nor is it quite fair to characterize such of course as doing evil that good may come. – There is certainly no evil motive at the bottom of this effort to limit, restrict and weaken slavery. The worst that can be said of it, is not that it is an evil, but that it is an incomplete, half grown, unripe good. It would be an infinitely greater good to abolish slavery, certainly; but to drive the propagandists from power, to prevent its extension, and turn the general policy of the Government in favor of its discouragement, is a good of mighty magnitude, and not an evil in any sense. If the man who helped you to do this then turn around and begin to do evil, dissolve your connection with them, and war upon their evil deeds. But if the devil himself engages in doing a partial good, help him in that, and fight him just where and when he begins to play the devil again.

To give force to these considerations, let us not forget that as Radical Abolitionists alone we are impotent to do even the partial good which Republicanism proposes, and that our practical strength is growing less and less every year under this close communion system of political ethics. These facts should prompt to deep and earnest reflection. Thus far me have directed the point of our inquiry to the question, whether a Radical Abolitionist was to be charged with being untrue to his principles, if you voted for men who were committed to but a part of them as a temporary expedient by which to secure the practical success of a portion of his political platform at present, being still free to work for his whole programme in the future. But the question of political ethics involved in this discussion has a still more broad and general sweep. In political action we are compelled to combine multitudes of minds. – Popular governments must deal in majorities. If the right of the majority to rule be a settled principle of political philosophy, there must be some corresponding obligation on the part of the minority to acquiesce in such rule. The far-seeing political philosopher will always be far ahead of the majority in his abstract convictions. He cannot expect the masses to keep pace with him. Now, is he compelled to insist that they shall come up to his conceptions of the right, before he will act with them? or may he join them in carrying out their weaker conceptions, while he continues to educate them up to an approximation to his own standard? On what principle are we to explain the fact, that when the Jews proved themselves incapable of self-government under the organization of a commonwealth, God gave them a king under protest, and that when they were on too low a plane to understand the beauty of the marriage of one man to but one woman, he winked at their polygamy, and permitted divorce 'because of the hardness of their hearts?' How are we to interpret the words of Jesus where he says, 'I have many things to say unto you, that ye cannot bear them yet,' unless it be that we are to take into account the degree of capacity and development of a people in arranging tests of either religious or political co-operation with them? Shall we infer from this, that when a people see but half of the truth, those who see the other half may act with the masses so far as they go in the right direction, and labor and wait until they grow tall enough to see further, and strong enough to act more efficiently ?

But we have pushed these inquiries far enough for the present, and will desist. We beg the reader to note the fact, that we write as an inquirer, and not as a judge or expounder. We take no decided position on these questions at present. We aim to stir up thought, and elicit light. We confess that our mind is laboring painfully with some of these questions, and we have determined to re-open and thoroughly canvass the whole subject. Our sympathies and moral affinities are as yet on the side of the more radical views of these questions. But the subject is not by any means free from embarrassment, and we shall not cast it aside lightly or in haste. We are intensely anxious to strike at the Slave Power where our blows will tell, for some practical results. We are equally anxious to hold on to our convictions and radical principles, and shall do our best to combine both these objects in our future action.--A. P.
[[line]]

BEARING ONE ANOTHER'S BURDENS.
[[line]]

The great miracle of primitive Christianity consisted in produced a community of interest, affection and sacrifice among its votaries. The early Christians merged all their personal interests, prospects and hopes into one great soul of philanthropy, of which the individual men and women were but members. When one suffered, all shared in that suffering. When one struck a blow for God and humanity, the spirit of all his associates nerved his arm.--When sacrifices were to be made, no single heart was allowed to be crushed under a burden too great for it to bear ; but a thousand other hearts came to the rescue. Herein was the great secret of the miraculous power of the first Christians. They stood together in the thickest of the fight. There were no patronizing spectators, educated in rank or wealth above the common soldiers of the war, and casting now and then a dole of aid down from the undisturbed heights of personal ease in position and possessions ; but the lives and fortunes of the great and the rich, as well as of the lowly and the poor, were cast into the lap of the common cause.

Would to Heaven that the Abolitionists of our time could appreciate and practice this great and glorious lesson taught by the first generation of Christians, and be converted from here patrons of freedom to genuine devotees! How many a fainting and despairing heart might then be saved from sinking under burdens too great to be borne ! There need be no life-long martyrdom of the few in this glorious cause, if the many who cheer them on with smiles and compliments, keeping themselves comparatively aloof from sacrifices, would make the cause their own. Why should one man wear out his youth, wreck all his earthly prospects, ruin his health, and sink into a premature grave, in serving a cause which all his associates profess to love as well as he, while they look coolly on from their snug nests of worldly ease and comfort? Why should one man be allowed to exhaust his means, and use up the very marrow of his being in sustaining an Abolition press, while thousands of his fellows, who profess to regard that press as invaluable to the cause, turn to their farms or rent rolls, only stopping to read his heart-coined thoughts, and compliment his talents and devotion, but forgetting to pay for his paper? What right has any man, who professes to be an Abolitionist, to live thus within himself, while his associates are sinking under burdens which he increases by such an unmanly and unchristian course.

It is useless to disguise the fact, that there is such a thing as the cant of philanthropy, as well as the cant of conservatism. Amateur philanthropists are numerous enough, but real