s?^ 
 
012 026 175 7 » 
 
 Conservation Resources 
 Lig-Free® Type 1 
 Ph 8.5, Buffered 
 
E 450 
 .S74 
 Copy 1 
 
 ^ 
 
To THE Riiv. SAMl'ML T. Sl'KAK. 
 
 Pttfifor of till' Sniifh Prcsbiitrriitii 
 
 Deau StR : 
 
 As members of your conijregiition, wl 
 interest, ami profit to your discourse on the 
 HKUiEu L.wv CoN>;ciK.\CE," WO tiikc the libi^ 
 publication, with the desire that many ( 
 benefits. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 John Rankin, | 
 
 (!. BrRCUAKi), I 
 
 Jas. Greackx, 
 
 W. R. DWKJIIT, 
 
 F. T. My(;att, 
 J. Mii.TOx Smith, 
 
 A. WUEEI.ER, 
 
 E. y. SUOTWEI.L, 
 
 HiRAii Birdsai.i., 
 
 Maltbie Weed, | 
 
 S. Overacre, I 
 
 E. C. Hamilton, 
 
 Jesse Brush, 
 
 Walter Kei.sey, 
 
 Jonas Brush, 
 
 .1. A. Davenpout, 
 
 liroolli/n, Tlianlisgiving Day, Dec. 12, 18,")0. 
 
 ('Iiiirr/i I,/' lii-fiok-hni- 
 
 10 have li-tciicl to-day with |)1« 
 subject of the " fiAW-AiimiNi; a' 
 ■rty to ifiiiif.-t a •■opy of tiie sai 
 •thers may participate in the 
 
 EnwARD A. Lambert, 
 Wm. C. Bowers, 
 James S. T. Straxahax, 
 Ransom G. Williams, 
 James Robis.son, 
 Daniel P. Parker, 
 Henry Gartek, 
 C. Corn KM,. 
 B. Griehn*;, 
 
 A. L. \'an Blren, 
 J. Adihson Joy, 
 
 B. S. Lyman, 
 
 j. j. douuleday, 
 Daniel Brooks, 
 Salmon Phelps. 
 
 asure, 
 
 I) THi: 
 
 lie, for 
 
 same 
 
 To JOHN RANKIN 
 
 IJllOOKLYN, Dec. Id//,, l.-.V). 
 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 I have received your note, rc(|iiestiiig a copy of the Sermon preached by 
 me on Thanksgiving Day, for publication. In accordance with your request, I 
 place the Sermon in your hands for the u-e proposed. I have taken tlie liberty 
 of addinij: two or three notes, for the jiurpose of more fully elucidating some 
 points. '\'r)uis, very respectfully, 
 
 .S. T. SPKAK. 
 

 
^T'ljt Iraii-Jlliiiiiiig iiiiii tlir IMgjirr Im it'iiiLnririiiT. 
 
 " l>it every soul be subject unto the IiIl^Iiit powers, tor there iv no pnwerbiit nf 
 God ; the powers that be are orciaiiieil of God. * * * Wlierefore ye nnist 
 needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." — Roxi. xiii, 1, .'). 
 
 " Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said, We ought to obey Ood 
 rather thati men." — Acts v, 29. 
 
 I'sing tliose Scriptures as a basis, I design to e.vaniiiio a j^reat moral 
 question, that is now agitating and somewhat distracting tlie American 
 people, ily object is not denunciatioJi, or to promote unhealthy ex- 
 citement lierc or elsewhere. I believe in the supremacy of truth, and 
 ill the safety as well as wisdom of temjjcrate and Christian discussion. 
 If 1 did not, I should not enter upon the task now proposed. I ask 
 no man to accept the views I shall ofter, except as they conform to his 
 .sense of truth. They will represent my sense. 
 
 One of our Senators in Congress employed the phra.sc " Higher 
 Law," in such connections as to call forth much rebuke at the time, 
 and expose him to the censure of a portion of his constituents. Let 
 us hear the passage as it originally fell from his lips : 
 
 " The Constitution regulates our stewardship ; the Constitution devotes the do- 
 main to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a 
 hi<//icr law than the Constitution, which regulates our authoritj' over the domain, 
 and devotes it to the name noble purposes. Tiie territory is a part — no ir.con>ide- 
 lable part — of the conuuon heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the 
 Creator o*' the universe. We are ///*• stewards, and mu.>t so dii^'harge our trust 
 as t(j secure, in the highest attaiiwble degree, their happiness." 
 
 This is the passage ; and 1 confess that T .see in it no hc-rcsy, politi- 
 cal or moral, no repudiation of man or God. The honorable Senator 
 atiirms a coincidence, and not a discrepancy, between the Cunstitutioli 
 and the Higher Law ; and surely iii> man in his senses ought to eom- 
 phiin of such an oi>inioii. 
 
 Imiocent and harmless as is this passage, still, in connection with 
 other causes, it has had the ctfect of setting before the American peojilc 
 a great politico-moral question, in respect to which I deem it a duty 
 to express an oi>ini<jit. I am a lover of my country, without being an 
 
rt])].ro\cr <>r its Miuiiys. I liclicM- it, mi tli<' wIdIi", the l>cst eouiilry 
 uii the oartli. m.-ide such mainly by its civil iiiid religious institutions. 
 Xutliint;- wliicli roncerns its welfare is indifferent to my heart. Ilenco, 
 I ask the privileoe of speakinjr with freedom and honesty ; the one, a 
 chartered right, and the other, a solemn duty. To me it seems proper 
 that the juilpit sliould be heard, 'ihe crisis demands it. 
 
 No t)ne who has listened attentively to the conversation of others, 
 or watclied tile public press for some months past, can fail to have 
 percei\ ed the existence of at least two classes of consciences : the one, 
 a i-Aw-AuiniNG conscience — the other, a highku law conscience ; in 
 some liand.s, eacli re})ndiating and violently denouncing the other. 1 
 respect both, witliout relisliing the extravagance, and much less the 
 passions of eitlier. 1 belong to both parties, with such qualifications 
 of my adherence as will be unfolded in this Sermon. In each I see 
 some truth — not the whole in either. I'lie truth 1 see, i hold, and 
 mean on this occasion to assert, as plainly and as kindly as I may be 
 able. I do this as a matter of duty to you, being related to you as a 
 jjastor. I do it as an humble tribute of honest service to my country. 
 Let me invoke your attention and candor. 
 
 Our present work will be to set before you tlie two consciences — the 
 law-abiding and the higher law conscience; each qualifying the other, 
 and both moving in their proper sphere. In this it will be my ear- 
 nest desire to guard your minds and hearts, and not less my own, 
 against two fanaticisms: one, the fanaticism that repudiates civil go- 
 vernment; the other, the fanaticism that virtually repudiates God, and 
 the eternal distinction between right and wrong. I wish to get at the 
 simple truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. How far I 
 succeed in this, will be for you to judge, after hearing me. 
 
 First, the Law-aui»ing coNsciENtK. 
 
 Civil law undertakes to prescribe and enforce soma of the social du- 
 ties of men. This is made necessary mainly by our depravity. Law 
 is the creature of some organized government, addressing its com- 
 mands to the subject, and threatening its penalty in case of disobe- 
 dience, Jt is not mere advice ; it is clothed with authority, and is 
 properly aecomj.anied with the right of seli-vindication in coercion 
 and punishment. 'l"he sitjjrciinin/ of law consists in its maitileuancc — 
 in th.' du.' and faithful administration <.f its prinei[>les by its author- 
 
izi-.l nn;!^!!!,-;, mid in its |io\v.'r to ouiitml ;iiiil o-..v.-rii tli.' ).r:ictir<' <.f iln- 
 subject. This suprcinaey is tlu^ t^raiid ductriiiL' iussiM-t«;<l l)y IIk- At//-- 
 uh'nUng oonscieuce. This conscioiice alKrnis the sanctity and authority 
 of hiw, and by consequence, the obhgation of obedience. It sets forth 
 a moral rule, namely, that obedience to civil law is a reliifioH'^ duty. 
 It spends its wlmle stivii^-th in athrniing this duty. Let th.- sini|.I" 
 question be, shall a law enacted by the existinij civil authority, or in 
 process of execution, be respected and observed, treated "v " hni< \,\ 
 all parties Avhom it involves ? I say, let this be the question ; and a 
 la\v-al)iding conscience always answers in the affirmative. 
 
 Such is the general doctrine of this conscience; and as a single par- 
 ticular to be placed in the great temple of truth, it is unquestionably 
 correct. Perhaps I need not argue so plain a point. Lest, however, 
 T might seem to undervalue it in another stage of this discussion, I 
 will pause a moment on the question of its truth. 
 
