THE
JUNIUS TRACTS.
kN0..Y.; . ;
Nov'b.] published every second month. [1843.

POLITICAL ABOLITIOI.
'/•""-;•.''. . ., :^"^: 'by. Junius..;. ;;;k^;-..; ~-t- -
?*» ,,-
" Author of " The -Crisis of the Coustrt," and other Tracts of 1840. k
k ' '_ '.-..-"¦•;-¦ -Price, 3 centsvingle, $2 50 cts.per 100, or-%HQper 1000. *
. The Tracts already published, are .- I.— THE TEST, oa Parties tiueb by tiieib. Acts.
n.^THE CURRENCY, ffl.— THE TARIFF.. IV.— LIFE OF HENRY CLAY
¦ V.— POLITICAL ABOLITION.. .:.v.. • *
07" , NOTICE : Committees, Clubs, and ail persons desirous of obtaining these Tracts
are requested to send their-orders, with remittances, to the publishers, Greeley &. AIcElrath'
Tribune Office, New York, who will promptly forward them to any part of the Union as may
be directed. Remittances by mail, po»t paid or free, at the risk of the proprietor. Price for
any one of the series, $2 50 cts. per 100 copies, $20 per 1000.
H7- Postmasters are authorized by law to make remittances under their frank. - • k

¦? ¦ ,- •.•-.*¦ -•;^---r-rv.--,.. ¦ -v, -,- r

-. r.---_<,_L

-.- ¦ ^ ^

.'-*' .¦'-- ' v' '.-'^ - .-i.,:.^. --". .'..,;-. • ^. •;.£

;¦-.- »»%>;

-,¦•- - ' ¦-;" '.: ¦¦".¦ -.".' :'.' "i.si

-.' i*\ -' -

¦¦; NEW YORK: -

:.«.<•„.¦-

PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY
GREELEY & McELRATH,

TRIBUNE BUILDINGS.

-¦- 1843.

[EBtw»*-»ceor*ns to the-Act of, CoDgress, in. the'ycar l&I3,Jiy Caivw CotTox,.in the Clerk's oBce of Uw
';,'¦- District C<^ of UwUmi^ States; E^
lii.'BT^ *' - '"¦¦¦¦-t!/*-1 ¦' '"¦ •"¦ '¦ - -¦-.?¦?'¦¦<¦'!.¦> <•¦ gin •---',¦ *<• - ¦-,-
;; uli.A.i' .- tOne Shw^Terioilleal, Postage undeJlOOmiWl JJ cents.; ar« lOOnrUn JJ.] • :

POLITICAL- ABOLITION.
1. The Author's position on the subject of slavery.
It is that of a Northern man, born and educated in a free State, always opposed to slavery,
still opposed to it, judging it to be wrong, and desiring to see it abolished, as well in this
country, as in all others. This he assumes to be the general feeling of the people in the free
States, as he has rarely foand an instance to the contrary. We, therefore, of the free States,
(we speak for the great body of the people,) do not yield to the Abolitionists a whit in our
opposition to slavery ; we differ from them only as to the mode of getting rid of the evil. We
- claim to be the true friends of the slave, while we believe them to be pursuing a course hos
tile to his best interests, and unfavorable to his emancipation.
2. The origin of slavery in the United States.
It is enough to say, that it was impotert upon the Colonies, by the British Government, for
the augmentation of its revenue and the profit of its favorites, against the anxious protests of
the Colonists themselves, and that while the Colonies were subject to the British Crown, it
had grown to an extent not easy to be eradicated. Thus far, the responsibility of its intro
duction and growth, is settled. When the Colonies became independent, and were about to
set up the Government of the United States, those members of the Confederation, which had
slavery as a part of their state of society, foreseeing the evils of interference with this subject
from other quarters, refused to come into the Union tinder the Constitution, without an ex
press stipulation to secure their exclusive control ofthe slave question within their respective
limits, which condition was acceded to. Such, briefly, is the origin of slavery in the United
States. 3. The mere remote origin of Occidental or American slavery of the African race.
It began in a proposal of Las Casas, a Roman Catholic priest, to the Spanish Government,
for authority to introduce Africans by importation into the West Indies, to save the natives,
who were being exterminated by hard service and' severe treatment under the Spaniards.
His object was benevolent. From that germe, African slavery spread over this Western world.
Its stUl more remote origin, however, lay in the previous debased condition and barbarous
customs of the African tribes, which invited the Asiatics on the East and Europeans on the
North, to trade in the bodies and souls of men, whom portions of their own race, by prowess
of arms, had first made captive, and then exposed for sale — a custom of the African tribes, or
hordes, practised from time immemorial. We mention it not as an apology for the more civ
ilized portions of the world, for engaging in this inhuman traffic, but as an historical fact to
account for the origin of African slavery. It originated in the barbarous passions and habits
of the race. .-,---. . ,
4. How the subject of slavery should be approached. '
For all that the United. States are concerned in it, it is manifest, that the present Govern
ment and people of thi» country, are in no wise responsible for its origin. It was entailed as
a calamity, and its being on the hands of any of the States, when we acquired our indepen
dence, can not be charged as a crime. They are only responsible for th» manner in which
they treat it, and for the disposition that shall be ultimately made of it. They who believe in
that Providence, with whom " one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one
day," will look forward for some grand and beneficent result to grow out of that providential
treatment, which has marked the history of this race for centuries past. It is a. great wheel
moving round, and notwithstanding all the clouds and darkness that have overhung it, some
rays of light have dawned on its progress. Miracles of relief are not to be expected ; but
relief will come at lost. - ¦-•-¦• 5. Definition.
By political abolition, as used' in this Tract, we mean that well-known movement, got up
in the free States, to accomplish this object, by resorting to the ballot-box, in its bearings on
the National Administration. It can not be denied, that the ballot-box is a primary and fun
damental political power. All other political powers above it, are only its instruments and
agents. Whatever may result from this primary function of the body politic, these primary
actors are responsible for. It is this power which directs and controls the offices of legislation,
the functions ot magistracy, and the sword of war. It is the original and effective agency of
political society, in a popular government like ours.
' 6. The formation of our Government.
Jt has. been justly called a Government ot compromise, on account ofthe variety of conflict
ing interests which had to be consulted before its consummation. The achievement of Inde
pendence was but half the work. We wert a spectacle to the whole world as to what we

