The Fanaticism of the Democratic Party. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. OWEN LOVEJOY, OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 - —0 -—— 
 
 Delivered in the IT. S. House of Representatives, February 21,1859. 
 
 \ 
 
 ——o—- 
 
 Within the last five lustrums, a strange fanat¬ 
 icism has made its appearance in this coun¬ 
 try— -a .fanaticism atonce monstrous and malign. 
 Twenty-five years ago, by the universal senti¬ 
 ment of the country, Slavery was deemed a 
 moral, social, and political evil; a wrong to the 
 slave, an injury to the owner, a blight on the 
 soil, a detriment to all the best interests of the 
 communities or States where it was found, and, 
 in its reflex influence, a reproach and damage 
 to the whole country. By many, it may be, this 
 evil was considered incurable, but still an evil. 
 But within the period indicated, a different sen¬ 
 timent has sprung up. This fanaticism deems 
 Slavery not an evil, bitt a blessing. 
 
 Formerly by all, and still by all right-think¬ 
 ing men, Slavery was regarded as a hag, ugly, 
 deformed, wrinkled, and covered with the daub 
 and paint of harlotry ) but now we are told it is 
 an angel of beauty, a virgin decked in bridal 
 attire, to be gased on with complacency and 
 love I Candidates who aspire to gubernatorial 
 honors are made to renounce opinions held a 
 quarter of a century ago, and give in their ad¬ 
 hesion to this new dogma, to wits that Slavery 
 is a blessing. It is not any longer the question 
 how a cancer can be cured—Whether by knife 
 or caustic, or other remedial agencies—but to 
 have a cancer is now proclaimed to be a sound 
 and normal condition of the human system, the 
 highest type of health, and, if on the face, an 
 ornament and beauty spot. Every one, to en¬ 
 joy perfect health, must have this form of dis¬ 
 ease gnawing at his vitals. The spirit of this 
 fanaticism has taken possession of the Demo¬ 
 cratic party, and worked therein a wonderful 
 
 and almost incredible transformation ; for, since 
 the Ages drew up the reins and started on 
 their journey, I do not suppose they have wit¬ 
 nessed such a stupendous Lie as the Democratic 
 party now is. I speak of the organization, with¬ 
 out any reference to the individuals who com¬ 
 pose the party. “ From the sole of the foot even 
 unto the head,there is no soundness in it; but 
 wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores: they 
 have not been closed, neither bound up, neither 
 mollified with ointment” — unmedicated and 
 unbandaged, it drips with its fetid putrescence. 
 
 Look at the President’s message, now under 
 discussion. It is instinct with simulation and 
 deceit. Professedly he deprecates the discus¬ 
 sion and agitation of the Slavery question, and 
 yet the whole of the message is engrossed with 
 it. Not a leading topic of that state paper that 
 has not a direct or remote bearing on it. What 
 do we want of another slice from Mexico ? Is 
 our population pressing against our boundaries ? 
 Let the vast regions within our present limits 
 yet unoccupied, and which will not be occu¬ 
 pied for the next half century, answer that 
 question. Why, then, does the Executive urge 
 the acquisition of more of the Mexican domain? 
 It is that Slavery and Disunion, twin-born of 
 Darkness, may have a rail car in which to ride. 
 This is openly avowed, in the other end of the 
 Capitol. What is that part of the message re¬ 
 lating to Kansas, but the querulous last word of 
 an old man, whose Fro-SUvery policy had been 
 condemned by the country ? What occasion is 
 there for the doleful tone of the message in re¬ 
 gard to the future decadence of the Republic, 
 which has given rise in Europe to so many 
 
2 
 
 prophecies of ill omen in regard to our future ? 
 How eagerly the advocates of despotic govern¬ 
 ment catch up this Democratic slander, and 
 foretell the downfall of our free institutions ! 
 
 But what is the trouble? Is there any dis¬ 
 loyalty to the Union among the Republicans, 
 or indeed among any class in the free States ? 
 No. Any disaffection toward our principles of 
 Government? None. What then has excited 
 the fears of this urbane and hospitable old 
 gentleman ? Did the Chief indite the message 
 under the influence of too deep potations from 
 the distillations of Rye ? No one believes this. 
 The Slavery-extending policy of the Adminis¬ 
 tration had received a terrible rebuke from the 
 people. They had repudiated the President’s 
 Sancho Panza, the autocrat of the dinner table ; 
 and the poor man, shocked and bewildered, 
 and tearing his locks, like King Lear, thought 
 the Government was falling to pieces, because 
 Slavery Propagandism had been reprobated by 
 the popular vote. Hinc lachrymae! Be com¬ 
 forted, venerable Chief! It is not the free in¬ 
 stitutions of our country, but the Pro-Slavery 
 Democracy, that is falling asunder like a piece 
 of limestone when water is poured upon it. 
 So also in regard to Cuba. The real object of 
 its purchase is not the avowed one. It is gov¬ 
 erned by a race who do not speak our lan¬ 
 guage—who are unused to self-government— 
 who have, and if annexed as States will con¬ 
 tinue to have, an established form of religion, 
 or Church and State united ; but, in spite of 
 all, we are asked to purchase this island, and 
 to place thirty millions in the hands of the Ex¬ 
 ecutive, to begin the negotiations—that is, to 
 buy up the officials ! Does any one believe that 
 it is for the benefit of commerce, or the safety of 
 navigation, that we are asked to do all this ? 
 If so, why not seek to purchase the British 
 West Indies? Have we not as much to fear 
 from England as from Spain? And where is 
 Canada and the other British possessions, that 
 stretch all along our Northern frontier, from the 
 Atlantic to the Pacific? No; it is not for 
 the benefit of commerce, not to guard against 
 invasion, that we are asked to purchase Cuba; 
 but it is for the benefit of slave-breeders and 
 human-flesh mongers. Aud yet these Demo¬ 
 crats profess that they want to get Slavery out 
 of national politics. Would to God they were 
 sincere! Would to Heaven this beast of prey 
 would take the carcass of the slain into its 
 lair! It might gnaw the flesh and craunch the 
 bones without molestation from me ! But in¬ 
 stead of that, it asks me to hold its victim while 
 it sucks the blood. But this, God helping me, 
 I never will do. Take your pound of flesh, if 
 it is so nominated in the bond, but do not ask 
 for the blood as well. 
 