 It is manifestly a Scripture doctrine. This you see in one portion 
 of our text. The "higher powers" spoken of by Paul, were the civil 
 authorities of the Roman empire. He declares civil goverment to be 
 of Divine appointment, for the proper regulation of human conduct, 
 for the protection of society by the piuiishment of crime. He exhorts 
 Christians to be subject to the "higher powers," not only on account 
 of the penalty, but also as a matter of duty. It was not his purpose 
 to assert the Divine right of Kings, but of civil government, as such, 
 and the duty of the subject. There was special pertinence as well as 
 wisdom in this instruction. The " liigher powei"s" referred to wore 
 Heathen powers; ai»d there was no little danger that the dlseijiles of 
 Christ, mistaking the proper sphere of their Christian lil)erty, might 
 come in conflict with them — might take up .the idea that, being Chris- 
 tians, they owed no alleg-iance to a Heathen magistracy. Paul, as a 
 judicious counselor and faithful apostle, endeavors to guard them 
 ao-ainst so fatal a mistake. J'eter took the same course. "Submit 
 yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake ; whether it 
 be to the King, as supreme ; or unto governors, as unto them that ai-e 
 sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of 
 them that do well." The doctrine of sedition, treason, rebellion, and 
 tumultuous resistance, in civil society, is not inculc/ited in the teaching 
 or the example of the apostles, or in those of Christ himself. Tliis is 
 
8 
 
 a perfectly elt-ar point. Hence, we say, the Scriptures give their 
 sanction to the Ljreat jirinciple affirmed by the law-abiding conscience, 
 C(jmmon sense and good citizenship must take the same ground- 
 Society in the country or ill'- town, and especially the latter, cannot 
 exist a moment, with any satl-ty, if this princii)le is practically discar- 
 ded. Destroy the restraints and retributions of civil government? 
 and leave every man to do ;!■< he pleases, and vou have so much li- 
 berty that you have none at all ; — you are out at sea in a tremendous 
 gale, without a rudder or chart. No man would stay in such a com- 
 munity any longer than it would take him to get out of it. Men can- 
 not live together without the agency of government. Nothing is 
 worse than pure anarch)'. It is the most cruel and dangerous of all 
 tyrants. Government, as the agent in creating and executing law, 
 must have somewhere a sustaining power, else it is no government : it 
 can do nothing, discharge none of the duties of government — neither 
 protect the innocent nor punish the guilty. This sustaining power lies 
 in the strong arms, the bones and muscles of men, whose services 
 iriay be legally brought into action, to enforce the civil mandate. 
 U ithout this, government rests on nothing — has no practicable cha- 
 racter — i.s a mere idea. If every law it enacts is to be resisted and 
 put down by popular violence — if every eflbrt to execute the law is to 
 be treated in the same wa}" — if this is the state of things in the com- 
 munity, then there is no government of law in that community ; soci- 
 ety is ill the state of chaos. Hence, if men wisli to live andi r law, 
 they must su[»port the supremacy of law. This doctrine must have 
 some jM-actical and efficient shape, or they canuot live together as a 
 civil community. Somebody must liave a law-ahiding conscience, or 
 government has no sustaining power. AVhatever may be the incon- 
 veniences of this doctrine, at times, or even its incidental injustice, still 
 the c(jnse(juences of its practical repudiation Mould l)e far more serious. 
 It is a wholesome principle, pre-eminently useful, blessing a vast many 
 more than it harms, averting incalculable evils. I am conscientiously 
 its advocate. It commends itself to mv common sense, as 1 lun\' no 
 doubt it docs to that of the hearer. 
 
 This doctriiir ought to be ]ieculiarly welcome and sacred to the 
 American bosom. < Uir < ^ovcrument, both State and Federal, is based 
 on the /•(priscittittivc jirinciple. AVehave no law-makers or law-agents. 
 
that are horn such. We )imk- tliciii al'lrr they are l".rii, imt as kiiitp*, 
 ))UV iiKMi. The powers tliey ])ussess the iieujili- l)estu\v in a \i-\f\\\ 
 way ; ami if thi-y do not faithfully perform their duty so as cor- 
 rectly to represent the juiliji.- will, th.'i'c is always at liamla |M.-aecful 
 and law-abiding rejnedy. We can .liscuss and even denounce a law 
 in this country. It is not treason to call in question its ciiuify. We 
 can peaceably meet in laruv ur small assemblies, and l.y r.'>olntioiis 
 express an opinion. ^^'(■ can jn-litiou < iov.iiimcnr for a nilifss of 
 grievances. Through the liallot-l>o.\ the peojile have a perfect control 
 over tlie laws \inder which they live. No law can stand any length of 
 time that is opposed to the public will. This fact seals its doom. 
 Xow, a people possessing such pri\ileges clearly haxf no occiisioii for 
 attacking legal injustice, except in the legal way — no occasion for any- 
 thing like jjopular violence. They can correct the abuses of (Jovern- 
 )nent without a mob. Politicians and office-seekers are very fond of 
 being where the people are ; they generally try to think with the ma- 
 jority. Hence, it is tar better to wait till the public mind can be en- 
 lightened, than to attempt the cure of an evil by producing a great(M- 
 one. Cvy out against it as long and as loud as you please^; write 
 against it; speak against it ; pray against it ; vote against it ; but be 
 sure to stop here ; never lend your sanction to tumultudus or illegal 
 resistance. This must be the doctrine of the American citi/A-n ; since 
 our civil institutions ai'e not only wholly drawn from the jieoph-, liut 
 have no sustaining jxiwer exce])t in their law-abiding spirit. 1 can 
 think of no occasion liki-ly to occ\ir. in which 1 would be the advocate 
 of any other course. If by ];o]iular tumults you may repudiate law on 
 one subject, you may on another. The principle is full of its dangers, 
 especially so in a Ke])ul)lic. It unsettles the very foundation of civil 
 society. It can have no jilace in tlie convictions or sympathies of the 
 virtuous and er.lightened citizen. This great connnunity of frei men 
 must go according to Iati\ or they must go to ruin. 1 speak strongly 
 on this ]M)int; for I have always felt strongly; and I <lo not feel les>* 
 so now. The civil authorities must put down mobs, immaterial what 
 the issue be ; and the peojjle must sustain them. 
 
 vSo much I offer for your considenition in favor of the law-al)iding 
 conscience. The grand ]'rincij)le it atlinns, I hold to be a sacred truth. 
 
 The charm of this idea, however, does not He in its applicjition to 
 2 
 
10 
 
 an inijusi aii<l cntd l;i\\, l>ut in tin- fact that it i> vital to tln' stalnlily 
 antl satV'tv of civil society. Hero is its excellence — here the reason?^ 
 which commend it to the u'ood sense and patriotic . feelings of men. 
 The ni;;u v>]\o silences his moral sense in res])ect to injustice and wrong; 
 l>v pleading tlie stiijremacy of law, who not oidy alwtaius from all ille- 
 gal resistance, but also declines the use of lawful measures to correct 
 unjnst enactments, whose whole conscience is summed up in the sin- 
 gle senteiioo, "I believe in the supremacy of the laws," with whom 
 this is the whole idea, Avho refuses to apply his coiiscience to the mora? 
 nature of a law, and his energies, if need be, to a constUutionai reme- 
 dy : that man, in my judgment, does no justice to himself or bis legal 
 privileges, and perhajis n(jt to his moral duties. He shuts up his eye» 
 as a moral being, and parrot-like slionts tbe supremacy of tlie law, 
 and shouts nothing else. He misapplies tbe doctrine, forgetting his 
 duties. His exami)le need only be imitated to make a bad law aper- 
 manenf fixture. Between litim and me there is no debate as to the 
 .- njircTuacy of law while it exists ; but neither of us should cancel our 
 obligation to seek the correction of legal injustice by a mere glorifica- 
 tion on the uTound of our common faith. He says to me, "I am a 
 law-abiding man." Very well ; I am glad he is ; so am I. I ani also 
 a h\\\ -correcting man b}- such measures as are lawful. I do not go for 
 thv' perpetuity of unjust laws any longer than is necessary to procure 
 their modification or rejieal. My duty to seek this is peifectly con- 
 sist<'nt with all due respect for law while it exists. 
 
 There is another perversion of tliis doctrine, against whicii the citi- 
 zen ought ciu-efully to giiard his mind. He should never associate 
 with it the practical assumjjtion that law is beyond the reach oi moral 
 inquiry, that law is the end of the chapter, as infallible as it is antho- 
 ritati\<'. This is a very dangerous, and it may be a very immoral 
 course. Law ])roceeds from imperfect, and sometimes very wicked 
 nun. It has often legalized the greatest Avrongs, legislated the gross- 
 est crime into civil \irtue, and the ]»urest virtue into crime. Hence it 
 will not do in maintaining its supremacy, also to maintain its moral 
 infallibility. The latter doctrine is ])roj)er}y no ])art of the former, and 
 in the bo^om of tin- citizen shouhl be kejit distinct from it. The king- 
 can do no wioiie- — can reijuire no wrong; law is always right in mo- 
 i-;ds. What is this f r<ditical jiopery — the doctrine of despotism, 
 
iinworlliy <>i" .1 lioin.' in tli.- l.r,-;i-i ..t' a rivrin.-m. In lli-- Aiii-'iicjin 
 theory of vivil society, law claiiii- ii.i siidi adiil.iile. It «inifc>srs its 
 own fallibility in tile |ir<i\ isi.,u t'<>r aiurii.linrnt or iv|;. ai. II-mk-i- tli<' 
 <iao.stioii wlu'tlior it is rinlit or uiom'/. \\Ii< iliT it <»Ui,dit to hf continwd 
 or not, is not to be i^fnoiitl or n'|iu.liat.'il liv <l(clariiitj its sniirciiiiK-y. 
 I liold t-o the supremacy of no human la\\s in \\u- «n<>- of tli.-ir infal- 
 libiHty, They may contraJict <i<Hrs law ; tln-y may \ iolati- tlic plain- 
 est ilic'tiifes of natural justice; an<l ulifthrr tliry .lo or n-.t. it i- my 
 privilege and duty, aiul e«pially yours, to hiive an opinion. \^ \ tiiink 
 they do, the voice of iny reason and conscience is not ans\verc<l by my 
 taith in the supremacy of law. I then believe that the laws ar.- bad, 
 in themselves morally vkioufi, thoUi^h not less really laws, and thai 
 all proper means should be used for their s|>oedy amcndnient. W e 
 must hold on to this doctriiie, else our law-makers will become I'opes, 
 and the people lose all the rights of private conscience, ll' there is 
 danger ia taking too much from Government, there is also danger in 
 conceding too much to it. One thing T never can conce<le ; I never 
 can say that a (Jovernment is doing riglit. when ] think it i< doing 
 wrong. 
 
 There is another circumstance that ought always t<j be taken into 
 account, when we speak of the supremacy i)f law, especially in a Ke- 
 public. Law upon its merits, and not simply its authority, ought to 
 be addressed to the good sense and moral feelings of the community 
 where it is to be executed. It has no power to change the convictions 
 of men in respect to the subjects to which it refers. It caii not make 
 a freeman think that black is white, or white is black. It can mA sulv 
 vert the Chiistiau ethics of a community, even by its supremacy. 
 Hence, it must not assume that the subject is a brute, and that he will 
 blindly swallow anything and call it sweet, that comes to liim with a 
 legislative endorsement. Law, in a free country, has no such charm. 
 You must go to the scenes of despotism and popular ignorance, in or- 
 der to realize this result. In this land a law against the sense of the 
 people, be that sense a prejudice or a just sense, is always the law- 
 giver's folly. It comes into existence with the sentence of death 
 upon it ; and though it is a law, still on its merits it is not welcome 
 to the subject, and must ultimately be repealed or modified. This is 
 the fate of all laws, that upon their trial are found to misrepresent the 
 
1'^ 
 
 pulilii- will. TIh'v are liorn to dio. ' Thoy must run a short race. 
 Their suprciiiac-v cannot save them from the ordeal and the doom of 
 the press and the ballot-box. It is well that it is so ; for in this way 
 we rectify It'iral mistakes in the peac( ful and orderly method, without 
 insurrections or mobs. 
 