should come to. The friends of liberty were anxious, its enemies still hoped for our failure,
while we had to encounter appalling difficulties. The Confederation proved miserably de
ficient, and nothing could exceed the concern of our most eminent patriots, till the Constitu
tion was finally adopted. It was entirely a new kind of government, composed of wheels
within a wheel, of inferior sovereignties allied to one superior and general. In the construc
tion of this machinery, it was necessary exactly to define the powers of the General Govern
ment, so as not to interfere with those of the States. This being done, the powers of the
States, called State RiglUs, are determined by the following Article, the Tenth of the Amend
ments :— " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." From this article
is derived the exclusive power ofthe slave States over slavery within their respective limits, it
being one of the powers "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohib
ited by it to the States." In all such powers, the States are as sovereign as any independent
nations. 7. The political compact of the Union— -political rights resulting therefrom.
While we are one nation, we are mam/ States, and the States are not provinces, recognising
in all things the supremacy of the national authorities ; nor municipal corporations, acting in
the capacity of counties and towns, under a commonwealth ; but they are original, indepen
dent, and sovereign powers in all things « not delegated to the United States by the Consti
tution, nor prohibited by it to the States ;" and these delegated and prohibited powers were
not imposed by authority, but surrendered by compact, while the Slates were acting in the
-capacity of original and independent sovereignties. It was of the nature of a treaty be
tween nations, as a political transaction, though more intimate and more solemn, having ia
view a different and more comprehensive object — viz: a supreme and supervising authority
as to the powers "delegated." But the political rights "reserved," are as independent and
sovereign, as those of two nations are, under compact of a treaty, in all things not belonging
to the treaty. - This view, which we believe to be correct, is important to oar present purpose.
S. The importance and solemnity of the Union as a compromise btlwttn the parties.
But for this compromise, the straggle and cost of the American Revolution would in all
probability have been wasted. It was indispensably necessary to save and secure the freedom
-and independence we had acquired. The parties- to this compact had diverse interests to pro
tect, and diverse difficulties to encounter. The arrangement, as finally adjusted and ratified,
was regarded by our fathers as one of great solemnity and of unspeakable importance. It
was viewed with a kind of religious awe, and with conscientious respect. The man that
-would lift his hand to impair or disturb it, would have been scathed by the reprobation of a
universal public sentiment — a feeling that has been cherished from that time to this, and ever
ought to be cherished. - .,.;, ¦
9. Where lies tlie responsibility of slavery under this compact.
Do we, the people of -the United States, hold ourselves responsible for any of the laws and
institutions of Great Britain, of France, or of any other foreign and independent power, be
cause we happen to be under a treaty with them ? It is true, indeed, that the treaty or com
pact of this Union, is not precisely of the same character with our treaty stipulations with
foreign nations, as it bears on the question before us, in that it goes farther, and is more par
ticular in its specifications. We never promise, that we will not meddle with the domestic
regulations of foreign powers, when we make treaties with them ; for it is not deemed neces-
-snry. But we have promised, and solemnly engaged, that " the powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are" (of course, shall
be) " reserved to the States respectively." But, the political compact of a treaty with a foreign
power, so far as it goes, is precisely of the same political character with the political compact
of this Union. How, then, can the free States, or the people of those States, be responsible
for slavery in other States, which, as high contracting political parties, they have solemnly
engaged never to meddle with ? This power is " reserved" to those States. If the free States,
or the people of those States, ever had anything to do in originating slavery, they have atoned
for it by abolishing it. The slave States never surrendered the care, nor transferred the re-
sponsibility of slavery, either to the General Government, or to the free States, or to any
parties whatever. How, then, can the General Government, or the free States, or any of
their parts or agencies, be responsible for that which they not only never had in charge, but
expressly stipulated not to assume ? The responsibility of this engagement may be brought
home with great force from the other side, nor is it possible to escape from it More than
this :  There is an oath of allegiance, always implied in the use of a political power, in the
State, and in many States actually administered to voters and public officers, to support the
Constitution of the United Stales. Put these obligations together, and they present a formi
dable obstacle to the conscience of a man, who thinks of stepping over or trie* to get round
.them. If, as American citizens* we have no responsibility ia the serfdom of Russia, of

Austria, or of Turkey, and if it would be improper for us to interfere with it poUtieaUy, mucin
more as parties to the public and solemn compact of this Union, are we bound to respect its--
federative engagements. 10. The proper ground of abolition.
As an enterprise of humanity and benevolence, employing moral means only, in distinction
from political agencies, abolition is a proper mission from any quarter to any quarter. Such.
has ever been the high ground taken by the Society of Friends as a body. They have protest
ed against slavery before the world, and done what they could, by precept and example, by
speech and the press, and by various modes of social and moral influence, for its extinction.
In this work, they have not only been tolerated, but respected. They have wielded a steady,
progressive, and effective influence. Pacific iu their principles and practice, they have been
admitted into the heart of slave-holding communities, to bear their testimony.
While such was the character of the general anti-slavery feeling and operations of the free
States of this Union, their voice was heard, and their influence was salutary. - Thousands-
in the slave States joined with them, and slave-holders themselves were open to argument and
conviction, while moral means and pacific measures alone were employed. But the moment
when political abolition rushed into the field, on the soil of the free States, with severe de
nunciation and the use of the ballot-box, all the good influence of the anti-slavery phalanx.
was not only at an end, but a retrograde movement in the cause of emancipation, in the slave-
States, commenced,' and it is yet a moral problem in the aspects of society in that quarter, as:
to how many years, or how many ages, it may take to recover the ground that has been lost-
II. Political abolition is force.
We know that this is not commonly thought of, and would perhaps at first be questioned-
Bnt a vote at the polls is the original and fundamental power of American political society,,
and implies force in the end, if necessary. The first attitude, therefore, or first position of
this political power, is that of incipient force. It aims to compel the accomplishment of its-
designs by the powers of the State, which are fores in abeyance. There is no political power
in existence, which is not fortified by force, in abeyance or in actual use, or that could stand
one day without it. Such, precisely, is the position assumed by political abolition ia the free
States. . .,„•
12. And it is an aggressive movement. f "-'"
This results from the political structure of the Union, before considered. Slavery, in any
of these States, occupies the same position, politically, in relation to the other States, which.
the institutions and laws of the European nations do to the United States. Suppose, then,.
that a party should start up in this country, and go to the polls, augmenting their forces every-
year, with the declared object of putting down any one or more of the institutions of a Euro-'
pean power, because, in their view, that institution is a bad one, oppressive, and. destructive-
of human liberty. There are many such institutions in Europe. Would it not be regarded,
as an aggressive movement ? — And if there were any chance or apprehension of success,.
would it be a matter of surprise, if the menaced power should put itself on the defensive ?— -
Would it be strange, if that power should take measures to anticipate the movement, and.
commence aggressive operations, in retaliation ? The crusade of the first party might be a.
-very benevolent one ; but as a political movement, it would be aggressive.
13. Political abolition, in the free States, is a breach of faith.
This also results from the political structure of the Union already noticed. Do we hold*
ourselves at liberty to break a treaty with a foreign power, because we have since concluded.
that we can not tolerate some evil or evils in its bosom — evils which existed when the treaty
was made, which were then considered by us, and which we agreed to tolerate, or at least, to-
leave entirely on their responsibility and in their discretion ? — If we originate a new political.
movement, to disturb this arrangement, do we not violate the treaty ? — But the compact of
this Union is of a more solemn nature, than a ratified treaty between the United States and a.
foreign power ; nor are the slave States less independent and sovereign, as to the matter in;
question, than- a foreign power, with which we are supposed to be connected by such treaty j
stipulations-. '.-¦¦¦>.. "' 14. The impracticability of political abolition.
We speak of course, in the case now under consideration, of such a movement in the free
. States towards the slave States. It is impracticable, 1. Because political power is force, and
force is offensive. 2. Because the parties assailed, can shield themselves behind the Consti
tution of the United States. 3. Because, the farther political abolition, from 3uch a quarter^
goes, the worse and more hopeless is it3 cause, both as respects the temper of slave-holders,
and the condition ofthe slaves. 4. Because the limit of such a movement, unless open violence
is meditated, will be found just where its operations will have had no other effect than to plantl
obstacles in its own path. 5. And consequently, because, such being the Constitutional bar