 Read over the whole message, and you will 
 find its entire texture to be Slavery. Every 
 topic is discussed with reference to its bearings 
 on the subject of Slavery. And yet the Demo¬ 
 crats, with an impudence that challenges our 
 
 admiration for its sublimity, turn to us, and 
 say, “ Do not agitate this subject.” Do not keep 
 up this sectional strife! To agitate, to legislate, 
 to make treaties, to annex territory, to purchase 
 empires for Slavery, is all right, but to do any¬ 
 thing against Slavery is wrong and sectional. 
 
 And here is another phase of this fanatical 
 spirit, which has taken up its dwelling place 
 in the Democratic party. It identifies Slavery 
 with the nation, and especially with the South. 
 
 Now, I am reckoned as ultra and extreme as 
 most on this subject, and yet, no one has ever 
 heard me say anything against the South. It 
 is only against Slavery that I have spoken, and 
 I propose to assail that only in those modes 
 justified by the Constitution; yet I am sec¬ 
 tional, and Republicans are sectional. When 
 they only seek to prevent the extension of a 
 system which is under the ban of the civilized 
 world, they are charged with being sectional. 
 In Illinois, we have supped full of this horror. 
 And what is the proof? Oh, we have no dele¬ 
 gates from slave States to attend our National 
 Nominating Conventions. Why have we none? 
 Mark ; because if delegates attend these Con¬ 
 ventions they are mobbed and driven into exile. 
 What if we, in the free States, should say to the 
 Democrats, “ If you attend the Charleston Con¬ 
 vention, we will hang you,” and thus keep them 
 all at home, and then reproach them with being 
 a sectional party, because only the slave States 
 were represented ? 11 Well, you have no votes in 
 the slave States; your principles do not circu¬ 
 late with u3 at all; you dare not even proclaim 
 your doctrines among us.” And why do not 
 our principles circulate in the slave States ? 
 They used, for they are the principles of Wash¬ 
 ington, and Franklin, and other founders of the 
 Republic. The reason why our principles do 
 not circulate in the slave States is, that this 
 despotism, has, like another Napoleon, crushed 
 out the freedom of speech and of the press. 
 Allow us free access to the minds of the non¬ 
 slaveholders of the South, and in one year we 
 would have more Republican votes in propor¬ 
 tion, in the slave States, than there are Demo¬ 
 cratic votes in the free States. “ Your princi¬ 
 ples do not circulate down here,” boasts the 
 Slavery propagandist. Sacred history tells us 
 of a certain rich man who died, and who was 
 very unfortunate in the selection of a future 
 home ; but, though an impassable gulf spread 
 itself between him and a better world, it seems 
 he could converse with those more happily sit¬ 
 uated. Supposing, now, this man should lift 
 up his voice, and send it booming across the 
 chasm that yawns between heaven and hell, 
 and say, “ Ho, Abraham, Isaac, Gabriel, and 
 you celestials generally, you are a sectional 
 party up there; your principles do not circu¬ 
 late down here.” And why does not Heaven’s 
 truth circulate down there ? Because the in¬ 
 mates are so wicked that they will not tolerate 
 the presence of any angel preacher. This man 
 must have been a good, sound, national Demo- 
 
3 
 
 crat. And so, I suppose, was that illustrious 
 personage whom Milton has described as bridg¬ 
 ing the chasm that spread between earth and 
 the place of his exile, and who claimed the 
 right of carrying the local institutions of his 
 realm into Paradise. 
 