 Secondly, the Highek Law Conscience. 
 
 The cardinal propositions atiirmed by this conscience, are these : — 
 Fii-st, that there is a God : Secondly, that this God is the moral gov- 
 ernor of the universe : Thirdly, that every rational creature is directly 
 a subject of his government : Fourthly, that God's will, when ascer- 
 tained, is in all possible circumstances the supreme rule of duty : and, 
 finally, that exery moral creature is by himself and for himself l)ound 
 to know the Divine will, and, when knowing it, never to deviate from 
 it. These are the great doctrines of this conscience. To the vision of 
 jtiety their statement is their proof. Deny them, and you overturn or 
 make morally impractible tlie government of God ; you release man 
 from his allegiance to his Maker, and upset all religious systems, that 
 of the Bible not excepted. They are not to be denied, but ad)nitted, 
 be the consequences what they may. They are true, or nothing is 
 true. If they are not true, duty is a iiction — moral conscieneiousntss, a 
 whim — responsibility to our Maker, a delusion ; and even God himself 
 is nothing in respect to the duties of men. I hold these truths; h.nce 
 1 hold the elements of the Higher Law Conscience. I confess myself 
 to be the subject of such a conscience. 
 
 In order to advance to a just application of these principles, we 
 must pause a moment on a question of fact. God does not administer 
 his moral government over men sinijily and wholly through the agency 
 of civil government. If he did, the sum of all his commands would 
 be obedience to " the powers that be ;" they would be taken as the 
 authoritative exponents of all the statutes of the Eternal Throne ; 
 and the subject would be referred to them in all cases, to know the 
 will of God. Were this the fact, there could be no conflict between 
 Divine and human authority ; the former would always be identitied 
 with the latter ; (iod's whole will being always found in man's law. 
 This is not the case. It is our duty to ])ray, to clothe the naked and feed 
 till- hungry, t<j do justly, love mercy, and walk luunbly with our God. 
 Indeed, a great manv duties besides subiectiou to the civil mao-istracv. 
 
13 
 
 arc tniio'lit hv tlu' liu'lit of iiatuiv, aii.l <'.|uallv in tin- l)il>l<-. Ik-ncf, 
 there may be a einitlict between the rotjuiri'iiu'iits of llif civil autliovi- 
 ties and those of Hod. He is nut so itleiitilieil with tlieni, neither does 
 he so jifuide tlieir action, as to make the rt'snlt impossibli-. The t^vent 
 has often occurred ; that is, man has commanded one thinj;, and God, 
 the opposite, making obedience to both a natural im])ossibility. This 
 fact is not to be ])Ut out of si u-] it by the ehuucjrs of a ni( i>' law-mania. 
 Jt is a fact. While it is true that there is no higher law than the law 
 of God, which requires obedience to civil government, it is f.[ii;illy 
 true that this is not the whole of God's law. lie has given other laws 
 as well as this ; and with these civil government may come in direct 
 contiict. 1 )oes God require the suliject to obey man, when the latter 
 requires him to disobey God I This is a jioint not fairly and properly 
 met by some, who have recently publisbeil their views on this subject. 
 Bear these observations in mind. "We shall have occasion for their 
 use in another stage of this inquiry. 
 
 There are two distinct applications of the great principles set forth 
 by the Higher Law Conscience, in regard to each of which 1 will ex- 
 press an opinion with its reasons. 
 
 1. The first refers to the poAvers that be, considered as the creators 
 or executors of law. Are there any rules of morality for governments, 
 for nations, as such ; or do they create their own morality at option ? 
 Are law'-agents responsible to God for what tlu-y do, and equally with 
 the citizen subject bound by the principles of the Higher Law ' ^^ e 
 hold that they are. Our President, in his recent message, has uttered 
 this sentiment. He says, " The great law of morality ought to have 
 a national, as well as a personal and individual application." "\^ hat- 
 ever has a moral nature as right t)r w rong, consonant or otherwise 
 with the will of God, as disclosed in his Word or in the sacred rights 
 of humanity, before legislation and compacts touch it, retains that na- 
 ture. Morality is a fixture in God's universe, neither made nor unmade 
 by government, alike the legitimate sovereign of nations, kings and 
 subjects. It is antecedent to all constitutions and laws — is the rule 
 by which we try their equity. Were it otherwise, there could be no 
 retribution for national crimes ; government might become a conspiracy 
 of unpunished assassins; and the agents of enormous wickedness 
 might, by their official character, flee from the moral jurisdiction of 
 
the Divine hiw. <;<.(! hr.l.ls .ill i„..ii ivspciisihlc t.. liis rule of righl, 
 whether tliey are assueiated a.s a nation or exist in the state of nature, 
 whether they are citizens and subjects, or aie trusted witli the duties 
 and powers of the civil magistracy. Th.-y can not innocently act in 
 couthct witli the Higher Law. 
 
 Assuming your assent to this view, let me i-einark that there are 
 two practical questions which claim an answer. 
 
 Suppose that a people are adopting a Constitution tor government, 
 or that law-makers are giving birth to legal enactments, what in this 
 stage of affairs is the relation of the Higher Law ? Plainly, it requires 
 them to establish justice, protect right, and provide for the punishment 
 of wTong, to. legislate, not against God, but in coincidence with his au- 
 thority. They ought, to produce just and impartial laws. This is the 
 mission and jtroper, aim of cinl government. It is not to be the 
 ■instrument of des])otism and oppression, but of justice and safetv. 
 The preamble of our national Constitution sets forth the true doc- 
 trine on this subject " We, the people of the United States, in order 
 to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insui-e domestic tran- 
 quility, provide for the common defense, promote the general w^eliare, 
 and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do 
 ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of Ameri- 
 ca." This is a sound creed. 
 
 Suppose, again, government to be established, and that the execu- 
 tion of its will has passed into the hands of the duly authorized agents 
 of law, what are they to do i L answer ; execute that will as it lies on 
 the statute-book, or in the fundamental law of the land. Suppose, 
 however, that the laws themselves, one or more, are so morally vicious^ 
 that the agents can not execute them without sinning against the 
 Iligher Law ; what then ? I answer, this being their view, they must 
 either oxrcuti- the laws or resign their trust. They must either fulMll 
 the oath of otlice, or vacate it. There is no other alternative. On anv 
 other principle, civil society would sink to ruin in the hands of its ex- 
 ecutive agents. A man who holds office contrary to his conscience, 
 must not plead conscience against its duties. A\'hieh shall they do ? 
 Shall they keep their oath and do wmng, or vaeatc the office and do 
 right? I answer, without one moment's hesitation — the latter. They 
 are wanting in moral honesty unless they take this course. A mili- 
 
ir> 
 
 tnry ott'ucr, for o\;iiiipli', \\ lio is coiiiiii.-hkIimI to tiglil. Imt wlio lidiox'-s 
 fighting to lie sinful, must citlior light or send in his prot.-st and if- 
 signation. The view he takes of war in general, or of a itarticular war, 
 makes the latter his only possihle course. lie must not hold tiie light- 
 ing commission, and yet refuse to fight at the legal call of his country. 
 Neither must he tight against tin' mandate of (^od. Heiifc he mM>t 
 resign. 
 
 These are my views in res]ieet tu tin' ajiplication of llic lli'^her Law 
 to the jiowers that he, whether you consider them as a nation estab- 
 lishing tlie [irinciples and rules of government, or as the })ersonal 
 agents of that government. Both are amenable to the God of truth ; 
 and the Higher Law ought to be the ultimate standard of botli. Nei- 
 ther lias a right by any legal process to trespass upon the sui)reme 
 rule of right. It Avill be sin in either. 
 
 2. Let us now, secondly, look at the application of the Higher Law 
 to the citizen-subject. Of course it jireseuts no difliculties, where Di- 
 vine and human laws are iu harmony — where morality and legislation 
 wear the same features. It is their conllict, and this only, th.-it makes 
 an occasion to test the authority- of each. This conflict may come up 
 in one or the other of the following practical shapes: 
 
 The first is where government, in the judgment of the peojile, has 
 become so unjust and oppressive, as to be utterly destructive of its le- 
 gitimate and proper ends. Tn such a crisis, the people have the in- 
 herent right of revolution, by which I mean the total subversion of 
 the government that exists, and the erection of a new one. Tyranny 
 and despotism have not an eternal license. The duty of obedience 
 has a limit somewhere ; when a suffering people may say to legal ty- 
 rants, " Begone I — We can dispense with your services. We cannot 
 tolerate you any longer." The undertaking is always an awful one. 
 It is open rebellion. It is to be the last resort of an oppressed people. 
 It is never exjiedient except when there is a fair hope of success ; yet, 
 when the crisis comes for it, then the act is not treason, but a legiti- 
 mate revolution. Government is not such an ordinance of God, that 
 it may not write its own doom. The right, however, of actual revo- 
 lution never belongs to a minorif>f, but always to the inajorit)/. While 
 the many say, let government stand as it is, the few must aipiiesce, 
 and bear it< o-rievanees. Thevhavc no otbor alternative. 
 