Tier to this movement, everything done in this way, by its moral effect, forces the object in
IteTunaUaSef6111016 P°3,U°n °f ^'^ aUa"lmen,> * indeed> il shou!d n« ^de^Vor
15. The mischievous results of political abolition already developed.
It is well known, that, previous to the start of political abolition in the free States the
spin of emancpatton prevaUed extensively in the slave State,, and^mongXe-hotd'ers -
that the leading and most influential men in those States, were accustomed : freely ^tTacknowl
ledge the eyils of slavery, and were engaged in benevolent schemes to abate them; that ~
'• It ZnZlt ^ -m* faTor> the PurP°se °^ S^ual, and ultimately an eatTre atlffi
. ha numerous conscientious persons were providing for the emancipation of their own slaves-
^ofe^ rh^, m f, ^ *»* °f the, preSS' 0a the ""««*. was to>««««d ; that free colored
! ?h?l. t nf r r ? ef' T g?"!yaU}' ,reated with indulgence, and encouraged; and that
^LiTt^^^r mvd? ™b'e Pr°S"**, f™ the organization of on? government,
down to the outbreak of political abolition in the free States. There was a fair prospecL
that one slave State after another, beginning with the more northern, if left to their own free
and undisturbed action, would foUow the example of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylva
nia, in the total extinction of slavery. Such was the state of things, while the subject was
Jett to the moral influences operating quietly and pacifically, but effectively, on the public
f""1- r " M- • I eW yea,r3 s,ace' that a stronS movement was made in the State and legisla
ture of Virginia, for the adoption of a system of emancipation, which was eloquently debated
and had a large minority vote.
But, behold the change! Maryland, which was expected first to move in the cause of
emancipation, taking alarm from such interference, Has inserted a clause ia her Constitution
for the perpetuity of slavery ! The whole mind of the slave States, has been thrown off from
its former basis of growing favor toward emancipation, and put in an attitude of defence
against foreign interference. The ingress of free blacks into the slave States has generally
been interdicted ; free colored residents have been banished from some parts, and in all places
subjected to great disadvantages, and deprived of important privileges; the work of emanci
pation has been put in check, and the disposition for it quenched; rigorous defensive laws
have been enacted and enforced ; the intellectual, moral, and religious improvement of the
slaves, which before was encouraged, and growing in popularity, has been very much abridged,
and in some places entirely stopped ; the slaves are subjected to a stricter watch, and treated
with greater rigor, where causes of apprehension exist ; scarcely an advocate of emancipation
-can be found in the slave Stales, where there were thousands, and tens of thousands before ;
freedom of speech and of the press, except on one side of the question, is chiefly suppressed r
•and the entire slave-holding portion of the Union, instead of being engaged, as before, ia
meliorating the condition of the slaves, mitigating the rigors of the system, and marching
forward toward the goal of final emancipation, has been forced into an attitude, and into
measures of defence against the political abolition ofthe free States.
We ask, if these are not very impressive and very instructive facts ?— The lessons of ex
perience teach us, that it is safe to judge of the future from the past, of what is to come from
-what has happened. Such being our rule of judgment, it is manifest, that, as political abo
lition has yet done nothing but injury to the cause it has taken in hand, and injury on an
immense scale, it will do nothing but injury in time to come.
16. Civil war.
We are not fond of alarming topics, nor disposed to excite unnecessary anxiety. But the
-evils of political abolition, rising up in the North, must be faced, and the consequences it
tends to, must be considered. However averse the people of the free States may be to slave
ry — and we believe they are almost universally so — yet they can not but feel, that this remedy
of political abolition is worse than the disease, first, because the rudeness and violence of the
treatment only aggravate it ; and next, because they fear, that the medicine, if administered
as proposed, will kill both the patient and the doctor. A dissolution of the Union would be
as certain as any effect of a moral cause that can be reckoned on. Nor is it likely, that this
would be the end. The political asperities and exasperations that would grow out of such
a conflict, would themselves naturally be breeders of other convulsions ; and it would not be
strange, if some military chieftain, or chieftains, should rise up in the struggle, to make slaves
¦of all freemen, and bind in stronger chains, those whom, by such means, it is proposed to set
free. We are a family of States, bound together by a covenant solemnly ratified, which prescribes
the rights of each. In this family, concord is beautiful; but family quarrels are the worst of
all. Civil war is the most terrible and most desolating of all wars, and most difficult to be
brought to an end. Look at Spain. Will any one say, that such a movement, as the polit
ical abolition of the North, does not put in jeopardy the peace of this Union, and the Union
itself? And can any human foresight tell what scenes of strife it is likely to produce, if it