 And this reminds me to say that the Demo¬ 
 cratic party, led on by this insane fanaticism, 
 which holds Slavery to be morally right, under 
 the guidancce of a political harlequin and trick¬ 
 ster, has proclaimed the constitutional right of 
 Slavery to go into the Territories without let or 
 hindrance. Plighted national faith is broken 
 and dishonored 1 Principles once declared 
 sacred by this very leader, and said to be can¬ 
 onized in the hearts of the American people, 
 are ruthlessly and recklessly trampled under 
 foot. We had an angel of Liberty stationed at 
 the portals of our Territories. For thirty years, 
 this sentinel had kept watch and ward, and 
 guarded that magnificent domain as the herit¬ 
 age of Freedom, and, with the flaming sword of 
 the ordinance of the patriots of the olden time, 
 kept out Slavery from this Eden. Who chased 
 away this angel, and broke down the walls that 
 enclosed that empire, consecrated to the sons 
 and daughters of Freedom as a dwelling place 
 and home, as long as the sun and moon should 
 endure ? Who did this ruthless, reckless, 
 damnable work? The Democratic party, under 
 the leadership of the individual I have indicated. 
 Under what plea was Slavery thus allowed to 
 enter in and ravage the heritage of Freedom ? 
 On the same ground that the madman opens 
 the pest house to let leprosy, plague, and cholera, 
 rush forth, as did the winds from the fabulous 
 cave, to walk at midnight and waste at noon¬ 
 day. A man with a contagious disease must 
 not stay in his own house, nor be confined in 
 the hospital, but must be allowed to roam 
 abroad, to spread disease and death among his 
 fellow men! What is this, but the veriest mad¬ 
 ness that ever raved in Bedlam ! I know it is 
 said that there are two wings to the Democratic 
 party. I am aware of that, and I know, also, 
 that both wings belong to the same vulture, 
 and, although one has been slightly out of joint, 
 it has now got back to its place, and both will 
 flap in unison, to bear the carrion bird back to 
 gorge and fatten on the carcass where it has 
 gorged and fattened so long. 
 
 But the strangest and most impious phase of 
 this fanaticism is, that it claims the sanction of 
 the Bible for American Slavery. I have neither 
 time nor disposition to enter into a philological 
 argument on this question. I shall not ran¬ 
 sack Greek lexicons and musty manuscripts to 
 ascertain the precise etymological force of the 
 Greek words translated servant in the Bible. 
 And as for the grand old Hebrew, in which the 
 ancient Scriptures were written, it has no word 
 which describes or recognises a human being as 
 a piece of property. Before quoting chapter or 
 verse, I desire to say a few words having a gen¬ 
 eral bearing on this subject. The Theocratic 
 
 charter granted to the Jews was exclusive, and 
 constituted them a kind of close corporation, 
 with peculiar privileges as a commonwealth. 
 But all those unusual franchises were bestow¬ 
 ed upon them on the express condition that 
 they should comply with a prescribed ritual. 
 God explicitly declared that he would slay every 
 native-born Jew that did not comply with the 
 provisions of their charter. Now, 1 desire to 
 inquire of those who claim the right to hold 
 slaves under this old charter given to the Jews, 
 Have you complied with the requisitions of that 
 charter? Do you abstain from Virginia ham 
 and other swine’s flesh? Do you observe the 
 new moons, the sabbaths, circumcision, and 
 the appointed feasts ? If not, you are no Jew, 
 and are not entitled to the franchises of a Jew; 
 but on the other hand you belong to the Gen¬ 
 tile race, who, according to your theory, were of 
 right made slaves. If the advocates of Slavery 
 choose to go back and place themselves under 
 a code of laws given to a race of men evidently 
 yet in a state of barbarism, let them take the 
 whole code, and abide by it, and obey it. An¬ 
 other statement. If the Bible sanctions Sla¬ 
 very at all, it is the enslavement of white men. 
 No one pretends that the servants spoken of in 
 the Bible were blacks. The Roman slave was 
 not a black man. The Hebrew servant was 
 not a black man. The question is, whether 
 the laboring man, white or black, may right¬ 
 fully be enslaved. 
 
 I may as well notice, here, that worn-out quo¬ 
 tation erroneously placed on Ham. Noah plant¬ 
 ed a vineyard, raised some grapes, made some 
 wine, and got drunk. When he waked up, still 
 fuddled with the fumes of the wine, sotlo voce , 
 so confused he did not know his son from his 
 grandson, he uttered the malediction, “ cursed 
 be Canaan,” not Ham, who had been guilty of 
 the wrong. And now, in the blaze of the nine¬ 
 teenth century, with the radiance of Christianity 
 shining around, Democrats go mousing back 
 five thousand years to learn the basis of human 
 rights from the lips of a man still half drunk. 
 “ Cursed be Canaan ” is evermore the refrain 
 of Democratic minstrelsy. 
 