10 
 
 Tliis assertion of the revolutiouary li'jiht will not, 1 trust, souud 
 strangely in American eais. It is the doctrine of the Declaration of 
 Independence. This government is founded upon the inherent right 
 of revolution. Great Britain drove our fathers to its exercise ; and 
 liad she triumphed, would ha\e hung them as traitors, though we be- 
 lieve they were patriots — lovers of their country and their kind. No 
 Auiei'ican, surely, will repudiate this fundamental right of the people. 
 The rights of government are the gift of God to the people, and by 
 tlie people to the king. His powers exist by their consent, and ter- 
 minate with their dissent. Who doubts whether the collected people 
 of Europe have a right to dethrone every monarcli, and sweep away 
 the whole system of aristocracy, that of the Pope not excepted, and 
 establish free government ? Austria thought Hungary to be guilty of 
 treason, and butchered her heroes to satiate her vengeance. We think 
 her to have been glorious in her struggle — not less so in her fall. 
 The name of Kossuth has a charm, as the embodiment of the revolu- 
 tionary riglit. The Pope thought the Italians seditious. We honor 
 them, and despise the infamous course of the French nation. Charles 
 I. thought Cromwell and the Roundheads to be a pack of traitors. 
 Posterity regards tht-m as the apostles of civil liberty. Forget not 
 that nearly all the liberty of the world has been procured by the revo- 
 lutionarj- right; its exercise being actually put forth, or so menaced as 
 to make kings tremble. Generally, despotism cannot be reasoned into 
 justice. For a rule, the people have been compelled to frighten it or 
 destroy it. 
 
 Thus, on this point, my doctrine, in a word, is this : — In all those 
 cases where revolution is really a necessary expedient, being the only 
 resoui-ce of an outraged people, resistance to tyrants is obedience to 
 (Jod. Here the Higher Law <jf right intervenes, and justly sweeps 
 away the ])owers that be, in order to make better ones. 1 grant you 
 that it is ojien rebellion against the existing government; and that it 
 must be crnshed, or government must be overturned l)y il. 'J lie 
 ground on which I defend it, is this : — I'assive subjection to legal tyr- 
 anny has a /linil ; and at this limit '' The Higher Powers" lo>e all 
 their moral authority, giving place to thcjse that shall be the product 
 of a revolution. This doctrine I hold as a (question of morality, and 
 not merely of stnn^tli. Hence, I <}ualify the doctrine which asserts 
 
17 
 
 the supromaoy of law, by the revohitionary right. I do nr»t bolieve, 
 that revohitioii upon a just and suthcient occasion is a crime. I 
 Jiold it to be the virtue and right of the peoph;. I must, liowever, 
 add that the experiment is always a terrible one — the laat resort ; and 
 that it -should be well considered bet'»re undertak'-n. In ;i Ju-piilijic 
 such as ours, I do not see how such a crisis can ever arrive. It can- 
 not, unless our civil otHc«rs should enter upon a career of despotism, 
 of \\hich ihere is not the faintest prospect. .\ people living under a 
 government of chartered rights and limited powers, whose action they 
 control, surely have no occasion to resort to the Higher Law of 
 re\"olution. 
 
 The other form of conflict with government on the part of the ci- 
 tizen, is where not revolution, but obedience to God with non-resist- 
 ance to man, is both his right and duty. Let me carefully state my 
 ground on this point, and ask you to receive it as I state it. 
 
 Here are three parties. God is one ; the subject is the second ; and 
 the civil authorities, the third. Between the tirst and the third there 
 is a conflict, the last forbidding what the first requires, or recjuiring 
 Nvh.at the tirst forbids — man by law setting aside the imperative duties 
 or prohibitions of God's Word — man, for example, legally re<|uir- 
 ing me to abjure Christianity, or forbidding me to pray, or command- 
 ing me to worship an idol — man, in short, rendering illegal and crimi- 
 nal the duties that God imposes. This is the case supposed ; and it is 
 not merqly a hypothetical case. It has often occurred, and it may 
 again. ]S^ow what shall the subject do in the premises ? I answer : 
 ih-st, he must be clear that the supposed case is a real one — a point in 
 regard to which so far as he himself is concerned, he is the sole judge, 
 and yet a point where he may not innocently be mistaken and act the 
 part of a fool ; and secondly, if in his view the conflict be real, then 
 he must obey God rather than men, and as a martyr meekly sutfer the 
 consequences. I do not see how there can be any question as to the 
 correctness of this answer. God's law is certainly higher than man's. 
 The apostles acted upon this principle : Daniel did ; so did the three 
 men that were cast into the Hery furnace ; and so have all the Chris- 
 tian martyrs, nearly every one of them being slain not by mobs, Init by 
 le:jal enactment. They had not the seditious spirit ; they were ])ious, 
 willing to do right and suf!er for it. The most eminent examples of 
 3 
 
18 
 
 Christian \iitue have been jToduoed un this theatre. Obedience to 
 (.iod even though it conflict with the huvs of man, is as distinctly a 
 doctrine of tlie Bible as any other found in that book. Some are dis- 
 posed to overlook tljis jjoint, to shove it out of sight. They seem to 
 be afraid of it. I am -not afraid of it ; to nie it is a part of the great 
 system of truth. Every man believes it, whether he asserts it or not. 
 I can suppose forty cases, in which every one of you would affirm its 
 truth ; and you will mark, if it is true am/u'here, then the principle is 
 yielded, and the only question that reniains, is its crpj^lication., in re- 
 gard to which we might differ though perfectly agreeing as to the 
 l>rinciple. 
 
 ]:5ut 1 }iiust not stop here, for I am anxious to give you an impartiaJ 
 view of the whole truth. What shall the civil autlwriiies do, when 
 the subject disobeys the law of the land on the ground of the Higher 
 Law.' 1 answer; inflict upon him its penalty. They have no other 
 course. They can never assume \\\\2^i be alleges, that there is any 
 conflict between the law of the land and the law of God. They can 
 never make kis conscience the rule of penal -retribution at the hands 
 of government. They must always assume that the law is right, and 
 that he is wrong, and is therefore to be treated as a criminal. "With- 
 out this moral consciousness in fact, government is a gross and detest- 
 able hypocrite. It can never surrender its ideas of what is right, and 
 yet possess authority. This would ■ be a confession of judgment 
 against itself, and disarm it of all its power. It would leave every 
 man to decide for himself not simply the question of his personal duty, 
 but also in what cases law should punish him ; that is, his conscience 
 w(juld be the law of the land, and the criminal would be hi§,.pwn 
 judge. This would be giving him the rights of the subject, and at the 
 same time the prerogatives of the sovereign. Now civil society can 
 never concede this to the conscience of the private citizen. It would 
 be tantamount to the destruction of all law. Ihe subject violates the 
 law for the sake of obeying God, knowing when he does so that govern- 
 ment will deem him mistaken and punish him accordingly. He makes 
 his choice between the precept and the penalty ; and chooses the lat- 
 ter — that is, lie chooses suffering in his view for righteousness sake. 
 This is a fair transaction on the part of the subject towards the sove- 
 reign ; and it may be a very virtuous one. 
 
19 
 
 But which, it may be asked, is HlcIu ? The subject says, " I am, I 
 corr.'ctly expound the Higher T>:i\v." Tlie [lowors tliat be, say, " A\'e 
 are, we understand justice and right." In respect to th<ir ariln,) tln'y 
 are both right; each must follow tiieir respective sens*- of duty. F>ut 
 which is right realli/ — tliat is, has the right sense of duty ? AVhu is 
 to decide this question .' This must be left to posterity and to (Jod. 
 Every professed martyr virtually ap]ieals to posterity hnd to ( Jod, to 
 review his case, and settle the question whether he was a martyr or a 
 fool, a good man or a bad one. A great many who have died as crimi- 
 nals, are on the records of glorious fame. The judgment of posterity 
 has reversed that of the age, in which they suffered. And then God 
 has instituted a tribunal based wholly on the principles of the Higher 
 Law, for the trial of all these affecting cases. At this tribunal God 
 Himself will give a final and impartial decision, canvassing the respon- 
 sibilities, beliefs and motives of both parties. 
 
 Thus, my brethern, without passion or prejudice, I have endeavored 
 to give you my sober and earnest views in respect to tlie question, 
 that was started in the outset. In this I have consulted the creed of 
 no party, the preferences of no class of men, but the best light of my 
 own reason, guided by the word of God. Both consciences, the law- 
 ahiding and the Higher Law conscience, have a place in a correct 
 system of Christian Ethics. The first is supreme except where quali- 
 fied by the second. To repudiate this, is treason to God for the sake 
 of lo^-alty to man. I advocate both principles, assigning to each its 
 proper sphere. I want to be a good citizen in the land that gave 
 me birth, and whose laws are my protection. I want more to be a 
 good citizen under the government of God. In respect to both I have 
 a conscience. What that conscience is, has been explained. 
 
 Many of the views recently expressed on this general subject, have 
 failed to satisfy my mind. They lack what Locke the philosopher, 
 used to call " the round-about viewP Some of them are greatly want- 
 ing in prudence ; others, exceedingly doubtful in morality ; others, 
 positively immoral. Some have so urged the Higher Law doc- 
 trine, as virtually to throw off all the obligations due to civil govern- 
 ment, and advance very near if not quite, to open treason. Thoy 
 would almost dissolve civil society, or at least stop its operations, 1 y 
 the force of their own conscience. Othors have rushed into the 
 
20 
 
 extreme, pressing the iluty ol' obedience to tlie civil authorities as if it 
 liad no limit, except in the rare cases of revolution." We confess no 
 little surprise, that even ministers of Christ should preach this as the 
 morality of the Bible. What will they do with the case of Daniel, 
 of Sliadrach, Meshach, and Abeduego, of Peter and John, of Paul him- 
 self, and the long line of Christian martyrs ? Do they mean to repu- 
 diate the allegi;ince to God evinced by these men, though in contiict 
 with the laws of man ? This is really a new doctrine, and as danger- 
 ous as it is new. Let it be proved that human government is such an 
 ordinance of God, that all its decrees are to be taken as the infalhble 
 expresssion of His will ; and then, we shall have the Divine right of 
 kings. The citizen Avill then have little else to do but seek God's 
 whole will in the laws of the land. Tliis is the very worst kind of 
 Toryism — better suited to the dark ages than to the 19th Century. It 
 makes civil government to be what God and truth never made it. And 
 still others have failed to distinguish between the dechnature to obey 
 an immoral mandate of civil government, and a positive forcible resist- 
 ance to the execution of its laws — things morally as wide apart as the 
 poles. Men, even great men, when excited or unduly captivated with 
 one idea, run into extremes. They shout a single thought, true in its 
 proper sphere, in a wa}' to make practically a false impression, and in- 
 culcate heresy. I have sought to shun all these extremes, and s])eak 
 to you as nearly as possible, in the language of sim[>le truth. 
 