should be eneouraged to paw on its way towards the snpreme power of the nation, which is
now its avowed aim 1
17. The effect of political abolition on the annexation of Texas.
Under the present extent of our national jurisdiction, we can not see much occasion ot
jealousy between the North and South, in regard to slavery, if the Federal Constitution should
be scrupulously observed by all parties. But, if political abolition in the North insists on
making its demonstrations and advances towards the South, it is very natural that the South
should endeavor to fortify itself by all means in its power ; and it is not to be disguised, that
the annexation of Texas, as a slave State, itself a field for the growth of several slave States
hereafter to be erected, would strengthen their balance of power in the Union, and tend to
give them a preponderance. Doubtless this question will be agitated, and the strongest motive
of the South, and its strongest argument for the annexation, will be the growth and influence
of Northern political abolition. In whatever aspect, therefore, we view this movement, it
threatens to disturb the Union. Leave the slave States, just where the Federal Constitution
has placed them, unmolested in their Constitutional securities, and we can not see any good
reason why they should be anxious for the annexation of Texas — certainly not to urge it.
But the continued agitation of political abolition in the North, will give them an apology, and
be a strong incentive for efforts to attain that end. If the free States, by reason of the fact
of political abolition moving on in the midst of them, can not say to the slave States,— Your-
Constitutional securities shall ba re»p«jted— -their ground of opposition to the annexation of
Texas will be greatly weakened, and the slave States will have a power of motive and a foree-
of argument, which would not otherwise be felt. There is no other public question likely-
soon to rise in the public mind of this country, in the disposal of which political abolition ia
the North would so embarrass the friends of the Union. If this consideration should operate-
as fuel to the hopes of the abolition party, we should be very sorry ; but it is too important,.
as a warning to the country, to pass unnoticed. ¦ A feeling that will be gratified in the-
approach of difficulties that will engender greater difficulties, and which possibly may end in
what would startle common minds to think of, is one that ought to give us concern, if it is to
have influence in contributing to such a result. , _/... -
18. The suicidal character of political abolition.
It is taken for granted, that, if political abolitionists were to vote for the one or the other
of the two great parties of the country, they would not support the party that is opposed to-
emancipation in all forms, and which, in possession of power, would use it against abolitionist*
with a vengeance. There are numerous other reasons, political, moral, and religious, why -
the Abolitionists generally would not support that party. Their sympathies naturally run in
another direction. But do they not see, that every two votes they give for political abolition,.
is one vote to raise that party to power, and defeat themselves, not only as to what they vote-
for, but in other great interests of society, to which they can not be indifferent, though they
may shut their eyes to them 1 — This diverted action of political power — it is averred to be-
40,000 votes in the free States — in a nice balance of the two great parties, may throw the-
government of the States and the nation into hands that will ruin us all, as they have here
tofore tried to do, with no small success. By this means, the political Abolitionists have again
and again defeated the candidates they would most of them otherwise vote for, both for State-
and national legislation and government, and raised to power men with whom they have little*
or no sympathy, political, social, moral, or religious.
19. The responsibility of using the franchise, or ballot, for political abolition. ..
Such a use of the ballot is political abolition itself. We hope it may be quite unnecessary
to say, that we can not innocently violate our allegiance to the State, for a benevolent object;
and we trust we have satisfactorily shown, that the slavery of the slave States is placed beyond
the Constitutional power of the free States by the compact of the Union. Is there, then, no-
responsibility in attempting to break down a foreign power — foreign to us, — by such weapons?
A mission of benevolence, which might otherwise be very commendable, becomes a crime^
when moral obligations are trampled under foot in the enterprise. By what authority can
we violate a covenant, to do a good act ? — Shall we say, that the good to be attained is para
mount, and erect our individual feelings into a court to set aside public law ? •
But to the responsibility arising from moral considerations, is to be added that of disregard-
to the general welfare of the republic. Is it not strange, unnatural, that American citizen*, .
by casting their votes where they have no chance of success, should thus contribute to aug- '
meat and perpetuate the common misfortunes of the country, by raising men to power, who; -<
they know, are advocates of destructive measures ? More than this : — are these Abolition; -
voters conscientious men — religious J How, then, before God, can they be acquitted,, if by-,;
their means, such men as Robert Dale Owen, a partner of Fanny Wright, and member of the "
28th Congress, and Ely Moore, of the Fanny Wright school, and member of the 24th and 25th
Congresses, elected by the infidel ticket, are to make laws for this nation ; and if such men a*

Thomas Herttett, also of the Fanny Wright school, who, in 1833, moved in the legislature of
New York, to lay on the table the motion for daily prayers during the Session, and thus stifled
the public recognition of Providence— are to make laws for the States ? Like the dog in the
manger, the political abolitionists will neither eat hay, nor allow a hungry ox to eat it.
Vet more than this :— Suppose— for there is no reasonable motive for such action without
some hope of success— Suppose, that, by one step, and in one year, the political Abolitionists
could attain supreme power in the nation. Knowing their designs, because they are declared,
would not every reflecting man tremble at the consequences ? Are there many men in their -
own ranks, that would dare to look such a posture of public affairs in the face ? The same,
precisely, is the character, object, and peril of the enterprise, in the position which it now
occupies, and in the successive stages of its actual progress. Every man who votes that way
at the polls, incurs this tremendous responsibility. He can not disengage himself from the ob
ligations of an American citizen, and say, he will leave the Constitution to take care of itself,
or vote to break it down. The American Government may be imperfect in some of its parts
— what human edifice is not ? But it is a great, a responsible, a momentous trust, confided
to the ballot-box. It was a great compromise of feeling and interest between numerous par
ties, and was formed under circumstances of peculiar trial. Now, that some of the parties
have waxed strong by the profit of the Union, will they dare to take the responsibility of
upsetting it, because some one or more of it3 terms do not suit them ? Are they at liberty, at
conscientious men, to do it 1 The object they have in view, is neither within the sphere of
their political, nor of their social duty, however their moral feelings may be so inclined.
Surely they will not plead conscience to violate a contracted obligation, to go out on a mission
of benevolence ! 20. The spirit of bragging.
It gives us pain and anxiety, whenever we hear people of one part of the Union boasting,
that they can do without the other. We entreat all such to consider, that the American Gov
ernment, and American society, imperfect though it may be, cost too much to be made thus
light of. It is too important in itself, and too important as a spectacle to the world. From
the time of its setting up till this hour, the whole world have heen gazing at it as a great ex
periment, and it still occupies that position in the public eye of mankind. And are we whs
are responsible for its operation, and for the results it may work out, so to trifle with the
trust, as to commit it all to the winds of chance again, because it is not so perfect as we could
wish ? — Do we prefer the hazards of a civil commotion, for the possibility of a more speedy
social improvement, to the slower progress of a pacific reform !
21. Misrepresentation — Exaggeration.
The way to excite sympathy, is to sketch a strong and glowing picture of suffering under
injustice. It is in this way, that abolition preachers, lecturers, books, and papers, have labor
ed to work on the feelings of those who know nothing of slavery by actual observation. They
have misrepresented facts, and given exaggerated accounts. They have not only been care
ful to tell nothing but the worst things of slavery, but they have made the bad worse than it is.
Not to justify slavery — God forbid we should do that — it is nevertheless true, that nearly all
the evils ascribed to it, may be found in other regions and in other relations of society, in forms
equally aggravated, though not, perhaps, in. cases equally numerous. Do we hear of owners
of slaves treating them with great severity, or maiming, or killing them, in a fit of passion 1
The same is to be found in the relations of masters and apprentices, of parents and children,
of husbands and wives, in the free States. Are slaves, in some cases, as on the cotton, sugar,
and rice plantations, over-worked ? If we take the evidence of British Parliamentary records,
furnished by Government Commissioners, there is a greater amount of oppression of this kind
inflicted on the half million, of operatives in British manufactories, than on the whole too
million and a half of slaves in the United States, as derived from any sources of evidence
whatever. Does the extensive mingling of European and African blood evince the prevalence
of the crime that produced it ? We have not, indeed, the same species of evidence to establish
this indictment against the white population ofthe free States; but there are other proofs of
the fact to a wide extent. To the domestic slave-trade, and its consequent moral and social
evils there is confessedly no exact parallel in the free States; nevertheless, there are practices
of the same moral character, leading to like results. As to acts of cruelty and inhumanity,
of maiming and killing, they are not peculiar to a state of slavery ; and the interest of masters
in preserving unhurt the physical constitution of their slaves, is a better security against in
humanity than any laws of society. In British manufactories, masters have not the same
motives of interest to preserve the physical vigor of operatives by humane treatment, as the
maimed and the helpless are cast on the parish. Hence we find, that the human constitution
is more frequently destroyed, in British factories, by overwork and cruel treatment, thaa
among the slaves of the United States. A case of the latter is rarely to be found, while those
of theVormer are numerous.