 And now to the Bible. I will not detain the 
 Committee long, for I have no patience with the 
 impiety that attempts to throw the sanction of 
 this holy book around the diabolical system of 
 American Slavery. What says this inspired 
 volume? “Thou shalt not steal!” Brief, com 
 prehensive, and to the point. This must be 
 taken from the Bible, before it can be made 
 to sanction Slavery. Does this forbid my ta¬ 
 king my neighbor’s horse, but allow me to re¬ 
 duce the man to a slave, and then claim them 
 both ? How much better is a man than a sheep ? 
 If I am told that Slavery is not theft, because 
 the felonious intent is not there, I reply, as the 
 gentleman from Georgia replied, who has in 
 former years on this floor attempted to justify 
 Slavery on the authority of the Scriptures. He 
 declared that the act of Paulding in arresting 
 
4 
 
 the marauder, Walker, was an act of robbery. 
 Some one replied, that it could not be robbery, 
 for there was no felonious intent. The gentle¬ 
 man from Georgia rejoined, “ I said robbery; I 
 did not say legal robbery.” So I say theft; I 
 do not say legal theft, or theft in the legal sense. 
 We are talking about the moral, not the legal, 
 character of Slavery. The title to every slave 
 originated in violence and robbery, and its con¬ 
 tinuance has no other moral character. There 
 can be no mistake about the rightful ownership 
 of a human being. He belongs to himself. Be¬ 
 cause my father or mother was reduced to the 
 condition of a slave, does that justify my being 
 reduced to the same condition of brutism ? 
 Does the continuance of wrong take away its 
 guilt ? I repeat, there can be no doubt as to 
 the ownership of any human being. The title 
 is in himself. To take it from him is robbery. 
 But we have a specific statute on this subject. 
 “ He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if 
 he be found in his hands,” that is, in his posses¬ 
 sion, “ he shall surely be put to death.” This 
 enactment takes this transaction out of the cat¬ 
 alogue of ordinary crime, and brands it with 
 peculiar reprobation. Other forms of theft 
 could be atoned for by returning four-fold ; this 
 claimed the forfeiture of life itself, thus making 
 it a capital offence. No squirming of sophistry 
 can get round this. There it stands, the esti¬ 
 mate of the Jewish Scriptures of the crime of 
 trafficking in human flesh. So once thought 
 the Presbyterian church, when they declared 
 slaveholding to be a violation of the eighth com¬ 
 mandment. So thought President Edwards, 
 when he declared the slaveholder guilty of man¬ 
 stealing every day. This was the constitutional 
 law of the Jewish Commonwealth. No other 
 statute could contravene it, any more than a 
 State or Territorial law could annul a provision 
 of the Constitution of the United States. All the 
 instances of buying and selling relied upon by 
 the advocates of Slavery are confined to the per¬ 
 son bought and the person sold. A person 
 “falling into decay" sold himself, not as a chat¬ 
 tel or slave, but as a servant for a term of years; 
 and when the jubilee came round, liberty was 
 proclaimed throughout all the land, to all the 
 inhabitants thereof. When there was a failure 
 on the part of the people to proclaim this lib¬ 
 erty, promised and secured by law, then God 
 proclaimed a liberty to them to the sword, and 
 to the pestilence, and those other judgments 
 that fell swift and terrific from the hand of an 
 incensed God. It was this providential retri¬ 
 bution which made Jefferson tremble for his 
 country, when he remembered that God was 
 just, and that his justice would not sleep for¬ 
 ever. In the uprising of these oppressed mill¬ 
 ions, he averred that no attribute of Jehovah 
 could take sides with the oppressor. 
 
 Honor thy father and thy mother, is the re¬ 
 quirement of the Bible. Slavery utterly an¬ 
 nuls this command. The owner claims honor 
 and obedience, to the utter disregard of parental 
 
 authority and parental claims. Whoever thinks 
 of a slave child obeying his parent in prefer¬ 
 ence to his master ? The very suggestion is 
 preposterous. Does the Bible sanction a sys¬ 
 tem that abrogates its own injunctions? 
 
 There stands that slave mother, pressing with 
 a mother’s love her own child to her heart l 
 To whom does it belong? Is it not hers 
 against the universe ? Is there any being, this 
 side the throne of God, that has the right to 
 take it from her ? Has the master the right to 
 come and tear it away from her embrace, and 
 claim it as his properity ? And is this robbery 
 sanctioned by the Bible, and that Bible the 
 word of God? I know the people are taught 
 this by a ministry that I dislike to characterize 
 as I think they deserve. 
 
 “ Wealth, lust, and fashion, bid them still to bleed, 
 
 And holy men quote Scripture for the deed.” 
 
 But these men do not truly interpret the Bi¬ 
 ble. They teach for doctrines the command¬ 
 ments of men, and make the word of God of 
 none effect through their traditions. How dare 
 these men make the Bible lend its sanction to 
 a system that abrogates parental authority and 
 filial duty ? 
 
 So, also, with the conjugal relation. The Bi¬ 
 ble everywhere represents this as the most 
 sacred, inviolate, and indissoluble of all human 
 relations. Father and mother are to be for¬ 
 saken, in obedience to the claims of this still 
 higher and holier relation. Now, what does 
 Slavery do with this domestic institution ? Leave 
 God and the parties perfectly free to regulate 
 it in their own way ? No; with impious and 
 brazen front, it steps in and utterly annihilates 
 the marriage relation, so far as its victims are 
 concerned. There is no more any legal marriage 
 among the three or four millions of slaves in 
 the United States, than there is among so many 
 cattle. Slaves in the eye of the law are cattle, 
 and their union is that of brutes. They are 
 declared to be goods, chattels personal, to all 
 intents, constructions, and purposes, whatever. 
 The civil law which prevails in some of the 
 States takes them pro nullis, pro mortuis , pro 
 quadrupedibus. 
 