 THE l-TGITIVE SLA\'E (^'ESTIOX. 
 
 This question at tlie ])reseut time is exciting much interest in all 
 parts of our country. As I doubt not, you have supposed that I would 
 make some reference to it in this sermon. The capture of fugitive 
 slaves on Northern ground, and their return to Southern bondage, 
 present a very grave matter for a Christian. I have an opinion on this 
 subject, not hastily adopted — one which I prefer to state, rather than 
 leave it as a matter of inference. I know of no good reason why vou 
 should not know what that opinion is; and if you will hear luc 
 patiently for a few iiK^mcnts, you shall be thus informed. 
 
 My first opinion is, that it is best for all men to keep cool, to sepa- 
 rate between their passions and their moral convictions. Men of equal 
 
2\ 
 
 respf'ftal.ility do iioi. sco iilikL'. Tlie Xortlicrii iiiiiid is roiifcssedly in 
 an unsettled state ; and I can see nothinu; to be gaino<l by a crusade of 
 denunciation. Some, in their zeal to stop ''aii;itation," abnost repudi- 
 ate the light of free discussion, except for tlienisi.-lves. This is as bad 
 in policy, as it is questional )l'e in principle. In a free ccnintry it always 
 costs more to </aff a man than it does to hear him. Violent and jiass- 
 ionate denunciation frightens no body in this land. Hence, I think it 
 best to keep cool. Lmean for one to have my own opinions, and yet 
 I mean to know what I say, and what 1 do. I think this becomes every 
 man. 
 
 in the next place, there are some /ac^s to be looked at as facts. It 
 is a fact, that the Constitution of the Unital States is the fundamental 
 civil law of this land. It is also a fact, that this Constitution does 
 provide for the capture of fugitive slaves, and their return to Southern 
 bondage. Let me give you the words : — " No person held to service 
 or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, 
 shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged 
 from such service or labor ; but shall be delivered up, on claim of the 
 party to A^hom such service or labor may be due." * The term slave 
 is not iised, but the thing was meant. The circumstances, too, in 
 Avhieli the agreement was made, were not those of the present time ; 
 yet the agreement has not, by any legal process, been canceled. It 
 still remains on the national charter — the contradiction of all its other 
 ])riiici]iles. It is also a fact, that a very large number of slaves have 
 fled from their masters, and taken refuge in the free States. Some of 
 them have become members of Northern churches. Many of them 
 
 " The legal reason for this provision is very plain. Slavery is not recognized 
 bv the law of nntions. Hence, as a general doctrine, the moment the slave leaves 
 the local law of bondage, he becomes free ; — he does not carry his legal chain 
 from one civil community to another. The States in this Republic are distinct and 
 separate communities, existing in the bosom of one nation. If, therefore, there 
 were no provision in respect to fugitive slaves, each State might determine for it- 
 self whether the local law of slavery shall follow the victim, Avhcn coming within 
 its jurisdiction The people, in adopting the Constitution, a<;reed that it should — 
 that the question should not be left to the option of the States. They made an 
 exception to a general rule of justice. They agreed that a slave, by the laws of 
 one of the States, escaping into another State, .should not in the latter become a 
 freeman, but shouhl be delivered up on claim of his legal owner. They limited 
 the powers of the State in this respect, and by the Constitution created a State 
 obligation. The manner of legally ascertaining the facts supposed, is not 
 specified. 
 
22 
 
 have entered into the sacred relations of domestic life — have become 
 fathers and mothers ; and probably some of them are even citizens. 
 Ever}' one of them is legally liable to be captured and returned to 
 slavery. They will be so, till they die, or the Constitution is altered, 
 or they flee to another land. I pity them with all my heart. Their 
 condition is a sad one. It is an awful spectacle in a free country. 
 
 These, my brethren, are y'ac/s. It does no good to deny them, or to 
 reason as if they were not facts. What then sha.ll be done in view of 
 such facts ? 1 can answer this question only for myself, as an 
 individual. 
 
 If I were a Southern man, and a frii-nd of the Union — as I am not 
 the former, but am most cordially the latter — I should, with my pre- 
 sent views, say some things to my follow-citizens at the South. This 
 would be the substance of my speech : — As a matter of prudence, pa- 
 triotism, and wisdom, I would advise them not to insist on the consti- 
 tutional right secured by this provision. The argument I would use 
 in support of this advice, is various. I would tell South Carolina, that 
 she h;is on her own statute-book, laws in respect to colored citizens of 
 other States, that expressly nullify the national Constitution ; and that 
 the wise way for her would be to keep quiet. I would remind the en- 
 tire South, that in three instances, namely, in the purchase of Louisi- 
 ana, of Florida, and the aimexation of Texas, the national government 
 exceeded its constitutional powers for the benefit of slavery : tli&t al- 
 though the nation has acquiesced in these acts, still there is not one 
 syllable to show their constitutionality. I would also exhort the South 
 to rememljer, that when this provision was admitted, it was not under- 
 stood to be permanent, slavery, then, being supposed to be on its 
 death-bed. I would point them to the fact, that they have never been 
 able to recover asufficient number of these fugitives, and in the nature 
 of things never will Ix-, to make the experiment one of any great prac- 
 tical valuo' to them. The slave, once at the North, has facilities for 
 escape that not the most stringent laws can ever supersede. And fi- 
 nally, I would a^k them to turn philosophers upon human nature, and 
 as such to remeniljer, that the capture of slaves on Northern ground, 
 by any process, with law or without it, must necessarily be a sore and 
 exciting offense to the ma-s of the people. It brings directly before 
 their eyes one of the very worst scenes of slavery — ?. scene for which 
 
23 
 
 thoj :iiv not juviiarcd, .mihI with wliicli iiotliinif (•;iii iiiak'' tlierii sym- 
 pathize. ]S\)rtli(iii civili/iitioii li;is ..iitiix-ly oiitL,'ruwn the tiling. There 
 is a strong element of nibjioas f .cling adverse to it ; and this feeling 
 takes liold of the better chvssos — men who have stern convictions, and 
 form no inconsiderable portion of the bone and sim.'W of the Northern 
 mind. 
 
 Now, ill view of all these cireu instances, the dictate of prudence for 
 the South is. not to exeite either themselves or the North with the ef- 
 fort to capture slaves in the free States. This would be the greatest 
 " peace measure" that can be adoi)ted. The thing cannot be done 
 without excitement on both sides; and all the " Union meetings" in 
 creation -will not be able to avert the result. The sympathies of nine 
 men in ten at the North are, and must be, on the side of the fugitive 
 slave. The fact is a credit to their humaliity. It is not fanaticism 
 and wildfire, but the natural and necessary effect of existing causes. 
 Hence, I would say to the South : — If you wish quietude, let the run- 
 away slave go; you will not catch one in a Iniudred by all the laws 
 that can be put into action, and this will nerer pay for the e\ils pro- 
 duced. 1 would say this if I were a slaveholder, and at the same 
 time a friend to the peace of the Union. 
 
 Suppose, however, the South do not choose to act njion this advice; 
 suppose they insist upon the execution of the provision, as they liave 
 a eonstitutioiia! right to do — wliat then '. This is the ]iiiiehiiig ques- 
 tion. 1 will endeavor to meet it with ee.ndor. It ha-> two sides, both 
 of which deserve our attention. 
 
 On the side of the Southern claim is the argument drawn from the 
 compact in the national charter ; and as a constitutional question, it is 
 a complete and perfect argument. Of this there can be no doubt. The 
 States cannot constitutionally legish^te against this provision ; they 
 cannot repudiate it without invadiiig the terms of the national char- 
 ter. I am not aware that any State has ever attempted this. No 
 State has the power to do it, excejit in violation of the Federal Con- 
 stitution. Those who have lectured the Northern conscience on this 
 subject, vise this argument, and this only. That it is a strong argu- 
 ment, no candid man will deny. 
 
 On the other side of the question, is the argument drawn from tlie 
 Higher Law — ^a law much older than tlui Constitution. This ;irgu- 
 
24 
 
 meat contemiilates the moral nature of tlic thing- to be done, and af- 
 firms its essential miqulty. To mj conscience, as an individual, tliis 
 too is a complete and perfect argument. I am not able to view the 
 act in any other light tliau as a gross moral wrong against the victim. 
 I put the matter directlyto the conscience of the hearer. If it is not 
 morally wrong before God to capture a man who has committed no 
 crime, and forcibly drag him back to a bondage he loathes, and has a 
 right to loathe, and which he has done his best to shun — if this 
 be not morally wrong, then what is there in the distinction between 
 the I'ight and wrong, that is of any moment^ Answer my ques- 
 tion. Wliat wtjuld you think of the act, if made its victim I Is it 
 any better for another than it would be for you ] Possibly, my judg- 
 ment on this jioiut is incorrect. Whether it is or not, dej)ends on two 
 questions ; tirst, whether the slave is a man ; and secondly, whether 
 the principles on which this government is founded, are true — whether 
 there is any truth, reality, or sacredness in the natural and inherent 
 rights of man, as a moral and immortal being, made in the image of 
 his God ; whether the Divine law of lo\"e and equal justice to our neigh- 
 bor has any claim upon human regard. I have no secrets on this sul)- 
 ject. I Avill not sliout one thing in the public ear, and profess an»ther 
 privately. My view of man is such, that I could neither agree to do 
 tlie thing, nor do it to fulfill the agreement of others. I would sooner 
 die than be its agent. The Higher Law of Et;'rnal liight would Im- 
 in mv wav ; and by its decision I miist abide. 
 
