.0) 
 
E 449 
 .W573 
 Copy 1 
 
TUB 
 
 i?^l^ * 
 
 NON-RESISTANCE PrJNCirLE : 
 
 WITH rAUTlCULAR APPLICATION TO THE 
 
 HELP OF SLAVES BY ABOLITIONISTS. 
 
 BY CHARLES K. WHIPPLE. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY R. F. WALLCUT; 
 
 .2 1 CORN 11 ILL. 
 
 1860. 
 
^V' 
 
 IN EXCHANGB 
 ODrnoU UviV. 
 2 FLI90S 
 
THE NOX-RESISTANCE rPJNClIVLE, 
 
 Altiioiigit, in ray judgment, the enterprise of John Brown 
 in Virginia feirsliort, in one particular, of couforniity to the 
 highesr rule of life, admitting a mixture of evil among the 
 instruments and processes l>y which he undertook to over- 
 come evil, still, I must regard and characterize that enter- 
 prise as a noble one ; noble in its spirit and purpose towards 
 the enslaved, and in its self-sacrificing and persevering devo- 
 tion to their cause, and noble also in the openness and direct- 
 ness with which he confronted the Slave Power in their defence. 
 In these latter particulars, John Brown, really feeling for 
 those in bonds " as hound with them,'' was unspeakably iu 
 advance, not only of the Church and the State in general, 
 but of their most advanced ranks : both of the voters for the 
 Massachusetts " Personal Liberty Bill," and of the tar small- 
 er and more timid number who formed the " Church Anti- 
 Slavery Society." It was inevitable that such a man, seeing 
 the miserable 'inadequacy of both these movements,^ shoiild 
 utterly refuse coijperation with them. It is equally inevita- 
 ble that his heroic character, which extorted admiration and 
 respect even from slaveholders, should stimulate many North- 
 ern men to a discharge of the duty of active interference for 
 the release of the slaves ; and that his elaborate provision of 
 deadly weapons, and his readiness to use them against any 
 assailants of his freed-men, should put many upon considernig 
 whether such use be not justifiable; whether self-defence, 
 which seems a natural instinct and a natural right, may not 
 properly be conducted in this manner ; and whether the de- 
 
that this love must liavc a constant and active energy in re- 
 forming the wnrM, overcoming its evil, and overcoming it 
 with (jood — and onijihaticaily enjoining that all good shall 
 l>e cheri^hinl and all evil overcome in each man's own heart 
 »nd life, as well a.s in the world around him. 
 
 I choose this rule simply because it is the best that I can 
 find, or conceive of. It seems to me perfect, adapted in the 
 most thorough manner to secure the progressive iniprove- 
 rient, the welfare, ami thus the happiness, of the human race. 
 If, however, you choose a diflerent rule, very likely you will 
 di.siigrec with my conclusions. \\'hat I am now concerned 
 to jihow is, that my rule, (above stated,) the Christian rule, 
 roquires that the law of love should regulate our overcoming 
 of evil as well as every other department of our action, and 
 this e(|uall3% whether the evil in ((uestion is directed against 
 ourselves or others. I trust that thus i'ar the case is plain. 
 
 Here, then, are the laws which are to regulate our action 
 ngain.st evil-doers, whether the thing assailed be our individ- 
 iiul welfare, or the individual welfare of a ♦' neighbor," or the 
 general welfare of the community. 
 
 LOVK YOUR NEUJIinOR AS YOURSELF! 
 liOVE KVEX YOUIl KMMIKS! 
 OVKKCOMK KVIL A\ ITI I (iOOP)! 
 
 Let U.S make the apjdicatlon of these rules to a particular 
 
 Stealing is an evil and a crime, nnhapj»ily too common in 
 nil communities. It is an injury to individuals, and an of- 
 fence ag:iinst society. Theft is one of the recognized evils 
 Mhieh it is the «luty and interest of us all to overcome. But 
 it is to be overcome with good, not with evil. 
 
 A man who lias lost property by theft sometimes knows 
 the thief, and knows where he possesses property of equal 
 vnhio, honestly acquired, and rightfully belonging to him. 
 Shall the jilundcrcd person steal that, and thus restore the 
 di.Hturbotl etiuilibrium of property? This might compensate 
 for the |of»s, but would it remove the evil ? Is it a ri^^ht 
 tnethcKl of proceeding ? 
 
 Nobcnly will say so. Instead of ninovijig the evil, it has 
 iloubled the evil. If one theft is an oft'ence against good 
 morals and the welfare of society, two thefts must l>e yet more 
 BO. Thi« is not the proper mode of proceeding. * Nobody 
 
uses it, nobody would jusiify it. On tho contrary, it is tho 
 interest of the person rohhod, and of the whole community, 
 to pay a sacred regard to the laws of property, and to show, 
 by their whole conduct, that they respect and scruf)uh)usly 
 observe those rights which tlie thief has violated. Only tlni.s 
 can they justify themselves in complaining of him, and apply- 
 ing remedial measures to him, as a thief. W they show them- 
 selves dishonest in the very case in <picstion, with what face 
 can they accuse kirn of dishonesty ? 
 
 The case of professional depredators, who defy, instead of 
 merely evading, justice, who live entirely by plunder, and 
 none of whose possessions are rightfully their own, I consider 
 to be different from that above supposed. Thus, Gil I31as, 
 confined in the robbers' cave, where all the stores, of every 
 description, were the avails of plunder, if unable to find his 
 own particular property when an opportunity of escape of- 
 fered, might very properly take, and carry away, its equiva- 
 lent in any form. So much is his due; the taking of so 
 much, in any form, is no violation of any right, moral or 
 legal, of the robbers ; and no right of any one is infringed by 
 it. Until he finds the original owner, the substitute thus 
 taken is his, more than any person's in the world. And it is 
 brought nearer to the original owner by being taken out of 
 the custody of the robbers. 
 