 . Would it not be an interesting spectacle to 
 see one of these clergymen, who teach that the 
 Bible sanctions Slavery, called in to attend the 
 wedding of a bureau and chest of drawers I 
 The chairs, and shovel and tongs, are invited 
 as guests. After a fervent prayer for the di¬ 
 vine blessing, the clergyman says : 
 
 “ By the old Levitical laws, 
 
 I join the bureau to the drawers.” 
 
 Quid Rides ? muiato nomine, de tefdbula narratur. 
 
 Absolutely, there can be no more a legal mar¬ 
 riage between two slaves, than between two ar¬ 
 ticles of furniture, or between two brutes. They 
 “take up together; ” they do not marry. No 
 clergyman dare pronounce two slaves husband 
 and wife till death shall separate them. The 
 will of the master is their fate. The Bible says : 
 “ What God hath joined together, let no man 
 
5 
 
 put asunder.” The slave system says : Who 
 cares for God? I will separate them when I 
 please. A slave who is a church member is 
 taught by his religious teachers, that it is his 
 duty, on being sold from one plantation to an¬ 
 other, leaving a so-called wife behind, to take 
 another mate; and the reason assigned by 
 these pious instructors is, that in this way he 
 can be most profitable to his master, which is 
 his first and paramount duty. Thus he may, as 
 a good Christian, take up with a new woman on 
 every plantation to which he is sold. This has 
 been formally so decided by an ecclesiastical 
 council. And yet these blasphemers seek to 
 make God a partner in this revolting practice. 
 
 The Bible everywhere requires an equivalent 
 to be given for services rendered. u Wo unto 
 him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness 
 and his chambers by wrong; that useth his 
 neighbor’s service without wages, and giveth 
 him not for his work.” “ Behold, the hire of 
 the laborers who have reaped down your fields, 
 which by you is kept back by fraud, crieth ; and 
 the cries of them that have reaped are entered 
 into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.”. Slavery 
 never allows any wages at all to those who gar¬ 
 ner in its harvests. To say that the clothing 
 and the food that the slave receives are wages, 
 is to say that the hay, grain, and stabling of the 
 horse, are wages. These constitute the keep¬ 
 ing of the horse and of the slave; wages they 
 are not. 
 
 It is frequently said, that although individu¬ 
 als may do wrong, yet the system is right. 
 Now, it is against the system that I speak. The 
 truth is, the individuals are better than the sys¬ 
 tem. The humanity—and in my charity, per¬ 
 haps, I ought to say the Christianity—of the 
 master often triumphs to a great extent over 
 the system. If every master exemplified the 
 extreme capability of the system for outrage 
 and diabolism, an indignant world would rise 
 and wipe it out. 
 
 Suppose, now, this system, all reeking with 
 lust, incest, crime, and cruelty, is brought out 
 and placed under the blaze of Christianity. 
 Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto 
 you, do ye even so unto them ; for this is the 
 law and the prophets. This is the condensed 
 summary of the whole Bible. Who has the 
 hardihood to say that the practice of slavehold¬ 
 ing is consistent with this injunction ? What, 
 in the New Testament, is the classification of 
 slaveholders ? It places them with murderers 
 of fathers and murderers of mothers. 
 
 Everywhere the Bible inculcates a spirit of 
 generous magnanimity. u Ye that are strong 
 ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and 
 not to please yourselves.” Slavery, I know, 
 claims this attribute, and talks about its chiv¬ 
 alry and magnanimity. And is it not magnani¬ 
 mous to cheat a poor, ignorant, degraded man, 
 out of the entire earnings of his whole life—rob 
 him of his wife and children, and then justify it 
 by saying that they are an inferior race ? Ad¬ 
 
 mit the fact of inferiority—does it therefore fol¬ 
 low that it is right to oppress them ? Every 
 page of the Bible flashes its anathemas against 
 the oppression of the poor and helpless. The 
 chivalry of the Bible is to help the weak, to pro¬ 
 tect the defenceless, and rescue those in peril. 
 This, indeed, is the idea of the olden chivalry. 
 Witness the incident in the romance of Ivan- 
 hoe. The true knight, enfeebled by sickness, 
 rides into the lists to meet a powerful antago¬ 
 nist—and in whose defence? For one belonging 
 to a race as despised and degraded then as that 
 of the African now is. This chivalry we recog¬ 
 nise as having something manly and noble in 
 it. But, from the chivalry that robs mothers of 
 their children ; that applies the scourge to help¬ 
 less women, to secure their labor or make them 
 surrender their chastity ; which sells a boy for 
 a harlot and a girl for a pair of shoes; which, 
 by superior knowledge, combination, and legal 
 enactment, reduces millions of human beings 
 to the condition of brutism, and then by false 
 teaching seeks to delude their conscience, and 
 cause them to believe that their enslavement 
 is in accordance with the will of God—from all 
 such chivalry I ask to be delivered. 
 