 If, however, the eivil eomnnuiity of wliieh I am but a member, and 
 in which 1 hav:^ tli.' rights and responsibilities of but a single man, 
 looking at this subject in all its relations, judge ditferently : if the 
 good jteople of the State of Xew York, for example, have either less or 
 a better conscience than I h;ive ; then, let them execute the provision 
 in the most equital)le legal way ; and all I will do, is in these two sen- 
 tences : As a moral being I will, whenever it is my duty so to do, })Ut 
 on record my expression of the wrong: As a r/ooo? a7f.t:cn I will sul)- 
 mit. Here 1 stand in moral conviction ; and here I must, or be a 
 traitor to the G(xl who made me. Those Avho urge the argument of 
 the comjiact which we have honored in its place, and even some of God's 
 ministers wlio have s])ok.jn on this subject, are very careful to keep 
 clear (»f tlie moral (]Ueslion. ForLfittinn' this jioint. th.ey make a wn'y 
 
25 
 
 easy matter of it. Lot tliciii tt-ll us cli^-tiuctly, in idaiii Sa.vuii Ki)jfli>li, 
 wliat they believe in respect to the righteousness or unriijhtcousness of 
 capturing men and sending them hack to tlie bondage of Slavery. Let 
 them not shun this question, but fairly naeet it; and then both the 
 South and the North will understand them. If the thing is moralbj 
 right, then say so ; if not, then say this. We concede that it is consti- 
 tutional, while we believe it to be morally wrong. 
 
 Here it may be asked — Do you suppose the North wish to repudiate 
 the Constitution as a whole, and dissolve the Union on account of this 
 provision ? This may be the feeling of some ; but there is no (evi- 
 dence that it is so with the great mass of the people. It is not my 
 feeling, when I look at all sides of this embarriu«sing and difficult 
 question. I have no idea that 7iotv such a compact cnild be formed ; 
 but being formed, there is no evidence to show that the ci^■il authori- 
 ties, if called upon, would not execute it, and that, on the whole, the 
 mass of the people 'would not sustain them. The ground would be 
 solely the argument drawni from the comijact, and not at all the merits 
 of the thing to be done. While my moral convictions are and must 
 be against it, still, I see no other course that is consistent with the 
 terms of the Union, so long as the States remain together under the 
 provisions of the national charter. The people feel the obligation of 
 constitutional laAV ; and so do I as much as they ; yet, being a subject 
 of God's government as well as man's, I feel the obligation of the 
 Higher Law more. " Not that I loved Csesar less, but Kome more." 
 No compact, no law man ever made, shall restrain me from the decli- 
 nature of what I believe to be a sin. The obligation of an oath even 
 has its hmitation ; for no man is morally bound before God by his oath 
 to the performance of a wicked and immoral act. Yet, he must not 
 profess to keep it, and at the same time mean to repudiate it. This is 
 insincere — a nrtual perjury. So the Northern States must not profess 
 a compliance Avith all the terms of the Constitution, unless they mean 
 to be faithful to its injunctions. From this there is no escape, with- 
 out destropng the legal sanctity of the instrument. 
 
 It may be asked — How will you reconcile those declarations of coi\- 
 science with the legal duties of good citizenship under the Constitution 
 of the United States ? I answer : My citizenship in its relations to 
 earth must never be so interpreted, as to annihilate all the rights and 
 responsibilities of a personal conscience. My citizenship is no obliga- 
 4 
 
I 
 
 \ 
 
 26 
 
 ti'oii tv fXL'culf til.' will o( this naliiai, or any part of it, unless 1 am its 
 officer and chosen to remain such. The (juak«M-s boUeve it to be wron g 
 to tiglit. Hence, they refuse to bear arms ; yet, they do not resist the 
 civil authorities when collecting the raihtia fine. They suffer this pen - 
 alty for conscience sake. Are they traitors 'i Are they bad citizens ? 
 Now in respect to the ca])ture of the fugitive slaves, I stand on the 
 Quaker principle. I will neither do it myself, nor say that I think it 
 right when done by the civil authorities. But does not this im])ly some 
 reflection upon the Constitution ? It expresses my honest conviction in 
 respect to one of its features. 1 ha\e ne\er been taught to Avorship 
 that instrument, or highly as 1 appreciate it, to assume its perfection 
 as a standard in morals, especially in those clauses which refer to 
 slavery. Let it not be forgotten, that this very Constitution contains 
 the toleration of the foreign slave trade for twenty years — a trade 
 now declared piracy punishable Avith death ; that is, the people made a 
 bargain to tolerate for twenty years what the nation now visits witb its 
 highest penalty. "Was the thing any better for the bargain ? Did it 
 cease to be a crime for this reason ? Forget not that morality and 
 God are older and more infallible than the Constitution, and that a 
 compromise Avitli wrong for tlie sake of union does not convert it into 
 right. Those who choose to g-ive up their moral sense to the decisions 
 of the Constitution, let them do so ; I ivill not. I acknowledge no such 
 citizenship under any government man ever made, as destroys the pre- 
 sent obligation invariable and irrepealable of the Supreme Rule. AYhat 
 then will vou <lo in respect to the wrongs of your country ? Just what 
 I am doing to-day : give > ou my opinions ; state what I believe to be 
 the ti-uth ; do my best to have those wrongs rectified. Anything else ? 
 Nothing else. Here 1 stop, where good citizenship and God equally 
 bid me to ])ause. This is m}^ creed as a Christian, being a citizen. 
 
 Jn respect to the recent Fugitive Slave Law, professedly built on 
 this provision of the Constitution, I will say a word. The conflicting 
 opinions in regard to it abundantly show, that it is not adapted to meet 
 the public sentiment of the North. To me it seems questionable, 
 whether Congress ha.s any legislative power in the premises. The 
 firovision in the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves is not a 
 grant of power to Congress, but the imposition of an obligation upon 
 the States, Such is the published opinion of Daniel Webster. In 
 his sj.eech in llie Smalc. Manli Vtli, 1850, he says : " 1 have always 
 
thoucflit that the Constitution aJdiv.ssed itsolf to llio l.-gislaturos of the 
 States themselves, or to the States theiusi-lves. It says that those 
 persons escaping into other States sliall l>«j delivered up; and I eonfess 
 that I have always been of o])inion that that was an injunetioii upon the 
 States themselves. It is said that a person eseaping into another Stat«', 
 and becoming therefore, within the jurisdiction of that State, shall be 
 delivered up. It seems to me that the plain import of the passage is, 
 that the State itself, in obedience to the injunction of the Constitution, 
 shall cause him to be delivered «]>. This is my judgment ; 1 lia\(^ 
 always entertained it; and I entertain it now." Such is the opinion of 
 Daniel Webster. Whoever examines the Constitution, will fail to tiud 
 any grant of power to Congress express or implied, to pass a fugitive 
 slave law. He will find a compact addressing itself to the States, and 
 making the delivery of fugitive slaves a matter of State obligation, 
 and therefore of State legislation.* And here I frankly confess that if 
 it were left to the State, I see no way, in which she could constitution- 
 ally avoid the obligation, when the claim for the slave is established by 
 " due process of law," without repudiating so much of the national 
 charter. The Constitution does in plain words impose this duty upon 
 
 * The Federal Government is, in the strictest sense, a Government of chartered 
 powers. The Constitution is its charter. Upon Congress it confers all the Icghla- 
 tiue powers of this Government. These are {i^ranted by clauses referring to 
 specific subjects, and by the Eighth Section of the First Article, which after enu- 
 merating seventeen particulars of Federal Legislation, makes a grant of implied 
 powers, namely, " To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
 carrying iuto execution the for ego im/ powers, and all other powers vested by this 
 Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer 
 thereof." This is not a grant of implied powers, to carry into execution all the 
 provisions of the Constitution, but to execute all the poiirrs erpresshf vested by 
 the Constitution in the Federal Government. Where then is the grant of power 
 to this Government, to legislate in respect to fugitive slaves ; Nowhere, unless 
 in the provision bearing on tiiis subject. Is this such a grant of power ( Read 
 it ; see, if upon its face any such idea appears. It is a clause of eoinpact between 
 the people of the respective States, restricting the States from psussing any laws 
 discharging the fugitive from the legal condition of slavery, and imposing on them 
 the duty of delivering him up on claim of his owner. It is a capital mistake to 
 assume, that all the provisions of the Constitution are grants of potcfr to the 
 Federal Government. Many of them are provisions of compact, limiting state 
 powers, or defining State duties. The provision securing to citizens of each State 
 the privileges and immunities of citizens in the respective States, and also the 
 provision ifor the recovery of fugitives from justice, are of this character. The 
 same is true of the one in respect to fugitive slaves. It creates a State obligation ; 
 and clearly a State obligation is not a grant of Federal power. The common 
 complaint of the South, that the Northern States have not done their duty on 
 this subject, confesses that tlie d. livery of fugitive slaves is the work of the 
 States ; for if not, then they have no duty to perform. If it is, then it is not pro- 
 perly the work of the Federal Government. 
 
28 
 
 the States. I am sorry that it is so ; but m}' sorrow does not change 
 the fact. This is tlie sad consequence of an agreement to do wrong. 
 The main ground, however, upon which the North have most 
 strongly objected to the recent law of Congress, is to be sought in its 
 features. It is to be remembered, that at the North we have no slaves 
 and no slave-laws. Hence every man, black or white, is legally 
 presumed to be a freeman, until he is proved to be a slave. It is also 
 to be remembered, that the provision of the Constitution does not point 
 out the jorocess, by which the fact of slavery as against a person 
 claimed, shall be judicially ascertained. It simply says that the slave 
 shall be delivered np. What ! any person whom another may choose 
 to claim as a slave ? Surely not this ; but the person who is proved 
 to be such as the Constitution describes, namely, a fugitive slave. 
 Here then is manifestly a trial on a question of fact. Is the man a 
 slave ? The mere fact, that he is claimed as such, is no proof. There 
 is a fact to be proved before a competent tribunal, before the Constitu- 
 tion in the remotest sense puts his liberty in peril. How shall this 
 question be tried ? We answer ; it ought to be by the ordinary 
 method of judicial ])rocedure — by what is known in the Constitutions 
 and usage of the country as a " due process of law" — that is to ?.ay, a 
 regular, open trial by a jury of freemen, hearing the evidence and 
 pleading on both sides, and then giving a verdict accordingly. The 
 burden of 'proof by the rule of justice, falls wholly upon the claimant. 
 He must show all the facts supposed in the Constitution, in relation to 
 the particular man he claims ; namely, that the man is a slave under 
 the laws of one of the States — that he the claimant is the owner, or 
 his authorized agent — and that the person has made his escape from 
 his legal master. These facts ought to be proved to the satisfaction 
 of a. jury, before the legal presumption of freedom is surrendered in 
 the Free States. If, in any instance under the sun, a jury trial should 
 be had, it is when a man is tried on the question, whether he is a 
 freeman or a slave. This (juestion ought to be thus settled before the act 
 of delivery takes place. Let it not be said that it can be tried at the 
 South, after the delivery is effected. The North ought never to sur- 
 render colored men to be transported to the South, and there tried 
 under the presumptions and disadvantages of the slave code. This 
 would be injustice. It is practically equivalent to consigning them to 
 slavery. The act of delivery is in etfect a verdict of slavery against 
 
tiO 
 
 tlie man. Suppose, that, lie is a freeman ; how is he to show it, 
 where a black skin presumes slavery, and possession presumes title ? 
 How is he to procure witnesses, aud provide himsflf with a competent 
 defense ? The delivery of a person claimed as a slave, is essentially 
 unlike that of a fugitive from justice. The latter is delivered up that 
 he may be tried by an im])artial/Kry, with all the legal securities <.if a 
 freeman. Such is not th'* fact in regard to the person alleged to be a 
 slave. Hence, the legal ascertainment of slavery, by a " due process 
 of law" as recognized where the claim is prosecuted, ought to precede 
 the delivery. So it strikes a large portion of the Northern mind ; 
 and I. confess, this is my judgment, as a Christian and a citizen. 
 
