Viewing page 7 of 16

OCTOBER, 1860.          DOUGLASS' MONTHLY.          343
[[3 columns]]
[[column 1]]

force of the Government to put him down.- If some poor panting woman escapes from the fangs of her merciless violator, and seeks an asylum among us, they pledge themselves before all Israel and the sun to get down upon all fours and bay upon her track.

The only consistent parties in this country are those led by Garrison and Breckinridge. They both agree in the slaveholding character of the Constitution. The one rejects it, and tramples on it; and the other insists (and rightly too) that if slaves are property in the States, (and Republicans say they are,) then they have the same right to take them into the Territories, as the Republicans have to take their property, and are entitled to equal protection in its possession.

'A. P.' says, 'Our practical strength is growing less and less every year under this close communion system of political ethics.' When did our strength begin to wane? Just when we began in 1848 to unite with the Free Soil party, and travel with them 'for the present;' and shall we for resuscitation act upon the old homely adage, 'a hair of the same dog will cure the bite?'

God gave the Jews a king because they had rejected Him, and wanted to 'be like all the nations' - firstly, as an acknowledgement of their free agency, and secondly, to punish them for their wickedness and their lack of faith in Him. They wanted somebody 'to go out before them and fight their battles,' just as Abolitionists do now. They were tired with trusting in God and His truth. - They were punished just as the Abolitionists have been who have served slaveholding gods.

We have no evidence that God winked at polygamy then any more than he does now, although Moses allowed them to put away their wives 'because of the hardness of their hearts.' I can see no analogy between that and the question under discussion, and I trust we are not going back to the old dispensation for a rule of faith and practice at the present day. Jesus said unto his disciples, 'I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now,' because he was inducting them into a new philosophy of religion - from the ritual into the spiritual. - Their capacity and development were not sufficient to understand and comprehend it, nor would they until the mission of Jesus was fulfilled - until he should go away; then instead of the outward teacher, he was to send them them inward teacher, the 'Spirit of truth,' which would enlighten their understanding, and speak directly to their inner consciousness.  He in no sense 'co-operated with them,' except as a teacher and a guide.

It is but a poor compliment to the intelligence of the Republicans to call in question their 'capacity and development' in the question of human liberty, when for these four score years and more they have been glorying in the Bunker Hills, Yorktowns and Saratogas, and repeating the Declaration of Independence till the very school boys in the streets have it all by heart.  It is not light the people need, but lightning and thunder, and few more John Browns.

The people who drink cider, beer and wine, and go against rum, gin and brandy, go 'part way;' why not 'co-operate with them' in the promotion of temperance?  Why not 'co-operate' with a corrupt church, and 'labor

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

and wait' until they act more efficiently?  No, the church is not to be reformed except by influences outside of the pulpit and pew.  We are not to 'help the Devil in doing even a partial good.'  All such teaching is poor philosophy, and worse religion.  Pirates do some good, sometimes, but who would think of joining them so far even as to help them choose their captain or chief.  Abolitionists feel 'intensely anxious to strike a blow at the Slave Power where their blows will tell.'  Then don't strike hands with those who propose to acknowledge or uphold slavery any where in the wide world.  Few, or many, speak the true word - reverently I say it - let the word become flesh, and in the fullness of faith leave the rest to Him who 'turneth the ways of the wicked upside-down.'

What I ask has set this whole nation boiling like a cauldron, casting up the unclean things of slavery to the public gaze.  What has opened the mouth of grave Senators and given legislators speech?  What has sundered political parties and divided ecclesiastical bodies?  What has filled slaveholder with wrath, and startled their abettors with fear?  It has not been by stricking hands with those who go right part way, but by uncompromising and truthful utterances and actions, demanding in the name of God the restoration to the slave of his rights.  'One has literally chased a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight,' and it will continue to do so just as long as Abolitionists remain true.