 The Bible sanctions Slavery, and, if the Bible, 
 then God. What kind of an ideal of Deity has 
 that religionist who holds this doctrine ? The 
 ancients divided their vices, and made one of 
 their gods the divinity of each. The advocate 
 of Bible Slavery takes a system that concen¬ 
 trates in itself all crime, and makes Jehovah its 
 patron Deity. I do wish that Slavery would 
 leave U3 an ideal of the Supreme Being that is 
 not polluted with its slimy touch. It is said 
 of Goldsmith, as a writer, that there was noth¬ 
 ing that he did not touch, and nothing that he 
 touched that he did not beautify. And it can 
 truly be said of Slavery, that there is nothing 
 that it does not touch, and nothing that it 
 touches that it does not defile. It has perverted 
 the Government, violated the national faith, 
 muzzled the press, debauched the church, cor¬ 
 rupted Christianity, and seeks to change the 
 glory of the invisible God into a Moloch, and 
 transform the eternal and loving Father into a 
 patron of cruelty, lust, and injustice ; and then, 
 with the impudence of the strange woman, 
 wipes its mouth, and says, I have committed 
 no sin. I should be ashamed of such a God as 
 that! It is to me utterly incomprehensible that 
 any one can sincerely believe that the Bible 
 sanctions the system of American Slavery, and 
 I leave that point. 
 
 But this fanaticism goes still farther, and ar¬ 
 rogates to itself prerogatives which God himself 
 never claimed, and what, be it spoken with rev¬ 
 erence, the Supreme Being himself cannot do ; 
 and that is, to make right and wrong. Before 
 all law and above all law, human and divine, is 
 the idea of right and wrong, eternal, indestruct¬ 
 ible. The Omnipotent does not claim the right 
 or power to annihilate this distinction. He 
 himself bows to this idea, which sits enthroned, 
 
6 
 
 absolute and supreme, higher than the Highest. 
 The supreme Legislator never undertook, by 
 mere arbitrary enactment, to obliterate this dis¬ 
 tinction, and put darkness for light, and light 
 for darkness—bitter for sweet, and sweet for bit¬ 
 ter. His own conduct is controlled by His per¬ 
 ceptions of what is right and what is wrong. 
 Human statutes cannot do what Divine legis¬ 
 lation never attempted to achieve. Can you, by 
 a Congressional enactment, change the laws 
 that govern the material world ? Can you make 
 the Potomac roll back to its sources amid those 
 far-off hills, or calm the ocean, when, moved from 
 its depths, it lifts its crested waves on high, and 
 dashes them in broken spray against the bee¬ 
 tling crags ? Much less can you annul the eter¬ 
 nal distinction between right and wrong. The 
 attempt is and must forever remain utterly vain 
 and impotent. 
 
 The gentleman from Georgia the other day 
 called our attention to the sublime spectacle of 
 State after State emerging from a Territorial 
 condition, and wheeling into line as sovereign 
 States in this Confederacy. In this process, 
 according to the gentleman, were united the 
 two principles of expansion and popular sov¬ 
 ereignty, and the gentleman was reminded of 
 that grand chorus which an ancient exile heard 
 when there was poured upon his ear the voice 
 of many waters, and the voice of the thunders, 
 and the voice of the Almighty, and the utterance 
 of ocean and thunder and of Jehovah was, “ Vox 
 Populi vox Dei." Sir, I claim that the voice 
 of truth, and justice, and liberty, is the voice 
 of God. When I hear the voice of thousands 
 and thousands, and ten times ten thousand, 
 swelling upward, like the voice of many waters 
 and the voice of mighty thunders and the voice 
 of the Almighty, it is that other and better 
 sentiment, “Let justice prevail, though the 
 universe crumbles.” Aye, sir; I too heard the 
 voice of the people, and it went surging through 
 the streets of Judea’s proud metropolis. It 
 swept through the portals of Pilate’s Judgment 
 Hall, and echoed along its arches, crying, 
 “ Crucify him I Crucify him ! ” Was “ Vox 
 Populi vox Dei ” then? Did the gentleman 
 from Georgia hear the voice of the Almighty, 
 responsive to the popular will, demanding the 
 crucifixion of his own Son ? Did their cry of 
 blood have the Divine sanction, simply because 
 they had voted it, and because they had a law 
 by which the Man of Nazareth must be put to 
 death ? What an impious dogma 1 
 
 But let us follow this expansion and vox- 
 populi doctrine. We already embrace Utah; 
 there the voice of the people sanctions and de¬ 
 mands a multiplicity of wives. Is it the voice 
 of God? We acquire Cuba; and there the 
 voice of the people demands the union of 
 Church and State, and forbids a prayer to be 
 uttered by the open grave of a friend who 
 breathed out his soul beyond the pale of the 
 Papal church ; and the voice of the people is 
 the voice of God! Expansion! We sweep on¬ 
 
 ward, and take in Mexico ; and in some se¬ 
 questered vale there is a remnant of the old 
 Aztec race, with their Teocalli surrounded 
 with human skulls. The voice of the people 
 iere leads forth a pampered young man, the 
 fairest and best of the nation, decorated with 
 lowers, up to the consecrated hill, laying him on 
 the sacrificial stone, and with breast raised, the 
 wriest seizes the knife, and drags it craunching 
 through the ribs, and tears out the heart, all 
 reeking and quivering ; and this is the voice 
 of God ! 
 