 What, then, are the objections to the recent Fugitive Slave Law ? 
 I answer ; it does not conform to these principles. It disposes of the 
 whole question in a " summary manner." Without the form of so 
 doing, it in efiect nullifies the right to th.- writ of J/aheas Corpus. 
 It precludes a trial of the questions of fact by a jury. It contains the 
 anomaly of judicial tribunals created by other tril>unals — a principle 
 wholly- unknown in the legislation of this country. In respect to the 
 rule of testimony to be had in the case, it throws all the advantages 
 on the side of tlie claimant, and against the person claimed. It makes 
 acts of hospitahty, and gospel mercy to the unhappy fugitive, a 
 crime for which the agent may be severely punished. It authorizes 
 the officers of the law, to compel the services of the people in ca}>tur- 
 ing the slave, and returning him to bondage. In a word, it is an 
 effort to carry out, upon the soil of freedom, the legal principles aud 
 practice of the slave-code. Such a law would be very much in har- 
 mony with Southern institutions and ideas ; but is not so with those 
 of the FuEE States. 
 
 I might sustain this general estimate of the law by a long list of 
 very respectable authorities. I will give you two opinions. 
 
 The Hon. Josiah Quincy, Sen., remarks : — '" Could it have been 
 anticipated by the people that a law would be passed superseding that 
 great principle of human freedom, and that in this Suite, (Massachu- 
 setts) in which the claimant of ownership for a cow, an ox, or a hoi-se, 
 or an acre of land, could not be divested of his right without a trial 
 by jury, yet that by the operation of such a law, a citizen might be 
 seized, perhaps secretly carried before a single magistrate, without the 
 right of proving before a jury his title to himself, and be sent out of 
 
30 
 
 the State, on the certitioate of such single magistrate, into hojieless 
 and perpetual bondage ; it is impossible, in my judgment, that the 
 Constitution of the United States could have received the sanction of 
 one-tenth part of the people of Massachusetts." Again he says : — '* The 
 people of Massachusetts understood that such claim should be enfor- 
 ced, in conformity to, and coincidence with, the known and established 
 principles of the Constitution of Massachusetts." Again he remarks : 
 " Let the laws upon this subject be so modified as to give to every 
 person, whose service is thus claimed, the right of trial by jury before 
 being sent out of the land, and the universal dissatisfaction would be 
 almost wholly allayed." — Neio York Tribune, Oct. 11th., 1850. 
 
 The other opinion ])roceeds from the Governor of Ohio, in his recent 
 message to the Legislature of that State. He objects to the law on 
 the following grounds : — " Because it makes slavery a national, in- 
 stead of a State institution, by requiring the costs of reclaiming the 
 slave in some instances to be paid out of the United States Treasury : 
 because it attempts to make ex parte testimony, taken in another ju- 
 risdiction, final and conclusive, in cases where its effects may be to en- 
 slave a man and his posterity for all time, and commits the decision 
 of this question of civil liberty to officers not selected for their judicial 
 wisdom or experience : because it attempts to compel the citizens of 
 free States to aid in arresting and returning to slavery the man who is 
 only fleeing for liberty, in the same manner as they would rightfully 
 be bound to aid in arresting a man fleeing from justice, charged with 
 the commission of a high crime and misdemeanor : finally, in relation 
 to the manner of trial, and other particulars, the law is contrary to 
 the genius and spirit of our free institutions, and therefore dangerous 
 to both free and slave States, and consequently ought to be amended or 
 repealed." — Nexv-York Tribune, Dec. lOth, 1850. 
 
 Now, I suppose, these opinions represent the general sentiments 
 held by a very large portion of the Northern people. They deem the 
 features of the law to be an infringement upon chartered rights, not 
 required by the provision of the Constitution, and in express conflict 
 with other provisions of the same instrument. No one will deny that 
 it has awakened a very strong excitement among the Northern people ; 
 and this is enough to prove that it is not well adapted as a " peace 
 measure." to settle tlie vexed tiuestions that have been agitating this 
 Union. 1ji my judgment, it has made things worse rather than better. 
 
:il 
 
 Tlio J-oyiftlaturr of \'otiiiuiit, fur c-.\;iiiij.l»-, has rcccnlly jiassul an act, 
 securing to tlie person claimed Jis a slave, a rii^lit to the writ of hubias 
 corpus, and dirootini; tht- judge issuing the writ, t<) order a trial by 
 jury on all thi- (|UHsti(iiis uf fact involved in the issue. This takes the 
 person claimed from the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and placcR 
 him under State law. it is not done for the protection of the slave 
 against the demand of the Constitution, but for the due jirotft-tion of 
 her own citizens. Vermont virtually says by this act, that no man on 
 lier soil shall be deemed a slave, until s«) adjudged by a jury. It i» 
 her legal protest against not the end, but the features of tlit; Fugitivi? 
 Slave i.aw. 
 
 r think it a great niisforiuii;' to both section* of tin? Union, that 
 Congress should kave passed the law in question. It does not, and in 
 its present form never can, answer the mission of a " peace measure." 
 If it is to be practically a dead letter on the part of the South, this- 
 V, ill be one thing ; but if it is to be executed with stringency and ri- 
 gor, then 1 mistake public sentiment, especially in the interim- of the 
 country, if the petitions are not long and loud for its modification or 
 npeal. 1 do not see how, in view of all the facts, we can reasonably 
 expect any thing else. It is well to look at facts as they are on aU 
 sides, as well as one side. 
 
 After having heard this expression of my views in regard to the law 
 itself, you may ask me, what shall be done, the law having been 
 passed I I deem it a privil.'ge to have the opp<.irtunity of answering 
 this question. 
 
 In the first place, let every citizen remember that our system of go- 
 vernment provides a competent tribunal to test its constitutionality. 
 While it is to be lamented that legislation should ever be so extraor- 
 dinary, as to make its constitutionality even doubtful, still, no private 
 citizen can authoritatively settle this point. 'I'his must be done by a 
 tribunal having jurisdiction. I have an opinion, and .so have you, and 
 both of us have a right to an opinion ; but neither your opinion nor 
 mine is clothed with any legal authority. This fact should be remem- 
 bered by those who warmly condemn tin- law. They may express 
 their opinions ; yet they are not the lecfal judges in the case. 
 
 In the second place, let no citizen, be his opinions what thev may in 
 regard to this law, think himself entitled to resist the civil authorities' 
 in its execution, i'he moment he does this, he makes a new issue — 
 
32 
 
 oiir ill \vliic-li lie ()ii<rht to bf crusLed. lie lias no right to an opinion 
 tliat sliall bo made the basis of rebelhon. If, in his judgment, any or 
 all of the requirement'^ of this law are in conflict with the Higher Law, 
 then let him obey God, always remembering that God does not require 
 him to light the civil authorities ; and if there is any penalty incurred 
 by this course, then let him meekly suffer it. This is orthodox for 
 both worlds. AYhile T could not force one of my fellow-creatures into 
 bondage under any law it is possible for man to create ; yet, if I were 
 a civil officer, required to do it by the legal duties of my office, I 
 would either do it or resign my trust ; and I should certainly take the 
 latter course. This is good morality also for both worlds. I would 
 not hold the ofiice, and violate my oath. I would not hold it, and 
 violate the Higher Law. Hence, I would not hold jt at all. 
 
 In the third jilace, let no citizen feel himself authorized to advise the 
 fugitive slave to arm himself, and ])repare for a deadly conflict with 
 the civil authorities, in case of an effoi-t to arrest him under this law. 
 I regard such advice as positively immoral. I regard it as wanting in 
 every element of good sens3. Wluitever may be the motive, the man 
 who gives it is not, in fact, the friend of the slave, or of the commu- 
 nity in which he lives. He has not well considered his own Avords ; 
 and, in my judgment, is justly obnoxious to jiublic censure. If he 
 were himself to do Avhat he advises others to do, he would be guilty 
 of ojien treason. He patronizes a war upon civil society in an illegal 
 way. Much as I hate slavery and slave-catching, I have no sympathy 
 with this doctrine. The natural and inherent right of self-defense is 
 not the natural and inherent right of slaughter for no purpose, for no 
 attiinable end. I would not fight for freedom even, wlien I should 
 be sure to involve l)oth myself and others in greater calamities by it. 
 If I said anything to the fugitive slave, I would exhort him to 
 quietude, to good behaviour amid his griefs and dangers ; and if he 
 could not feel safe in this land, then with shame and sorrow of soul I 
 W(»nld point him to the north star, and toll him, if possible, to quit a 
 country of so much jieril to himself. T pity him, though I cannot 
 unniak<' the fact that he is legally a slave in this land, go where he 
 N\ill. He cannot destroy this government, and 1 do not wi^^h to do so. 
 iI.'ii<-<- 1 cannot tell him to fight He never will at my instigation. I 
 reproljate the advice, 'i'his advice has l)een severely and deservedly 
 
33 
 
 rolmkctl. \i'\, we oaiiiiot williliold the f\]'rcssiuii f)t" our regret, that 
 some who ha\c uiiuistercJ this rolxik.-, Ii.kI not aj^jlied tlieir con- 
 science with eg7(al intensity to another in.niil iiucstion. As Christians, 
 ■\vliat (.lo tlif'v tliiiik of capturiiiL;- and n-turniiiLC nicn to slavery ? 
 