J. C. H.

DEAR DOUGLASS: - In the September number of your paper appeared an article signed 'A. P.,' entitled, 'What is the duty of Radical Abolitionists in the present campaign,' to which I wish to pay a little attention.  I am reminded, at the outset, of the words of a dear friend of mind and of humanity, that 'no man could answer and expose the tissue of sophistries contained in that article better than the author of it;' and as it seems hardly creditable that he will persist in the course indicated by it, but will, in the October number, himself expose its fallacies, I am tempted to trust to his doing so, and hold my peace. - Lest he should not refute his own errors, however, I venture to unmask some of his specious illusions which it contains.

Perhaps the most dangerous, because the most ensnaring, is the assumption that in voting for Abraham Lincoln, Abolitionists simply aid the Republicans in limiting slavery, without being in any manner responsible for the wrong things which the candidate or the party may do.  But, surely, nothing can be plainer than the fact that in voting for a slave-catching President, we do as truly endorse and sanction slave-catching as the non-extension policy which he advocates.  The truth is, almost all practical points in regard to slavery, the Republican party and the Radicals occupy not similar, but radically hostile positions.  The Republican party, should slaves rise in rebellion, would wield the whole power of the army and navy to crush them; whereas Abolitionists would put down the masters as being really the rebels.  The Republican party would seize and restore to slavery the fugitive; but the Abolitionists would protect and defend him.  The Republican party, as represented by Mr.Lincoln, would receive new slave States; but Abolitionists would not.  It would protect slavery

[[/column 2]]
[[column 3]]

in the Federal District, which Abolitionists would abolish.  It would recognize the legality and constitutionality of slavery in the States, while Abolitionists deny both.  Yet 'A.P.' would have it that he can vote for Lincoln, and in doing so, simply endorse non-extension without sanctioning at the same time all these pro slavery positions.

Again; he represents that there can nothing be done for abolition the next four years, even with an abolition administration; that the 'paths' of Radicals and Conservatives are at present, and for some years to come, parallel; it is only in the future they diverge.  One would think that the above recited 'divergence' was, some of it at least, in the present.  It appears to me that their paths 'diverge' very materially at the ballot box this fall.

It is not true that Abolitionists and Republicans agree in 'the necessity of rescuing the Government from the hands of the tools of the Slave Power' as 'A. P.' asserts; for the Republicans are straining every nerve to place the Government in the hands of a man who not only stands ready to hunt slaves, but who supports the ostracism, socially and politically, of the blacks at the North.  Is not such a candidate a 'tool' of the Slave Power? - The illustrations of 'A. P.' are wide of the mark, and not analogous.  But time and space will not allow me to follow him.  C. A. H.
DEAR DOUGLASS:--With much interest I have read an article in your September number, headed, 'What is the duty of Radical Abolitionists in the present campaign?'  My answer is, let us vote for Lincoln and Hamlin, unless by so doing we indorse the pro-slavery concessions of Lincoln and the Republican platform.  If my vote for Lincoln must be regarded as signifying that I agree with him that the Fugitive Slave Enactment is constitutional, then may my ashes mingle with the ashes of John Rogers, or 'let me die the death of the righteous' John Brown, before I will do such a deed.

But this is the way I view it:  My vote for Lincoln says - 'Let slavery be kept out of the Territories, that they may come into the Union' as FREE STATES; and thus the way be opened for the peaceful and legal abolition of American slavery.  An objector may say - the Democrats may follow your example, and say ' We vote for our candidates for the positive good which they will do for liberty.'  Answer - not one such good thing they do promise to do.  J. R. Johnson.


The able article form the pen of 'J. C. H.,' which will be found in this number of our paper, demands a candid reply.  We are fortunate in having an opponent who maintains an amiable temper, and a courteous style, and we trust that we shall profit by his commendable example of rhetorical moderation.

In all discussions of this kind, much time is gained, and a great saving of ink and paper is made by keeping the real issue distinctly in view.  In this particular instance our friend had no occasion for making a long argument to prove that the Republican party is not a Radical Abolition party.  We conceded that at the outset.  We maintained that its masses were acting from an impulse of hatred to slavery, but admitted that this impulse was in a crude, nebulous state, mixed up with much imperfect political philosophy, and ill directed [[/column 3]]
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