 In cases of what the law terms " confusion of goods," as 
 where a person, with fraudulent intent, mixes another's prop- 
 erty with his own, in such a manner that the portions belong- 
 ing to each cannot be distinguished, (as money, flour, corn, 
 hay, &c.,) equity would of course decide that the person 
 wronged might take his fair proportion of the whole, if he 
 knew what that proportion was. In cases, however, where 
 this last point is doubtful, the law goes still further, making 
 the following emphatic decision: 
 
 "If the articles were of different value or quality, and the original val- 
 ue not to be distinguished, the party injured takes the whole. It is for 
 the party guilty of the fraud to distinguish his own property satisfactorily, 
 or lose it. No court of justice is bound to make the discrimination for 
 him." — [See Kent's Commentaries, Vol. II., p. 454, where numerous au- 
 thorities are quoted.] 
 
 Returning now to the case of theft which I first supposed, 
 what I wish to have noted in it is this fact, namely ; that, in 
 proceeding against the thief — (unhappily and unjustifiably, the 
 
ciurtom of the commnnity is to proceed against * him, instead 
 of applying to him the hiw of love ! ) — we ourselves set the 
 example of a faithful adherence to the laws of property, and 
 do not at ull pretend that his prior commission of the oftence 
 in que>tion ju>titie,s lis in coiunntting it. 
 
 Supi>ose, instead of a theft, that the offence committed is 
 an a.ssault. A man strikes me, wounds me ! Perhaps his 
 a«pcct gives good reason for the supposition that he means to 
 kill me ! What am I to do? 
 
 This man ajipears to be an enemy ! He certainly acts like 
 one I Under the circumstances, I must consider and treat 
 him as an enemy. 
 
 • The true way of looking at theft is to recognize the fact, that hero 
 h%i l>ccn a loH?, not only of nroiXTty, but of integrity; not of a Aviitch or a 
 purjK? only, but of a mn'n. The property stolen should, if ])o?sible, be re- 
 ittored to the owner ; but it is of even more importance, that the culprit 
 nhoulcl be rei^tored to honesty, and that he should really be transformed 
 from a lualffactor to a benefactor. Hitherto, society has contented itself 
 with proviiling, by the coarsest appliances of material force, that he who 
 Btolo (•ball steal no more for three months, or six months, or a year, but, 
 iiLHtcod of this, that U>r the same brief period he should be compelled to 
 labor, working witli his hands the thing which is good. If in any cases it 
 baj dune more than this, it has been merely the ai)pointment of a parson ♦ 
 to exhort the prisoners, and the permission that volunteer teachers (usu- 
 ally with no qualification but good will) might give them Sunday School 
 in*truclion. 
 
 J{ul llu'so things arc far from filling up the measure of our duties, cither 
 to the culprit or to the community. The culprit himself — ho is our 
 brother, the child of our l-'ather, is ho not? — has real and important 
 claims u|»<»n u». For him, as for the rest of the population, we have mado 
 «omc clavM'S of provision; as, of a Poor-house, where he may be nourished, 
 if «lci"Ulut«'; a Common School, where he may receive some instruction; a 
 Jlunpilal, whero hi»( body may be cared for, if it becomes diseased; and an 
 AhvIuiii. whiTi! hi.s rca-ton may be restored, against his will, if necessary', 
 wli' ' ' lies discasiwi. Is it not of eipial conso«jucnce that help, and 
 » I -hould be jirovidtMl for his moral nature, when that is mani- 
 
 fc-t: 1 ' And will it not be as great an advantage to the comniu- 
 
 nily iM lo liimnelf if, through the operation of a system established for this 
 end, and wi.M?ly adapted to it, this thief can bo tlioroughly reformed, and 
 re«tori'<l to the community as a useful citi/.en ? If this can be done, it will 
 be AD advantage equal to the very greatest now enjoyed in civilization, 
 •Muring iho progrewive diminution oj" all crime, and the cultivation, far 
 mute thoroughly than at present, of goo^l morals and true religion. But 
 DO man can nay that thii is imix>ssible, until it has been tried. It has 
 
 •rr.- ^ ■ -ly tric<l ! 
 
 •ion-" ui>on this nubjoct may bo found in an essay, hereafter 
 l" I i. ontilied — " Xou-Uesistance, applied to the Internal L)e- 
 
 fcucv ot a twiumuntty." 
 
 • It l« '.lit, t* It n r. i,vi t In tlio Mft-iHarlmnotts State Trlson om-e protested 
 
 ai; 1 M" I on SuiuIbv. Having' tlmt tlie law lOrlnule nil " crii- 
 
 ♦I : th.il 111- hai 1mm"ii liv;iilly t.« nt. n< f.t to liard Inbor 
 
 '■■' iiiiiiti (u •ubnilt to It i but that he had not been sen* 
 
 twi-'. .. -i. . ; . , . . A ti ! 
 
9 
 
 What is the treatment in question, uccordhig to my rule, 
 heretofore given ? 
 
 Love youu enemiks! 
 
 Again: he has done me a wrong. lie lias no riglit to Kill, 
 or to wound, or even to strike me. This is not hruthcrly 
 treatment. Besides, who knows liow far his enmity, or pas- 
 sion, may carry him? Tiiis is clearly a case for self-defence! 
 
 Shall I kill him — wound him — strike him? 
 
 What ! do to him the very thing which I censure in his 
 conduct to me? Perpetrate a second wrong by way of re- 
 dressing the first? Show that I am as ready to commit vio- 
 lence as he, when my supposed advantage re<j[uires it? 
 
 Am I not, then, to defend myself at all? 
 
 Yes ! self-defence is right, but let us not deceive ourselves 
 by a wrong use of language. To kill, to wound, and to strike, 
 are acts of ofi'ence even more than of defence. I will save 
 myself from harm, if I can do so by any right means, but to 
 strike the striker would be like stealing from the thief, a 
 repetition of the wrong act, a casting out Satan by Satau. 
 
 Let us look again at the rule ! 
 
 Overcome evil WITH GOOD ! 
 