This, we believe, is a fair statement. - But it would doubtless subtract somewhat from the
force of abolition preaching, among those who depend for information on the lecturers.
' 22. But it is slavery.
This can not be denied. But the Abolitionists are doing nothing to help that. Not a single
step have they yet taken fending to relieve the doom, but every measure they have adopted,
has only served to confirm it, and to make it worse. They proclaim liberty, and establish.
slavery. , They have stepped into the path of emancipation, arrested its progress, and put it
back, no one can tell how long.
¦;¦ 23. Properly in the persons of men.
This idea is made much of by Abolitionists, and claims some notice, as an alleged attribute
of slavery. All we have to consider is, what it amounts to in the case. We agree and
maintain, that ho being can claim property in the persons of men, but the Maker of us all.
We do not think it matters much what the terms of law in such cases may be, if we can. get at
the grounds and essence of the title.
The law allows to the father a term of service on the part of his son, till he is twenty-one
years of age, for the expense of his bringing up ; and to the master of an apprentice, it also
awards a term of service for the value of the art communicated. This right is property. But
it is not property in the person of the son, or of the apprentice, but in his services. To
secure this service, the law gives to the father or master power over the person of the son or
apprentice, as ai means to the endV and without which the end could not be relied on. If the
son or apprentice runs away, the law and the civil power may be invoked for the recovery
and control of his person. The service being a right, the person must necessarily go along
with it.
In the same manner, the law, in slave States, secures to the master the possession and control
of the person of the slave, for the end of his services, and the service, not the person, is the
property. The law is the keeper of the person, and comes in between the owner and slave,
between the father and son, between the master and apprentice, to enjoin proper treatment,
and lo specify penalties for improper treatment ; in other words, to secure the rights of the
slave, the son, and the apprentice. The law gives to both parties rights. But, whatever may
be the terms of law, accidentally given, here or there, neither the master, nor father, nor
society itself, has property in the persons of men — but God only.
The same remarks are applicable to the relations of husband and wife, of the employer
and the employed, and of all parties bound to serve each other. The law gives command of
persons, to secure the end of service, and service is property. The objection to property in
persons, therefore, applies equally to all relations of life, in which service is contracted, or
enacted, because, in each case, the claim is the same. It is based on the same principle, .
ratified by the same authority, made available by the same means, that is, the law — and is the
same thing. But the claim of property in the persons of men, we hold to be impious, as it
implies the Creator's right, without having the Creator's power, to kill and make live again.
We do not see how it can be shown, that the rights arising from the relation of husband
and wife; of the father over the child in minority, or of the master over the apprentice during
the period ofthe indenture, are "natural rights," or that they belong to a " state of nature."
On the contrary, they seem to us, to arise out of the obligations ofthe social state, as ordained"
by God in the case of marriage, and by society in all three of the cases. They have put to
silence and rendered of no avail the claims of " natural rights," and merged them in the social
state. Is it not so ? — What is the difference between these three cases and that of the slave,
except that in two of the former the period of service is not for life t — What law of nature or
" natural right" made twenty-one years the term of a man's infancy 1 — Will the Abolitionists
plead " natural rights" against this 1
. 24. The term of service.
We do not at present think of but two cases, in which the term of service, of one party U
another, is made for life, and these are between husband and wife, and between master anJ
slave. If, because, for the sake of illustration, we have happened here to put those two re
lations in such juxtaposition, it should be imputed to us, that we hold the wife to be a slave.
it would be injustice. In law, the wife has power over the person of her husband, in hei
claim for service and protection, as truly as the husband has over the wife, for the appropri
ate functions of that relation. In law, too, the slave has power over the person of his master,
for all the duties which the master owes to him, nor can the master escape from his
obligations. He is obliged to take care of and provide for the slave, in health or sickness, til]
death. It is observable, that the relations of husband and wife, and of master and slave, have ex
isted from the beginning of society, and that God has prescribed rules for both, in the Old
Testament and the New. There is this difference, however, that God did not institute sla
very. On the contrary, we> believe, that the perfection of society, under the influence of ,