 But we have taken in the continent, from 
 Esquimaux to Patagonian, and still we must 
 expand. We ride forth on the Pacific wave, 
 and annex theFeejee Islands, and the voice of 
 the people here is to feast on human flesh, and 
 ;he voice of the people is the voice of God 1 
 Is this an insane asylum ? Is the Democracy 
 struck with lunacy as well as filled with fanati¬ 
 cism ? 
 
 The Slavery Democracy prates and chatters 
 about “ negro equality,” “Black Republicans,” 
 and “nigger stealing,” to use its classic phrase 
 and improved orthography. It has, or affects 
 to have, a great horror of “ niggers.” And any 
 one who advocates the principles of human 
 Freedom, as they were enunciated and laid 
 down in enduring forms by the Fathers of the 
 Republic, is a “ woolly head,” and these same 
 Democrats have Darned to speak of them with 
 a peculiar nasal twist. Naso contemnere adunco. 
 You would suppose that these gentlemen, whose 
 olfactories are so sensitive and acute, never 
 saw a nigger, unless in a menagerie. And yet, 
 would you believe it! the very first service ren¬ 
 dered him on earth is performed by a nigger; 
 as an infant, he draws the milk which makes 
 his flesh and blood and bones from the breast 
 of a nigger; looks up in her face and smiles, 
 and calls her by the endearing name of 11 mam¬ 
 my,” 
 
 (Incipe parve puer. Cognosccre risu matrem.) 
 
 and begs, perhaps, in piteous tones, for the 
 privilege of carrying “mammy” to the Territo¬ 
 ries ; he is undressed and put to bed by a nig¬ 
 ger, and nestles during the slumbers of infancy 
 in the bosom of a nigger ; he is washed, dress¬ 
 ed, and taken to the table, by a nigger, to eat 
 food prepared by a nigger; he is led to and 
 from school by a nigger; every service that 
 childhood demands is performed by a nigger, 
 except that of chastisement, which, from the 
 absence of good manners in many cases, it is 
 to be feared is not performed at all. When 
 down appears on his lip, the tonsorial service is 
 performed by a nigger ; and when he reaches 
 manhood, he invades the nigger quarters, to 
 place himself in the endearing relation of pa¬ 
 ternity to half niggers. Finally, if he should 
 be ambitious, it may occur that he will come 
 to Congress to represent a constituency, three- 
 fifths of whom are niggers, and talk about 
 • “ Black Republicans,” “ amalgamation,” “ nig- 
 
7 
 
 ger equality,” “ nigger stealing,” and the offen¬ 
 sive odor of niggerism. 
 
 I insist upon it, we have had enough of this 
 tomfoolery. Let members from the slave States 
 treat us with the courtesy due from one gentle¬ 
 man to another, and they will receive the same 
 in return. But till then, if God pleases, they 
 shall have a Roland for an Oliver. I call gen¬ 
 tlemen to witness, that during all last session 
 I endured this kind of abuse. Scurrilous let¬ 
 ters were read from the Clerk’s desk, and I 
 held my peace. Again this session, old Mose 
 is exhumed, and served up in a Democratic re¬ 
 hash. And who is this old Mose, that is to form 
 the pabulum of an interesting chapter, when 
 some Democratic historian shall give us the 
 history of the United States? A poor, old 
 septgenarian negro, whom I never saw, and 
 of whom I never heard till he came to my 
 door—free by the admission of the blackguard 
 who had owned him. I gave him a meal of 
 victuals ; he remained a few hours till the cars 
 came, when I secured the payment of his pas¬ 
 sage to Chicago, and he went on his way re¬ 
 joicing, like the Ethiopian of old. By the way, 
 ought there not to be an ecumenical council of 
 the Democratic church, to get out an expurga¬ 
 ted edition of the Bible ? What a scandalous 
 thing, that Philip should ride with the Ethio 
 pian ? It is asked why I did not state these 
 facts before. I answer, I will not hold myself 
 bound to explain every ebullition of black¬ 
 guardism, either in or out of Congress. When 
 a boy, I used to strike back at every dog that 
 barked at me as I rode along the highways; 
 but I have ceased doing so, long since, and let 
 them bite the iron that encircles the wheel. 
 
 And now, what about this negro equality of 
 which we hear so much, in and out of Congress ? 
 It is claimed by the Democrats of to-day, that 
 Jefferson has uttered an untruth in the declara¬ 
 tion of principles which undeilie our Govern¬ 
 ment. I still abide by the Democracy of Jef¬ 
 ferson, and avow my belief that all men are 
 created equal. Equal how? Not in physical 
 strength ; not in symmetry of form and propor¬ 
 tion ; not in gracefulness of motion, or loveli¬ 
 ness of feature; not in mental endowment, 
 moral susceptibility, and emotional power ; not 
 socially equal; not of necessity politically 
 equal—not this, but every human being equally 
 entitled to his life, his liberty, and the fruit of 
 his toil. The Democratic party deny this fun¬ 
 damental doctrine of our Government, and say 
 that there is a certain class of human beings 
 who have no rights. If you maliciously kill 
 them, it is no murder; if you take away their 
 liberty, it is no crime; if you deprive them of 
 their earnings, it is no theft. No rights which 
 another is bound to regard 1 Was there ever 
 so much diabolism compressed into one sen¬ 
 tence ? 
 