 I remember, too, that one of the venerated teachers who 
 have written on this subject, as if in reply to the question 
 whether the general rule admitted of any exception, gave his 
 precept in this emphatic negative form, namely : 
 
 " See that none render evil for evil to any man ! " 
 
 My rule, then, the rule which I recognize as the best I can 
 possibly conceive of, requires me to use none but <jood means, 
 right means, to overcome evil. 
 
 If a calm and friendly aspect, an inquiry why such an as- 
 sault is committed, and an appeal to reason and justice, with- 
 out either passion or retaliation, will avail to calm the passion 
 of my antagonist, and make him explain, apologize, and offer 
 . satisfiiction, this is the best possible termination of the afftiir. 
 " If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother y I will 
 by all means try this method first. It may be that I shall, 
 by this simple and easy method, transform an enemy into 
 a friend ; a work which the whole police of the city, backed 
 by the army and navy of the United States, could not accom- 
 plish. This, manifestly, is ih.Q first thing to be tried. More- 
 over, this would certainly l)e successful in a largo lunnber of 
 cases which are now prolonged and made more bitter by vio- 
 1* 
 
10 
 
 loncc and retaliation. Is it not trno that " A soft answer 
 turncth away wrath"? and also, that "(Jrievous words stir 
 up anger " ? 
 
 lu cases wIutc tliis docs not succeed, but where, the vio- 
 lence of my asiiailant is continued or increased, I have to de- 
 cide on tliJ spot whether it will l>c better for me and my 
 brother (I must try not to lose sight ol" his welfare, however 
 res^irdless he may be of mine) to bear with perfect cjuietness 
 whatever his passion may inHicl — in the hope that, when 
 passion has subsided, he will see, repent of, and acknowledge 
 his injustice — or to use my strength to restrain him without 
 injuring him. If I adopt the former of these two methods, if 
 I bear his insults and assaults with a patietice manifestly pro- 
 coetling not from iear or meanness of spirit, but from good- 
 will to him iind conscientious self-control, and if this course 
 produces the desired eflfect, and he comes to me on the mor- 
 row to arknowkdge his fault, and offer reparation, this is the 
 Fccond best possible termination of the affair. Again, I shall 
 have (jaincd my 1/rother I And that man will be, ever after, 
 more likely to befriend me, and more likely to control hira- 
 Helf, than if I had returned his injurious treatment. More- 
 over, as in the case before supposed, I am sure that this 
 mi'thod would succeed in a certain proportion of cases. God's 
 arrangement for mankind is, that wrong-doing should breed 
 Kclf-reproach, and that this should tend to confession and 
 amendment. 1 will trust to (lod's arrangement! 
 
 On the other hand, if my bodily strength is sufficient, and I 
 judge it liest to use that in self-defence — gras])ing my oppo- 
 nent, and, without injuring him, holding him so that he can- 
 not injure nie — this method al.-o is at my o])tion. The right 
 of self-defence is uiKiuestionablc, and circumstances may show 
 this to be the best way of using it. And if, while I thus 
 prove to my opponent n»y physical superiority, my language 
 and demeanor, maidy and yet friendly, can show him his 
 fault, and make liim sincerely regret it, this is the third best 
 pos.siblc termination of the affair. Again, I have gained my 
 brother ! 
 
 Suppo<*e, finally, that all these methods fail to preserve me, 
 a« they all sometimes will fail ; ibr Non-Rcsistance must 
 often re<-eive the cross before the croAvn, and trium]ih only 
 through suffering, and the followers of Jesus and Paul, in 
 this heavenly path, will still sometimes meet with foes as 
 
11 
 
 powerful and unrelenting as tholrs; if all those resoiirecs fail, 
 and I am killed on tlio spot, what then? Have I errod, have 
 I acted foolishly, have L tiirown my life away by refraining 
 from the return of injurious violence upon my adversary? I 
 do not think so : but let us deliberately look at it, and sec 
 the balance of advantage and disjulvantage. 
 
 For me, the most important thing in the whole world is to 
 he in the ri'jht I I have certain duties to wife, children, 
 friends, enemies, and society, which are to be attended to in 
 their turn; but my first and most essential duty is to keep 
 my own heart and life in conformity with the great law of 
 God, which I have above described as Christianity. This 
 law, as I have said, prescribes love as the invariable rule and 
 motive of action ; it requires, generally, the avoidance of in- 
 jury to others, and requires particularly and emphatically the 
 avoidance of injury to enemies. Even if I die in carrying 
 out this rule, I have gained the first and most important point, 
 and I die in the path of duty, leaving behind me a noble, not 
 a shameful, example. 
 
 In the next place, this duty to myself precisely coincides 
 with my duty to the enemy with whom I am immediately 
 concerned. He is one who eminently needs precisely this les- 
 son, the knowledge that there is such a thing as a practical 
 recognition of duty as more important than bodily safety, or 
 even the continuance of this mortal life. If he has held the 
 opinion attributed to Satan in the old fable — " All that a 
 man hath will he give for his life " — he has now seen his 
 mistake. If he has formerly heard me express allegiance to 
 the principle of Christian love for all men, even for enemies, 
 or if he has known that I try to live in accordance with it, 
 he now knows this allegiance to be real, not assumed, He 
 has put himself more than ever in the wrong. lie can hard- 
 ly fail to see that I have been wholly in the right. If these 
 circumstances make so deep an impression as to convict him 
 of sin, to show him the path of duty, and to lead him heartily 
 to embrace it, again I have gained my brother. This certain- 
 ly is worth dying for. 
 
 If this best result does not happen, still I have faithfully 
 adhered to my own principles, and have left on record this 
 testimony, the strongest I could possibly give in favor of the 
 Christian rule, that I chose to die rather than violate it, 
 
 Now let us look at the other supposition, 
 
12 
 
 If I Rave my own life by killinjr my assailant, in the first 
 place, I fMicrifi«-e my rule, the groat, glorious, riiviiie rule of 
 love. I tlescrt my colors ! I violate, for my mere bodily 
 safety, the groat priMfiplo which I have upheld and praised 
 as immeasurably more important than bodily safety or tem- 
 poral interests of any kind. This position is neither a pleas- 
 ant nor a satisfactory one. 
 