Christianity, will remove it from the face of the earth, while the sacred itutitution of mar
riage will abide. That of slavery is profane. ""
25. Immediate abolition.
Suppose it could be effected. The liberated slaves, two millions nnd a half, must either go
to work on wages, or be a public burden and a public nuisance. Doubtless the plan is, that
they should go to work, as free men. What would be the effect of this on the white laborers,
Americans Germans, Irish, and all ?-White laborers, working on wages, are much less
numerous than the slaves, probably not more than half so manv, and we are inclined to think
not more than one fourth. These overwhelming numbers of liberated slaves, dispersed over
the Union, are then to come at once into competition, on the platform of free labor, with the
white laborers. Is not the effect to be produced by this cause on the price of labor obvious?
It would certainly seem hard to bring such a suggestion to operate against the colored race
it indeed they are entitled to the same rights, in the same society, with the white laborers of
this country. Nevertheless, it is a consideration which can not be overlooked by the white
laborer, and which would operate with tremendous energy on his feelings, the moment he
should find his chances of life diminished, cut down, fifty per cent., more or less, by such a
change. We doubt whether it would be possible to maintain the tranquillity of the country
under such a system. Rather, it is obvious, that it would be impossible.
There, too, is the social standing of these parties under the proposed system. . It ia, if we
understand it, that both should be brought to the same level. They are to live together in. the
same families — are they not ?— sit at the same table, sleep ia the same bed, &c, &c. Where
is the plan to stop ? The scheme proposed, is amalgamation — is it not ?— amalgamation of
blood, and amalgamation of society. The principles propounded for the change, we take it, do
not stop short of this. The two races, then, must intermarry. The white man is to give his
daughter to the black man, and his son is to marry a black woman. Is it to be supposed,
in this march to a full and perfect equality, that the colored race will be satisfied with any
thing less ? — Where is the stopping point — the line of separation — the barrier, beyond which '
the proposed reformation is not to be carried ? The colored people are to be candidates for
any and all places of society — are they not ? — All places of honor and public trust, the learn
ed professions, offices of the States and the nation, we suppose, are to be open to them, as
freely as to the whites. This, we take it, is the theory, and intended to be the practice — viz :
a complete system of amalgamation, and a universal equality of rights. If it is not so, will any
one inform us ? — We desire not to mistate the case.
26. Another view of the results of this scheme.
The African race, in the same circumstances, is more prolific than the European race, from
which we spring. The Africans in the United States, slaves and free, are now about equal to
the entire population of the States when our Independence was established. Of course, their
relative numbers, in a state of equality, would be constantly gaining upon the whites, till
eventually they would have the majority. With equal rights, social and political, they would
then have a fine chance to avenge themselves for former inequalities. Can it be imagined they
would not be disposed to avail themselves of it ? Observe the present efforts of the blacks of
St. Domingo to put down the Mulattoes. But the hatred between whites and blacks, once
brought into a similar collision, would far exceed that, and probably end only in the extermin
ation of one party. Who will take the responsibility of putting those two races in such a
relative position, as to insure the destruction of one or the other ?
27. An experiment proposed.
Why not begin with the half million of colored people now free in the free States ? There
are enough to make a fair trial. Let the Abolitionists set the example, take them into their
families, marry them to their children, &c, &c, and admit them in all things to a full equal
ity, according to their notions. There 13 the finest opportunity imaginable to test this ques
tion, if material is what is wanted. Here it is. Why ask for more, until this has been used
up. If they had never thought of it, they will doubtless be obliged to us for the suggestion.
Is it not a reasonable proposal ? Let them set about it, and once accomplished on a smaller
scale  no one will say it is not large enough to make a fair experiment — yes, once accom
plished, they will have a good argument for their cause. But they wish to force us into it —
do they ? And force us all. That is what we supposed.
28. Two instructive facts.
The natural and unsubduable aversion of the white race to the black — the cause, doubtless,
is physical— is fully demonstrated in the social position of the free colored people, in the free
States. There the claim to equality is distinctly made by the position of the parties. Is it
admitted ? Never ; and the claim creates the aversion. The position of the colored race, in
the free States, is on this account truly deplorable. It is not so in the slave States. There,
where the claim is not made, there is no aversion — none at all— but the two races cling to each
other and love each other, in the relative and recognised position which they occupy. Let
the philosopher, or the Christian, account for these facts. For they are unquestionable.

10
We say, that the claim to equality creates the aversion. , There will be no doubt of this,
with a man who observes the facU, and reflects upon them. The mutual respect and anec-
tion, which exist between these two races, in the slave States, as developed in their domestic
and social relations, we will venture to say, are not exceeded anywhere in human society.-
And the respect and affection will be found on both sides. But, in the free States, where the
claim to equality is asserted by the position of the parties, you never find a white person lov
ing a black one, or a black person loving a white one, and they have very little mutual re
spect of a social kind, if any at all. We speak of facts, which everybody knows.
29. Deduction.
God has made a difference— a difference in nature, that is, in the physical constitution. We ,
do not mean to decide the question of natural superiority, for we all know, that, in ancient
times, the Africans were altogether superior, and that Europe owes its civilization to Africa.
Nor do we mean to take up a position to contradict the inspired saying, " that God hath made
of one blood all nations," when it is rightly interpreted. But there is a difference founded
in nature, and the results of experience are sufficient to show, that the two races can not
amalgamate in society. Put the whites and blacks of this country on the Abolition platform,
and then leave them, where they must be left, to their own instincts— does any man doubt
what would be the consequence 1 Even the shades of difference, between the mulatto and
black man, in Hayti, have set them to butchering each other.
30. Must slavery, then, U ptrpttual ? >J
It by no means follows, that it must. There is as obvious tendency in human affairs to
its total abolition. But the grand results of Providence can not be precipitated. We observe
the attention of Europe and America simultaneously directed to Africa, in rival enterprise, to
explore the Continent, to develop its resources and capabilities, to Christianize and civilize
its tribes, to suppress the slave trade, to present inducements for lawful commerce, and to
elevate the people to an honorable social existence. All admit that the torrid regions of Africa
are the natural home of the colored races, and that Europeans can not live there. What
mere possible, or what more probable, in the great circles of Providence, than that the scat
tered portions of the race should be re-established in the land of their ancestors, finding there
and carrying with them the blessings of civilization and Christianity ? If Europe and Amer
ica should do this work — they seem even now to be doing it — it would be at least a partial
atonement for the wrongs they have done to the race. And God, from his throne above,
might say to them in the end — For your debasements I chastised you with centuries of for
eign bondage, and bid your masters, whom ye served, to restore you.
.,..',,- 31. Two other facts.
First, It can hardly fail to strike the mind of the scrutinizing observer of the ways of Prov
idence, that the transplantation of portions of the African race to this Western world, and to
other parts of the globe, even as slaves, ha3 been the means of their elevation in the scale of
human beings. Secondly, Nor is it less observable, as a matter of fact, that no other equal
portion of the race, anywhere to be found on earth, 13 in so good a condition, socially, mor
ally, and physically—their bondage only excepted — as the slaves of the United States. We
present these great facts, not as a justification of slavery — far from it — but as an intimation
of a beneficent scheme of Providence, to bring good out of evil, and out of the evil actions
of men, and by a protracted course of discipline over this self-debased people, — (nothing
could be lower than what they were,) — ultimately to raise them to a respectable and indepen
dent rank among the nations of the earth. It is true, that a portion of the slaves of this
Union are yet doomed to a hard bondage; but it is no less true, that many of them are raised
to a very high social condition, as compared with any thing known of their former history,
and their intellectual and moral powers stand developed with a brightness and vigor that
would do honor to tbe European race. Their improvement, both for this life and the next,
was a popular object, and in good progress, till this political abolition from the North put it
in check, and turned it backward. None can deny, who visit the slave States, with candid
minds, that they generally find the slaves — always the domestic servants— more intelligent,
more happy, and in all respects better off, than their free brethren in the free States.
These comparative aspects in the history of the race, are doubtless proper subjects of con
sideration in the moral question involved in their present condition. While it is claimed for
them, that we are bound to admit them to a full equality with us, when every feeling of na
ture revolts at the proposal, and when the grant would threaten injury to the country, it is
suitable to inquire whether they have a right to demand it at our hands ? Candidly, we do
not think they have. All Christian regards, ourselves being judges, (we do not like to take .
the judgment of Abolitionists,) we will cheerfully render to them. But will any one say that
Christianity requires the daughter of a white man to marry a black man; or that it enjoins
other associations of the kind ? Has Heaven ever smiled on such connexions ? Con it smile
upon them ?• We propose that the Abolitionists try it first. • ;;,_