 Ill the fourth ]ilaee, this law like every other, is anionable to the 
 power of public sentinieiit. It has no sanctity that places it above tlie 
 judgment of the people. If it misrepresent tlieir will, nothing can save 
 it from repeal or modification. It is one of the glories of our system, 
 that when the people are displeased with a law, they can freely discuss 
 it, and then vote it into its grave. It takes ahttle time to do this ; but 
 the event is always certain. In respect to this law, I wish for it no 
 other doom than the legally ascertained judgment of the people. 
 Those who think it right as it is, let them advocate it and vote 
 for it. This is their right — as much so as it is mine not to do so, dis- 
 senting as 1 do from their opinion. If the majority think as they do, 
 the law will stand; if iiot.it will not stand. For one taking into 
 view all the eireiiinstaiiees of the nation, I doubt the practical wisdom 
 of any attempt to alter it by the present Congress ; yet, I greatly mis- 
 interpret the signs of the times, as well as the character of the Northern 
 heart, if this law is not ultimately moditied, especially if the South 
 seek to use it with rigor. And in the meantime, I protest against any 
 effort to silence or frighten Northern sense on this subject. I do ho- 
 nestly suppose, that Northern peo])le have a right to think, and freely 
 to express their thoughts. I am a Unionist, and so is the great body 
 of the Northern mind; yet, I doubt whether this Union is to be pre- 
 served by getting up a panic. Congress enacted this law ; and it has 
 as much power to change it as it had to make it. To say that its 
 modification or repeal will dissolve the Union, is a confession that some 
 people are ready for treason, iluch as I dislike the features of the 
 law, I am willing to wait till an ascertained public will can do its 
 work ; and in the meantime, let no man think himself acting the part 
 of wisdom or duty, in denouncing his neighbor for a difference of 
 opinion. Let us have light and love, always remembering that 
 no one is justly required to put out his own eyes, or repudiate either 
 his common or moral sense, for the sake of love. 
 
 In the fifth place, as I doubt not, the President of these United 
 States will do his official duty, as the Chief Magistrate of this nation 
 — " take care (I am quoting his recent Message) that the laics be 
 5 
 
34 
 
 faitht'ully executed." As a citizen, I honor the doctrine, and the man 
 for its utterance. As a public officer, acting under the solemnity 
 of an oath, he has no other course ; we the people, no other safety. 
 He is the sworn executive of the will of this nation, legally ascertained. 
 The will of this nation is not that there should be rebellion any 
 whore, North or Soutli. llcncc, if necessary, as 1 hope it never may 
 bo, ho must ci-ush it by the last resort of government — the power of 
 the sword. He is to slu>w no fa\or to the accursed spirit of treason. 
 I mean this equally for both sections of the Union. A portion of the 
 South, not all, I hope, not a majority, yet a portion have fallen into the 
 habit of saying to the Federal Government, " You must do this, and 
 you must do that, or we will dissolve the Union." Whoever tries this, 
 I trust, will have an ample opportunity to judge whether this is a 
 practicable government, whether it has any power, and can execute its 
 own laws. If government must coax and pet every man who chooses 
 to whine, then it is no government. Both the Xorth and South are 
 in this Union ; and if we have a faithful President, as I trust we have, 
 they will stay there. Let it be well understood, that this govern- 
 ment is to go forward and do its proper work, making laws or 
 altering them at the command of the public voice ; let it be 
 known that traitors are to be hung as high as Haman, that the 
 first man who is guilty of treason within the meaning of the Con- 
 stitution, forfeits his life, and so of the second, and the third, and 
 so on ; let not a threat be followed by a panic, but met with that 
 calm and dignified firmness that becomes government .; and there 
 will be no civil tumult anywhere ; the party of disunioiiists will 
 lose all their thunder, and run down to nothing. There is no oc- 
 casion for a resort to the revolutionary right. There are no grie- 
 vances that call for it. Neither section has so invaded the chartered 
 rights of the other, as to justify in either a rebellion against the Fede^ 
 ral Government. 
 
 It is a species of incipient treason to be constantly threatening the 
 dissolution of the Union, in case of certain contingencies. He who 
 openly resists this Government, who attempts to revolutionize it, let 
 liim be treated according to law. He starts a new question, \ery dif- 
 ferent from the one whether slavery and slave-catching are I'ight or 
 wrong. With liiiii (HI llii> point 1 have no syni].alliy. If the Go- 
 v.inni.Mii. Si.it.- or i'Vderal, pass a law which, in his judgment, impo- 
 
35 
 
 ses duties in direct conflict with tlie llinli.r I..i\v ..!' liis C-d, tie ii let 
 uini obey ('od, ;ind i[uietly sulK r tin- Ictral cuiiseqiieiiccs, if tlnre be 
 any, leavinn- the final judgment to dceiile whether lie was ii martyr or 
 a fool. 
 
 And, finally, let ns eoninieml our country t(. the 'iod of nation-, ii»- 
 vokinu; the eare and direction of his Providence. Nations as such, are 
 amenable uiulcr His trovernment. In His si<,dit " riL(hte<jUsne.ss e.xal- 
 teth a nation, biit sin is a reproach to any jieoplc." <>f tlie nation 
 that will not serve CmI. it is written, that it shall perish, that it shall 
 be utterly wasted. 'J'here is no jMinciple truer, none of mon- thrilling 
 interest to this Republic, than that God holds orj^anized communities 
 responsible for their conduct. The American ])eople must do right, 
 and thus please Clod ; or in du(> season the day of vengeance will 
 come. His favor is more important than a vast navy, or strong ram- 
 parts, or the skill of politicians. Let us invoke that favor. Let us be- 
 seech the great God to dispose events for his ow'n glory, and the na- 
 tion's good. Tliere are great dangers in ovir path. There are serious 
 evils that call for redress. There is an awful incongruity in oUr prac- 
 tice, evidenced in the melancholy fact that on this soil of freedom, 
 blest Avith the- purest civil system man ever formed, millions of our 
 fellow-creatures are doomed to the toil and bondage of slavery. 'ITic 
 sigh of the bondman has entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. 
 Say wliat we will, conc( al it as we may, slavery is our great danger — 
 the most stupendous form of wrong founil in the bosom of this people. 
 It always has been, and always will lie, the curse of a peopl.' who 
 practice it. It Is the source of our present difHculties. It has outlived 
 its day. It ought long since to have gone to rest. It is the fretting 
 sore of our institutions. It ever will be a dithculty, Until a rectified 
 public sentiment shall demand and secure its removal. Neither by a 
 divine, nor bv a human right, does it exist on this soil. That sober, 
 and hune-.t, ami earnest, and moderate counsels — not the le>s deter- 
 mined for their moderation — free, on the one hand, from the spirit of 
 reckless passion and wild denunciation, and on the other, from that 
 dishonorable pohcy which is ever ready to sacrifice the truth ; — coun- 
 sels neither palsied by a panic, nor driven by a storm of fury— coun- 
 sels commending themselves to God for the equity of their purpose, 
 and the wisdom of their mode— counsels that embody the hon..st and 
 manlv sense of enlightened Christian men, exercising their rights, and 
 
36 
 
 doiii": their duty in the fear of God : — that all this is needed, greatly- 
 needed, in all parts of this Union, is very apparent. 
 
 I sec not what benelil is to arise from the sundering of the po- 
 litical ties that make lis one nation. I thank God that there is 
 very little desire fur tliis at tlie North. Most of tlie menaces 
 proceed from the Souili. Let them well consider before they act. 
 The attempt would be to themselves the most perilous experiment, 
 a misguided people ever undertook, 'i'he weakness is with them- 
 selves. The power of this nation is not in ilieir hands, if brought 
 into effective and vigorous action. Tliis power is in the free 
 Stales ; and there it must remain, l)y the ineviiaiiie necessity of a 
 natural cause. May God preserve the South I'rom committing 
 themselves to the dreadful issue. I can conscientiously and pi- 
 ously pray for the peaceful perpetuity of this Union, and not less 
 so for the removal of the evils that constitute its danger, and 
 most expose us to the displeasure of God. This is my prayer. I 
 trust it is yours, while to-day we thank our common Father for 
 blessings past, and implore others y( t to come. 
 
 In closing, let me say, that you now have mv whole soul on 
 this great subject. God is my witness that I have not made a 
 speech for Northern or Southern ears, to manufacture capital with 
 eitlier. I despise tlie infaiuous trick f)ii a theme of so nmch im- 
 portance. I have not sou<ilit to uiaLinify one truth at th(! expense 
 of another. 'J'hese are my sentiments. So I believe. Not a 
 sentence has faileii from mv lips, which, so far as I can now per- 
 ceive, I should wisli to recall. 1 came here not to jdease or of- 
 fend any bxly, but to sjieak the truth according to the best light 
 of my own understanding. Whether these opinions suit you, is 
 for you to settle. 1 have, under a solemn sense of duty, assumed 
 the responsibility of their utterance; and I do not expect to dis- 
 claim it. Thanking yoi! for having attentively listened to these 
 observations, I now conuuend you, and my country, and the slave, 
 to the guidance and mercy of that God, whose government is al- 
 ways just, whose grace is c(|ual to our wants, whose providence 
 is our pcrs(jnal and national shield, whose law is the higiii:st in 
 the universe, and at whose i)ar both speaker and hearer will soon 
 appear. May lie be merciful to us all ! 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 ■ i 
 
 0""012 026 175 7 -^ 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 026 175 7 
 
 Conservation Resources 
 
 Lie-Free® Type I / 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 026 175 7 » 
 
 ConscrvatJon Resources