 In the next place, neither is it satisfactory to say, as my 
 explanation of the transaction to the public, and to other in- 
 (lividuiils eoueerned — " I killed him because he was so wick- 
 ed a.s to try to kill me ! " If the mere attempt to kill me 
 Bhowod wickedness in him, what character does the actual 
 killing of him show in me? 
 
 In the third place, I have taken the responsibility, merely 
 to protect my bodily and temporal interests, of violently 
 thrusting my brother out of the sphere of action in which our 
 Father liad jilacod him, out of the reach of those influences 
 and that moral dist-ijiline which Ciod has plainly designed for 
 the treatment and development of men in this stage of their 
 existence. Our Father's house has many mansions, and lie, 
 no doubt, will take good care of this, his erring child; but 
 who am I, that I .should expel my brother from the school 
 where our Father ])laccd us both? It is for the Power that 
 placed us here to decide how long we shall remain ! I have 
 rashly and wrongfully assumed an authority whieh was never 
 committed to me I 
 
 Finally, let us look at the conserpiences, the carrying out 
 into other particulars, of the principle upon which I have 
 acted. If homicide is unjustitiable only when wanton and 
 entirely un|)rovoked, and if .some sorts of provocation shall 
 be deemed to justify it, where shall the line be drawn ? If I 
 may commit it to save my life, may I also commit it to save 
 my character — my rej>utation — my fortune — the interests 
 of my jjolitical party — the interests of my religious sect? 
 If fur my imlividual life this act may be done, may it not be 
 done to help forward a great prineijile ? — the cau.^e of God — 
 the caiLsc of humanity — the cause of l*rotestantism — the 
 cause of liberty — may I not, for the sake of such great in- 
 tcre.st« as these, smite him who imperils them under the fifth 
 rib? If I can cut .short a career so pernicious as that of 
 James Buchanan or of Louis Napoleon, by sudden execution, 
 may I not do it ? If I may do it by club, or sword, or pis- 
 tol, may I not dy it by poison ? 
 
13 
 
 There is no end to these questions ! No end to the sup- 
 position of cases in which j^re;it <»;()0(1 may })o done if we arc 
 to be allowed to do it by violent and evil means. 'J'he only 
 way is to say to such insinuations — " (jlct thee behin<l me, 
 Satan ! " The only way is utterly, positively and invariably 
 to refuse to do evil, with whatever plausibility it be ollered to 
 us as the means of accomplish in<:; ojood ! 
 
 Among those statements in the Declaration of Independence 
 which Mr. Choate styled "glittering generalities," is the claim 
 that the right to life is one of the inalienable rights of man. 
 It appears that the signers of that document did not thoroughly 
 comprehend the force of their own words, since they proceeded 
 to a long and bloody war, and afterwards established death as 
 the legal penalty for various crimes — to our cost, who are 
 now suiFering great and numerous evils as the consequence of 
 both these errors on their part. Their statement, in that 
 great historical document, was juster than their practice. 
 " They budded better than they knew." The life of man is 
 inviolable. 
 
 Just as the slaveholder's claim of property in a black man 
 is shown to be absurd and ridiculous by the fact that the black 
 man's hands, and feet, and head, having been born parts of 
 him, necessarily belong to him, and cannot possibly become 
 the property of another rather than of himself — so the claim 
 of a right to take the life of a man, whether made by the 
 community or by another individual, becomes absurd and pre- 
 posterous in view of the fact that God gave him his life, and 
 that the taking of it by another is a presumptuous interfer- 
 ence with God's appointment and God's prerogative. No 
 man has, or can possibly acquire, the right to take the life of 
 another. 
 
 But the Christian doctrine of love goes further than this. 
 No man has, or can possibly acquire, the right to injure 
 another. To prevent or to repel injury, by uninjurious means, 
 is our right and our duty ; but we are not to cast out Satan 
 by Satan. The history of the world overflows with evidences 
 of the folly 0? attempting this; gaining, sometimes, a tem- 
 porary and partial measure of success, it always fails in the 
 long run. But even success is not the measure of duty ; and 
 the Christian rule stamps intentional injury as invariably 
 wrong ; our overcoming of evil is to be, hivariabhj^ an over- 
 coming with good I 
 
14 
 
 I am ftTrarc, however, that the inquiries which I am 
 attempting to answer have a l)encvolent, not a selfish object. 
 In makini; these inquiries, tlie doubter is not thinking mainly 
 of his individual safety, but of the extent to which he may 
 proceed in helping the weak and oppressed. I must thorclbre 
 make particular reference to the case of the defence of others, 
 who iiave general or special claims upon me. 
 
 Heside.^ the general o))ligation which rests upon me to love 
 all men, and to hclj> sueh needy onci? as I can help, I have 
 certain speeial obligations. My wife and my children have 
 partieular and emphatic claims to protection from all injury 
 that I can avert. And, since I am one of a very small 
 minority in this country who recognize the rights of lour mil- 
 lions of slaves, and earnestly wish to restore those rights, and 
 feel bound to interfere for their restoration by active and 
 eflieient help, these circumstances give the slaves also a special 
 and emphatic claim upon me. "What effect is my Non- 
 Ki'sistance to have upon the protection of these parties? 
 Will their necessities, their danger or suffering, be good ground 
 for a moditication of, or an exce]>tion to, or a temporary de- 
 parture from, my Christian principles? 
 
 Let me test this matter by proceeding at once to the strong- 
 est possible case, an injury threatene<l to my wife ; my dearer 
 and better self, to whoso protection I am bound even more by 
 prcsont^ love than by the long-standing compact under which 
 I promised her protection. 
 