11
32. Republican inconsistency— American Declaration of Independence.
The following clause ofthe Declaration of American Independence :— « We hold these truths
to be sell-evident— That all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights ; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"—
is olten quoted, in the ears of Americans, with the finger pointed to American slavery; nor
a?" !!L i delued> t-hat ,he principles here announced, are a condemnation of the fact.
iNevertneless, the purpose for which that Declaration was framed, and the object to which it
™el th,e™ .aPPlied> wa3 simply to deny the divine right of kings, and the claimed prerogatives
ol high birth, and to assert and establish the right of a people to govern themselves. That
the principles here stated are more comprehensive than this, there is no doubt, and that they
apply to slavery anywhere, must also be admitted. But there is no inconsistency in this De
claration, as it was applied by those who framed and adopted it, they having exclusive regard
to the relations of the Colonies to the British Crown, and to the tyranny of the latter over the
lormer. Thomas Jefferson, the Author of the Declaration, professed to be an emancipationist. His
views on slavery were frequently and freely expressed, and the following passage in his original
draft of the Declaration of Independence, not adopted, will show where he'put the blame :—
" He" (the king) « has waged cruel war against tinman nature itself, violating its most sacred
rights of life and liberty, in the persons of a distant people,\v\io never offended him, captivating
and carrying them into slavery in . another hemisphere, or to incur a miserable death in their
transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium ol' infuUl powers, is the warfare
of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Mem
should be bought and sold, he ha3 prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative
attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of
horrors might want no fact of distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise
in arms against us, aad to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering
the people upon whom he also obtruded them — thus paying oft' former crimes committed against
the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of
another." Mr. Jefferson also took the first opportunity, after the separation, and during the war, to
cause an act to be passed in the Virginia legislature, to prohibit the importation of slaves.
And the other slave States" followed the example.
33. Slavery a wrong.
Slavery is undoubtedly a wrong done to the natural rights of those enslaved, and the earliest
possible emancipation, when unable to gain their own freedom, will be contrived and effected
for them by those who appreciate the value of the right. But when it is to be effected by
offices of mediation, it is a moral enterprise, and the master is to be consulted. If it is to be
done by force, it is a political enterprise, and the cast must be counted.
34. But the wrong should be righted, and righted now.
That it should be righted, ¦we agree; but that righting it now, will itself be right, is a
question; and that may depend on many other questions. 1. It may depend on who did the
wrong. If he can be found, it is doubtless incumbent on him to set about righting it instantly.
2. If he can not be found, the question is, who is to act as his substitute? 3. It may depend
on the present condition of the subject of the wrong. 4. In any case, it depends on who is to
undertake it. As a crusade, it might be a wrong interference. 5. As to the great, complicated,
stupendous question of slavery, questions equally great, complicated, and stupendous, are in
volved in its abolition. ,35. The Buffalo Abolition Convention — Their Manifesto.
In August, 184:?, a national Convention of political Abolitionists assembled at Buffalo, N.
Y., and nominated a President and Vice President of the United States, to be voted for in
1844, at which time they published the following Manifesto, as their latest craed, which, we
suppose, i3 the best authority :
" Whereas, The Constitution of these United States is a series of agreements, covenants, or contracts be
tween the people of the United States, each with all and all with each ; and
" Vfhereas, it is a principle of universal morality, that the moral laws of the Creator are paramount to all
human laws ; or, in the language of the Apostle, that •' we ought to obey God rather than men ;" and
" Whereas, tha third clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United
States,— when construed as providing for the surrender of a fugitive slave— does "rest upon such -a basis,"
in that it is a contract to rob a man of a natural right— namely, his natural right to his own liberty ; and, is
therefore, absolutely void—.
" Therefore, Resolved, That we hereby give it to be distinctly understood, by this nation and the world,
that, as Abolitionists, considering that the strength of our cause lies in its righteousness, and our hope for
lt in our conformity to the Laws or God and our respect for the Eiohts or Man, we owe it to the Sovereign
Ruler of the Universe as a proof of our allegiance to Him, in all our civil relations and offices, whether
as private citizens, or as public functionaries sworn to support the Constitution of tie United States, to