 Why do the Democrats come to us with their 
 complaints about the negroes ? I, for one, feel 
 no responsibility in the matter. I did not cre¬ 
 
 ate them—was not consulted. Now, if there 
 is any one dissatisfied with the fact, that there 
 is a whole race of human beings, with the rights 
 of human beings, created with a skin not col¬ 
 ored like our own, let him go mouth the 
 heavens, and mutter his blasphemies in the ear 
 of the God that made us all. Tell Him that 
 He had no business to make human beings 
 with a black skin. I repeat, I feel no respon¬ 
 sibility for this fact. But, inasmuch as it has 
 pleased God to make them human beings, I 
 am bound to regard them as such. Instead of 
 chattering your gibberish in my ear about ne¬ 
 gro equality, go look the Son of God in the 
 face, and reproach him with favoring negro 
 equality because he poured out his blood for 
 the most abject and despised of the human 
 family. Go settle this matter with the God 
 who created, and the Christ who redeemed. 
 
 “ He that despiseth the poor, reproacheth his 
 Maker.” 
 
 A single word as to this charge of negro 
 stealing. I suppose I have a right to speak on 
 this subject, having been made the object of 
 this allegation. So far as any personal abuse 
 is concerned, it may go for what it is worth. If 
 the object is to ascertain whether I assist fugi¬ 
 tive slaves who come to my door and ask it, the 
 matter is easily disposed of. 1 march right up 
 to the confessional, and say, I do. I recollect 
 the case of a young woman, who came to my 
 house, who had not a single trace of African de¬ 
 scent either in feature or complexion. Accord¬ 
 ing to her own story, she was betrothed to a 
 man of her race, though not of her color, and 
 was, before her marriage, sold to a libertine 
 from the South, she being in St. Louis. She 
 escaped, and, in her flight from a life of infamy 
 and a fate worse than death, she came and im¬ 
 plored aid ? Was I to refuse it ? Was I to be¬ 
 wray the wanderer? Was I to detain her, and 
 give her up a prey to the incarnate fiend who 
 had selected her as a victim to offer up on the 
 altar of sensualism ? 
 
 Who would do it? I would not, did not. No 
 human being, black or white, bond or free, na¬ 
 tive or foreign, infidel or Christian, ever came 
 to my door, and asked for food and shelter, in 
 the name of a common humanity, or of a pitying 
 Christ, who did not receive it. This 1 have done. 
 This I mean to do, as long as God lets me live. 
 I shall never “bewray him that wandereth.” I 
 shall never become a slave catcher. Any one 
 who chooses may transform himself into a blood¬ 
 hound—snuff, and scent, and howl, along the 
 track of the fugitive—loll out his tongue, and 
 lap up the dirty water that stands in mud¬ 
 dy pools by the way side—overtake the rifle- 
 scarred and lash-excoriated slave, (a mother, it 
 may be, with her infant, the love of whom has 
 nerved her for the flight,) thrust his canine teeth 
 into the quivering flesh, brace out his fore feet, 
 and hold the captive till the kidnapper comes, 
 with fetters and handcuffs, to load down ankles 
 and wrist, and then receive, as a reward of this 
 
8 
 
 i 
 
 brutism, a pat on the head from the slave 
 catcher, and the plaudit, 11 Good dog, Bose.” 
 
 Sir, I never will do this. I never will de¬ 
 grade my manhood, and stifle the sympathies of 
 human nature. It is an insult to claim it. I 
 wish I had nothing worse to meet at the judg¬ 
 ment day than that. I would not have the guilt 
 of causing that wail of man's despair, or that 
 wild shriek of woman’s agony, as the one or the 
 other is captured, for all the diadems of all the 
 stars in heaven. 
 
 Is it desired to call attention to this fact ? 
 Proclaim it then upon the house tops. Write 
 it on every leaf that trembles in the forest, 
 
 make it blaze from the sun at high noon, and 
 shine forth in the milder radiance of every star 
 that bedecks the firmament of God. Let it echo 
 through all the arches of heaven, and reverbe¬ 
 rate and bellow along all the deep gorges of hell, 
 where slave catchers will be very likely to hear it. 
 Owen Lovejoy lives at Princeton, Illinois, three- 
 quarters of a mile east of the village, and he 
 aids every fugitive that comes to his door and 
 asks it. Thou invisible demon of Slavery, dost 
 thou think to cross my humble threshold, and 
 forbid me to give bread to the hungry and 
 shelter to the houseless ! I BID YOU DEFI¬ 
 ANCE IN THE NAME OF MY GOD! 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 
 
 1860 . 
 
 * : i.); • ! 
 
 I 
 
 
 va. 
 
 f'.k-