 Of course, all I rail do shall l)e done for her safctv. My 
 Btrcntfth, my life, shall interpose between her and harm, and 
 he who would assail her must j)ass over my body. It is the 
 duty of us both to s'lijfer wrong rather than do wrong, but 1, 
 a.s the St ron^rer, choose to take uj.on myself the suffering for 
 Iwth. I shall meet the violence of tiie assailant as I did in 
 the former ca.se, but, while my life lasts, the assault must be 
 made upon me, not upon my wife. She is to be safe while I 
 live. So far all is plain. IJut may I, fearing lest the sacri- 
 fice of my lif*e be not sufhcient to avert the threatened injury, 
 may I proceed to kill the assailant ? Doing for my wife what 
 I am conwious that the Christian law forbids me to do for 
 myself! committing an injury to prevent the commission of 
 an injury I 
 
 I h.ive said above, that the rules of right and wrong, the 
 principles of morality and religion, remain (piitc undistlirbed 
 
15 
 
 by our privato exigency, and that such exigency does not at 
 all release us from oheilience to them. I have said, furtlier, 
 that the Christian rule oi* love to all, even the injurer — and 
 of invariable abstinence from injury on our own part — and 
 of the use of good only, never of evil, in the work of over- 
 coming evil — is the best rule I know, or can possibly con- 
 ceive of. And, tinally, I have admitted that this rule, though 
 best, incomparably best, on the whole, does not in all cases 
 secure the bodily safety of him who practises it. 
 
 It would seem that the (piestion is already answered. Shall 
 I demand, in the case of my wife, a different rule of action 
 from that which God has appointed for the whole human 
 race, which he has so appointed because it is the best possible 
 rule, and which I myself have recognized as the best possi- 
 ble rule, both for the whole and for every individual ? 
 
 My wife and I constitute (perhaps) one five-hundred- 
 millionth part of the human race. No possible injury can ble 
 threatened to, or inflicted upon us, which was not recognized 
 and contemplated in that system by which God governs the 
 race, and in that system also by which He has ap[)ointed that 
 they shall govern themselves, namely, the Christian system. 
 No possible injury can be inflicted upon us which has not al- 
 ready been inflicted in thousands of other instances, without 
 occasioning, or requiring, any change in the rule. Who are 
 we, that we should rebel against if? Who are we, that we 
 should demand to be better protected, more thoroughly cared 
 for, than the rest of mankind? that we should demand a bet- 
 ter destiny than that afforded us in God's world, and mider 
 his law ? 
 
 Is there not a sound, a just, a grand meaning in that say- 
 ing of the great Teacher, that a man may lose his life by 
 saving it, and may save his life by losing it ? 
 
 To me it seems plain, that the true safety and interest, 
 both of me and my wife, lie in placing ourselves, and in keep- 
 ing ourselves, in conformity and cooperation with this great 
 Christian law, and iai trusting the consequences of such con- 
 formity to Him who made the law. 
 
 But it is not merely the " higher law " which points in this 
 direction. Let me descend to the region where my opponents 
 in this debate have (as they think) their stronghold, the 
 ground of present success and bodily safety, and see if they 
 have that realm wholly on their side. 
 
16 
 
 What says the voice of history ? What says the applause 
 of men, ill ro^^ard to tliose who have disdaiucLl to purchase 
 the liotlily tuifely and temporal interests of their nearest and 
 dearcdt by a violation of duty? What made Mrs. llemans 
 Belect for the subjeet of her beautiful dramatic poem (The 
 Siege of Valencia) one of two instances which the history of 
 Sptuii records, in which a Christian knight refused to surren- 
 der the city which had been given him to defend, even when 
 the Moori.sh besiegers made the lives of his caj)tive children 
 the price of his liilelity? Was it not because men had hon- 
 ored his tiilelity as glorious, even at the cost of such a sacri- 
 fice? What 'made Miss Edgcworth describe the wife of 
 Vivian as saying — when he had al)andoned his principles 
 and his honor to regain her lost fortune — "And you did 
 consider me? And that rZ/V/ weigh with you? Oh! that is 
 what I dreaded most ! " cried lady Sarah. " AVhcn will you 
 tnow my real character? When will yuu have confidence in 
 your wife? What pain can be so great to me as the thought 
 of my husband's reputation suffering abasement ? " 
 
 My wife is not less noble in soul than Vivian's. She, too, 
 would scorn to be protected at the sacrifice of my princi- 
 ples — of the rule of right — of the law which our common 
 Father, having made for all His children, must be supposed 
 to have intended for her also. We will together take the 
 rihk of abiding by that law. 
 
 Then — to glance, in |)assing, at the results of the opposite 
 course of action — would that course absolutely insure us 
 Buccfiw? ])oes violence in defence always con(iuer violence 
 in offence? Do they that take the sword for what are called 
 good rca.sons — that is, because they are assailed — never 
 peri.^h by the sword ? 
 
 I come, lastly, to the case of the slaves ! a case, certainly, 
 of great urgeiury, of the very higlu-st importance, appealing, 
 ill the most moving manner, to our humanity, to our sense of 
 ju.Htiec, and also to our self-interest, since the whirlpool that 
 haM engulfed the slave is also, year by year, drawing more and 
 more of our rights and interests into its pernicious vortex. 
 
 That natural instinct which prompts us to defend ourselves 
 from injury, antl those reasons which make clear our riyht 
 to U.SC all means accordant with the law of love for this ob- 
 ject, apply eijually to the giving of aid to a suffering or 
 opprcd<»cd uei^hbor. We are not at liberty to refuse any aid 
 
17 
 
 whicli ho asks, and which is within our powor to givo. And, 
 if the case bo one of such extreme nrgoncj that he cannot 
 even ask, if he be imprisoned unjustly in a dungeon, or fenced 
 so securely within certain l>ounds that a tyrant lias prescribed, 
 that his voice cannot reach those dis})Osed to help him, so 
 much the more should help be given ; in a case like that, tho 
 right is clear for any human being to interpose between tho 
 oppressor and the sufterer, to demand for him his rights, to 
 help him in the attainment of them, and to obstruct thoso 
 measures of the tyrant which would prevent his attainment 
 of them. This is one of the very purposes for which strength 
 of body and strength of will were given us ; and the posses- 
 sion of these qualities is the condemnation of him who refuses 
 to use them for such a purpose. AV'ell sang one of the poets 
 of freedom — 
 
 " Men ! whose boast it is that ye 
 Come of fathers brave and free, 
 If there breathe on earth a slave, 
 Are ye truly free and brave ? 
 If ye do not feel the chain, 
 When it works a brother's pain, 
 Are ye not base slaves indeed — 
 Slaves unworthy to be freed ? " 
 
 All the circumstances of the case make manifest this right 
 of any third party, any individual, or any communit}-, to in- 
 terfere with the slaveholder for the relief of the slave. If 
 the Good Samaritan had met the robbers in the act of attack- 
 ing their victim, and had been able to prevent, or to cut 
 short, their outrage, should he not have done it? The ne- 
 cessities of the traveller were the same, the right of the Sa- 
 maritan to help was the same, as when the help was ultimate- 
 ly given. The robbers, as robbers, had no rights whatever. 
 The function of robbery is evil from beginning to end, it has 
 no right to exist on the earth, and they who exercise it are, 
 so far, utterly and entirely in the wrong. It would have been 
 absurd in the extreme for the robbers, in such a case, to have 
 said to the Good Samaritan — " What right have you to 
 interfere with us?" — Every body had a right to interfere 
 with them. 
 
 Is it needful to say so plain a thing as that the traveller 
 was under no obligation to the robbers, as robbers ? that no 
 duty required him to deliver up his property to them, or to 
 
18 
 
 submit, in any ninnnor or (lec^rao, to their injustice? that he 
 owed no duty of siihniis«*ion to them whatever? 
 
 Alas I yes I In tlie rircunistani-t's of our country, consiiler- 
 ini; the sort, an<l tlie amount, ami the presumptuous arro- 
 gance, of the oppression which we practise — considering the 
 jM)sition held l»y our national govcrnnjcnt in support of it — 
 and considering the com[)licity 0])enly maintained with it by 
 our religious teachers — it is needi'ul to aflirm, and to main- 
 tain, a thing so obviously true as this. 
 
 The slave is one who has been stolen — either at his birth 
 or at 8ome subsequent period — from that natural liberty 
 which is the right of every human being, and which the 
 American Declaration of Independence declares to be inalien- 
 able. If he was thus stolen at birth, he was also stolen from 
 the natural right of his mother to protect him, to educate 
 him, and to make arrangements for his future welfare. The 
 whole course of discipline under which he is placed, however 
 varie<l (perhaps) by capricious indulgence from time to time, 
 is a course of injustice. His relation of plundered person 
 neither imj)oses, nor includes, the slightest obligation or duty 
 to the plunderer. 
 
 On the other hand, the slaveholder is a robber. His claim 
 of property in the body and soul of a brother man is grossly 
 and imjiudently false, his enforcement of that claim is utterly 
 unjust, and all the means by which he enforces it are shame- 
 ful and wii-ked. His hold upon his victim, alike when he 
 was first seized (whether at the birth of the victim or at any 
 Hubscquent time, and by whatever means he has come in pos- 
 pi'HMion of his victim) and at every moment of his continued 
 di'tcntion, is an outrage. He has no just claim upon the 
 brother man whom he calls a slave, no right over him, no 
 right to prevent his taking his natural liberty at any mo- 
 ment, no right to prevent, or object to, or complain of, the 
 help which any humane person may give him. And no labor, 
 or service, or duty, is due from the person thus robbed to the 
 robber. 
 
 But, still further, the slaveholder, like every other sort of 
 robber, is a dangerous person in the community. He is in- 
 juring its interests, not less than the interests of his particu- 
 lar viclinn. He is spreading lalse principles, helping to break 
 down morality and religion, obstru ting honest industry, and 
 freeduw of Hpe«eh and of the press, infringing upon the rights 
 
1» 
 
 even of those whom ho ndmits to bo free men nnd fellow- 
 citizens, and (loini^ all this by a scries of overt acts manifestly 
 prejudicial to his immediate neighbors and to the community. 
 The slaveholder, then, as such, is a public nuisance; a nui- 
 sance suL-h as it is the first duty of any properly constituted 
 government to abate; a person dangerous to the community, 
 who, if he perseveres in this attitude, should be taken in 
 charge by the police, and put under restraint. 
 
 But, unfortunately, all governments are neither properly 
 constituted nor well reguhited. In fact, there are in the 
 world, even now, more specimens of governments grossly ty- 
 rannical and unjust, than of those which rightly perform 
 their proper function. We have then to consider whether — 
 when a government obviously and grossly neglects its i'unction 
 of removing public nuisances, and preserving the rights of 
 quiet and honest men — individuals may not, to the extent 
 of their ability and opportunity, and in the use of right means, 
 kept within a right sphere of operation, (each individual be- 
 ing his own judge in regard to all these,) do those things 
 which the government has criminally neglected? 
 
 Suppose, for instance, that in the region between Jerusalem 
 and Jericho, in the life-time of Jesus, an organized band of 
 robbers had become so powerful as not only to work their 
 will throughout that country, but even to have bribed the 
 local government to permit and favor their depredations ! 
 Would this fact have made the slightest diifercnce in the 
 right of the Good Samaritan to help the traveller after he 
 had been plundered, or to defend him if he had been present 
 at the time of the assault? Would such a state of things 
 have given the robbers, in the slightest manner or degree, a 
 right to rob, or imposed upon the traveller the slightest duty 
 of consenting to be robbed, or interfered with the absolute 
 right of any third person to help the victim ? I assume that 
 it would not ! I assume that the right of help, inherent in 
 every human being, is not so forfeited by the appointment of 
 a particular official helper, that others must remain quiet 
 and inactive in the cases where he chooses to neglect his du- 
 ty ! I assume that Florence Nightingale was right in break- 
 ing down the door of the arsenal at Scutari ! I assume 
 that any man has the right to help any slave to his freedom, 
 entirely irrespective of the flict that in this country the great 
 gana; of robbers called slaveholders have secured the com- 
 plicity of the government in their depredations! 
 
I have como, then, to those conclusions : 
 
 TlIK SLAVKIIOLDER HAS NO RIGUTS WUATETER OVER TUB 
 ILAVB. 
 
 The ."LAVE, (15 such, owes no duty or service whatever to 
 
 THE tSLAVEHOLKKR. 
 
 Help to the slave in the recovery of his freedom is a thing 
 
 which THE SLAVE HAS A RIGHT TO RECEIVE, WHICH EVERY 
 THIRD PERSON HAS A RHiHT TO GIVE, AM) WHICH IS NO WRONG 
 OR INJUSTICE TO THE SLAVEHOLDER, WHETHER IT RE GIVEN SE- 
 CRCTLY OR (U'ENLY. 
 
 I have said that the slave, as such, owes no duty or service 
 to the slaveholder. 
 
 This is perfectly true. But both the slave and the master 
 are human beings, and, in that capacity', each has duties to 
 the other ; each is bound to practise towards the other the 
 law of love ; the great and glorious law which God has ap- 
 pointed to regulate the intercourse of all men with each 
 other. 
 
 Unfortunately, and most culpably, the master ignores, dis- 
 regards and tramples under his feet the law of love. So 
 much the worse for him. But the wrong-doing of the master 
 to the slave does not in the slightest degree release the slave 
 from his duties to God, and his obligation to obey God's law 
 of love. The slave has duties to perlbrm as well as rights 
 to vindicate. God calls upon him, as well as upon other men, 
 to forgive his enemies; to love his enemies; to return good 
 for evil ; and to overcome evil ivith good. 
 
 These are hard <luties. They arc hard for all of us. Even 
 we, «'«liieate<l, cultivale(l people, of the privileged class, with 
 w) little injustice to undergo, with such ample means of know- 
 ing our duty, and with such strong incitements to perform it, 
 how hard do we finil it to exercise due forbearance, under the 
 trivial Kpocimcns of injury that we meet with ! How few of 
 iw, in the course of our whole lives, have met even once with 
 an injury crjuivalent to the infliction of thirty-nine lashes 
 with a cow-hide, upon the bare back, bringing blood at every 
 stroke! It is a great deal to ask of the slave that he forgive 
 A« enemies; the slaveholder, who sold away his wife, and 
 yot constantly told his Northern visitors, after this, as well 
 a« before, that he was well treated, happy and contented; 
 the slaveholder's sou, who ravished his daughter ; the over- 
 Boer. who ha* flogged him, kicked and culled him, laughed 
 
/ 21 
 
 his manifold misovics to scorn, treated him worse tluiii a do^; 
 and the pro-shivery ])arson, wlio, Icnowing all tliese thinf^s, 
 has kcj)t on repeating to him the inlamous lie that God has 
 appointed him to this condition, and that Cod requires him 
 to do faithful service to the villain -who has robbed him of 
 every thing ; it must be very hard to fultil the duty of for- 
 giveness to these, or to return good for their evil. Never- 
 theless, such is God's command! such is the duty of the en- 
 slaved man ! and such, also, is his interest, for it is his inter- 
 est to be entirely and absolutely in the right. 
 
 How is the slave to return good for the slaveholder's evil? 
 So destitute, so impoverished is his condition, so limited are 
 his means, that I see but one way in which he can do this ; 
 but one positive action by which he can contribute to the real 
 welfare of the slaveholder. Happily, that one way is pre- 
 cisely coincident with the right path of duty towards him- 
 self. 
 
 His first duty of good-will to the slaveholder is utterly to 
 refuse any longer to be a slave ! to put a stop, by this un- 
 changeable determination, and by prompt action in accordance 
 with it, to a relation in which the slaveholder was sinking 
 himself deeper and deeper in sin and in manifold evil. 
 
 I do not consider " Uncle Tom " to be the Jiujhest type, 
 either of the manly character or the Christian character, in 
 the relation he bore to various slaveholders. I would not be 
 understood as making unreasonable demands upon those ppor, 
 ignorant, oppressed, cheated and humbugged creatures; it is 
 much, if, like Uncle Tom, they refrain from stealing, lying, 
 drunkenness and lust, in all which things their masters are 
 constantly setting them evil examples ; and from hypocrisy, 
 such as they see to be practised by their masters' ministers, 
 which would perhaps gain them some indulgence ; it is much 
 if, like him, with heroic self-control, they can subdue the 
 natural desire for vengeance, can rise above wrath and passion, 
 and sincerely pray for those who persecute and despitefully 
 use them. But there is another duty, of not less importance, 
 to be performed by the true man, the true Christian, who is 
 claimed as a slave. ^ . . 
 
 Quiet, continuous submission to enslavement is complicity 
 with the slaveholder. It is acquiescence in the double injus- 
 tice he is doing, both to himself and to the slave. It is the 
 duty of a man and a Christian not only to protest against 
 
tlii.s, hut, if lie is n\>\i\ acting in the right way, to put a stop 
 to it. The nhive is ahle to put a stop to it, ami to do this in 
 the ri«;ht way, hy utterly ret'usiii;^ to l»e a slave ; by showing 
 him^clla man, and taking jxjssessidii of a man's rights. This, 
 then, is his duty, alike to himself and to the slaveholder. 
 Ami eirenmstanees must deeide whether this duty shall he 
 performed in the most siitisfactory manner, by a tirm, manly, 
 open deelaration made to the face of the slaveholder, or by 
 the uttcMnpt to eseape. Hueh is the duty of the slave, as I 
 regard it. 
 
 Hut the slave is poor, ignorant, weak, unr-ultured, unable to 
 combine with his fellow-slaves, or take counsel with more 
 intelligent persons as to the best course of action. He is 
 hemmed in on every side with restrictions, doubts and dangers. 
 Ho has been, thus far, the most helpless of human beings; to 
 our unspeakable disgrace, who have been living, not only in' 
 the s;ime country with him, but in i'ornial alliance with his 
 tyrants. This ought not so to be. The slave must have help, 
 and ur inu>t helj> him ! 
 
 Hoic are we to help him ? Of course, hy using our courage 
 and energy, our strength of body and mind, our wealth, our 
 intelligi'iK-e, our Christian })rinciple, and our various means 
 of combination and action, to do the rijht thuuj, in the uight 
 MANNEii. To set the slave free, or help him to set himself 
 free, by means accordant with our duty and his duty ; that is 
 to say, by means accordant with the Christian law of love ! 
 
 If in any j)lace the slaveholders are such, and the slaves 
 such, and the numbers and character of the interposing 
 freemen such, that a new arrangement can be made, giving 
 the slaves their rights without banishing them from their na- 
 tive .soil, leaving them thenceforth free, and in the enjoyment 
 of such rights and ojiportunities as white freemen have in the 
 Northern States, with a friendly and helpful disposition to- 
 wards them on the part of the white population, (such as Avas 
 actually realized in Antigua and Jkrmuda after the immediate 
 cmaneipation of the slaves there, in l."<:{4,) this would be the 
 very best possible result. This would fuliil our highest wish- 
 es, and afford a rational expectation of permanent prosperity 
 and happines.s. Unfortunately, however, the vicious and 
 brutal characters, and the insolent and domineering habits, of 
 the slaveholders an. I their i)arasites, place this best solution 
 of the trouble almost out of the bounds of possibility. 
 
23 
 
 If, in failure of this nictliod, llio iKiiiL,' coul-l ho lu-coin- 
 plislicd which fJohu Brown sou,o;lit to do, wi(h(nit the rcRort to 
 violent and bloody ntcans by which he proposed to maintain it 
 ayainst the resiatance of the slaveholders, namely : if j)hic{!H 
 of secure resort, well stored with |irovisions, could he estah- 
 lished among the mountains of the slavehuldini^ States, to 
 which the slaves could repair and hold tluMiiselves sal'ely en- 
 trenched, giving shelter to all fugitives, and in a short time 
 draining the whole region of the entire lahoring population, 
 and leaving it so deserted until the ])ro)n-i(!tors of tlu^ land 
 were willing to obtain laborers by treating them justly and j>ay- 
 ino- them fair wagfes — this would be the next best solution of 
 the difficulty; a solution iniinitely j)referable to a ([uiet con- 
 tinuance of the slaves in slavery. In such a movement, the 
 slaves should of course take possession of food and clothing, 
 or the means of obtaining them, sufficient to supply both their 
 immediate and prospective necessities, both at the commence- 
 ment of the movement and during its continuance ; lor these 
 things, and much more, are their jyt'operty, the avails of their 
 unpaid labor. In a slaveholding country, in my judgment, 
 the movable property, as a general rule, may be assumed 
 rightfully to belong to the slaves ; but, at the very least, the 
 two descriptions of property named above, falling far short 
 of their just claims, might rightfully and undoubtedly be 
 taken to any extent required by their present and prospective 
 needs. In their case, unquestionably, the " confusion of 
 goods " above referred to has been made by the act of the 
 slaveholders, and made fraudulently, for the [)ecuniary advan- 
 tage of the slaveholders. In counselling, therefore, that the 
 slaves may take, for the supply of their necessities, the small 
 proportion specified of the property fraudulently intermixed 
 and "confused" by their masters, I have kept far within,^ 
 not only the bounds of equity, but the settled decisions of 
 "white" law. 
 
 If also it be necessary, in accomplishing such a movement, 
 to seize and put under restraint, by uninjurious means, the 
 persons of any slaveholders, until the departure of the slaves 
 is safely effected, this would be perfectly right, for it is only 
 what the government ought long since to have done. A 
 slaveholder is a public nuisance ; a person eminently danger- 
 ous to the community ; and if the government does not do its 
 duty in restraining him, any person w^ho has the power may 
 properly use all uninjurious means to do it. 
 
24 
 
 In failure of tlioso two mothods, tlic next best iWmrr to be 
 done is to help as many slaves as possible to a safe removal 
 from the land of bonda«^e to some plaee of freedom. To in- 
 form them, as extensively as possible, of the existence of 
 white friends and helpers, to give all needed material aid, 
 with counsel and direction, and the personal superintendence 
 of sympathizing freemen, where that shall seem best; to de- 
 mand the slave's ri«:hts and effect his rescue by calmly and 
 openly confronting the slaveholder, when success will not be 
 hazar'deil thereby ; otherwise, to use all needful secresy ; to 
 protect the slave in some of the States called /ree, where that 
 can be done, and to work diligently towards increasing the 
 number of such truly free ])laces ; to enlarge, and extend, 
 and multiply operations of this sort in all accessible parts of 
 the slave region, making these movements a serious and con- 
 htantly increasing check upon the impunity which slaveholders 
 have hitherto enjoyed; by iaithful inculcation of anti-slavery 
 truth in the North, to increase the number and strengthen 
 the contidence of such sympathizers ; and finally, by using 
 the greatest care, in all these movements, to keep the slaves 
 and their friends absolutely and entirely in the right, leaving 
 the wrong where it now is, absolutely, entirely and exclusively 
 on the side of the slaveholders. 
 
 Is it said that, in transactions like these, or as the result 
 of them, violence would be sure to come? Is it asked what 
 those persons shall do who, begiiming a right work by iinin- 
 jurious means, are assailed in the prosecution of it with vio- 
 lence and injury? 
 
 I answer, they are to do just what a Christian, one who 
 believes in and endeavors to live by the great law of love, is 
 to do in any other case where he is met by violence and inju- 
 ry ! He is first, and above all, to keep himself ni the right. 
 He is to accomplish what good he can by right means, to 
 leave undone for the ])resent all that he can 7iot do by right 
 inean.s, and to bear with fortitude, and without losing the 
 spirit of love, or departing from the manifestation of love, 
 whatever evil may befall him. 
 
LIBRPRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 028 356 ft 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 II 
 
 u u 1^^ u2o 356 A 
 
 Conservation Resources 
 I.ig-Free* Type 1 
 Ph 8.S. Ruffpred