12
regard and to treat the third clause of the fourth article of that instrument, whenever applied to the case>
of" a fugitive slave, as utterly null and void, and consequently, as forming no part of the Constitution of
the United S:ates, whenever we are called upon, or sworn, to support it."
As we are not in controversy with these gentlemen as to the validity of the claim of the
slave to his emancipation, we fully according thereunto, but only as to their mode of accom
plishing the end, and also as lo the ground on which this document asserts the claim, we ask
attention to a few remarks on the Manifesto itself.
It must be confessed, that this is an extraordinary, and a somewhat startling document.
How the conscientious men of their party will be able 'Ho digest the Resolution that sets aside a
part of the Constitution of the United States, pronouncing it " utterly null and void," which,
indeed, annihilates it, " as forming no part of the Constitution," is more than we can say.
It is manifest, that a right to strike out this part, is a right to strike away the whole; and so
far as we can see, the blow at this part, is a blow at the whole. We can not feel it is too
much to say, that that sacred and venerable Charter of our Government, the cost of which
shook this Continent and shook the world, is here taken in hand, cast upon the ground, and
stamped upon, as of no worth and no authority.
The reasoning by which this act is justified, is no less extraordinary. The whole transaction
is based on the authority of religion, as interpreted by the actors, and invokes its highest
sanction, -; the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe." It is true, that another element of
authority is picked up, by going back to a supposed state of man before he enters into society,
commonly called " the state of nature," out of which grow « natural laws," and " natural
rights;" but religion is the foundation, superstructure, and finish of the whole. We will first
dispose of the profane part ofthe argument, or the law ofnairm part. - "J""
Let it be observed, that we do not undertake to disprove, that man has " natural rights,"
or that the claim of a slave to freedom is a valid one, both of which we fully accord to. We
only wonder, tliat a conclusion of such tremendous consequence, as that arrived at in this
document, should have no other profane authority (profane in distinction from sacred) brought
to its support, than the undefined rule of " natural right."
" The law of nature," says Blackstone, " is the will of God." Justinian says, " it is to
live honestly." Blackstone's comment on this, is, " not to injure society." " The founda
tion" of natural law, Blackstone says, is, " that man should pursue his own true and sub
stantial happiness," which, he adds, is " the substance of the law of God." He also says,
that K to know the law of nature, it is necessary to have recourse to reason ;" but he adds,
as man's li reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error," « immediate
and direct revelation, to be found only in the Holy Scriptures," is to be consulted.
Nathan Dane, the great American jurist, speaks of " the laws of nature and reason,
made by God himself." " The law of nature," he says, " is a perfect rule, but is understood,
only by a right use of reason." . "A state of nature," he says, "wants a common judge,"
which society sets up. Again : — " Civil laws are those of nature modified and perfected."
Again : — " A state of nature is a state of despotism and wretchedness," because, " if one may
do as he pleases, another may, and each is his own judge, and judges the Judges." He says that
justice in this way is obtained, " not probably more than once in twenty cases." Again : —
" In a state of nature, heated and passionate men are the judges." " Hence," he says, " it
is easy to see how much this poor free man's liberty, so much extolled by some, is worth to
him, on the whole."
We have made these quotations, merely to show what an indefinite and unsettled rule the law
of nature is. The more we cite legal authorities to this point, the more we shall be puzzled.
They themselves don't pretend to understand it. Like sensible men, they set themselves to
determine what law is as fixed by society, and they know no other. That there are " natural
rights," which men may be compelled to resort to on emergencies, there is no doubt ; but, in
stead of being the best, or even good authority, in the social state, they are the worst and
most dangerous possible. They are for extremities, as a necessity, not for common use. The
result of the whole is, as stated above, by Mr. Dane — that " civil laws are those of nature
modified and perfected." The aims of the structure of civil jurisprudence have been, to as
certain, as well as could be, the law of nature, so called, by a general concurrence of opinion, '
and with Christian jurists, as Blackstone above intimates, by consulting '•' an immediate and di
rect revelation," the Bible. The best authority, therefore, is not to go back to a state of nature
— for that is where man first began, and is, as Mr. Dane above says, " a state of despotism and
wretchedness;" — but it is to consult that system of jurisprudence, which the wisdom and jus
tice of many ages, and the most civilized and Christion nations, have established.
A man alone in the world, in a state of nature, would doubtless have a right — call it "nat
ural," if you please — to anything he can lay his hand upon — a right to go where he pleases,
and do what he pleases, except as his Creator might command otherwise. But the moment
he enters into society, this liberty, or system of natural rights, is abridged, while other rights
are multiplied ; and if the state of society is good, his newly-acquired rights arc more valua-

13
We. His former liberty, or natural rights, yield to the regulations of society ; and we can not
think of any one of them which may not be affected, or even taken away, by such regula
tions. The right to breathe, for example, is the strongest of all natural rights ; but society
assumes the right to stop a man's breath by hanging, if hi3 acts should expose him to such
a sentence of the law. We can not conceive of a government of law, which recognises any
other authority than that of the laws themselves, in determining social rights. They may be -
right, or they may bp wrong. Nevertheless, while they exist, they are the rule. To oppose
them, is rebellion ; to live without law, is anarchy ; or what Mr Dane calls the " despotism
and wretchedness of a state of nature." To give " ?ia/ura2 rights" as authority to resist
law, is the most indefinite rule, and the most dangerous authority, that could be adduced.
And yet, let it be observed, that " natural right" is the only authority, on which this Buffalo
Abolition Convention Manifesto is founded ! It is first assumed, then merged in religion, and
" the Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is made responsible for the result ! He is appealed to,
his sanction is invoked, and it is all done in his name 1 The whole of it, from beginning to
end, is a religious business, based on a religious sentiment ! Read it, and judge.
36. The proper rule.
We take the settled and definite opinions of mankind, as collected and recorded in the most
approved systems of civil jurisprudence, and as established in the most free Governments and
most liberal institutions of human society, to establish the claim of the slave to his freedom.
These are recognised authorities, from which nobody can escape. The American Declaration
of Independence alone is sufficient. And we take these established principles,, to work with
them by ways and means equally well established. Here is the essential, the vital, the mo
mentous point, in which we differ from political Abolitionists.
37. Church and State.
There is not a more religious people in the world, than we of the United States; yet no
people have been more scrupulous, by theix State papers, by practised legislation, and by
general feeling, in separating religion from a participation in the authorities of State. They
give full scope to the moral influence of rehgion, but jealously deny to it political power.
If there be any one principle more firmly settled in the public mind of this country, or better es
tablished, by universal consent, and with fixed purpose, than mxother, or all others, we ttfufc it is,
THAT RELIGION SHALL NOT USURP AUTHORITY IN THE AFFAIRS OF GOVERNMENT.
38. Political Abolition a religious movement.
Look at this Buffalo Manifesto. Is it not a religious document I « The moral law3 of tbe
Creator are paramount to aU human laws ;" « we ought to obey God, rather than man ;"
" considering that, as Abolitionists, the strength of our cause lies in its righteousness, and
our hope for it in our conformity to the laws of God ;" « we owe it to the Sovereign Ruler of
the Universe, as a proof of our allegiance to Him," &c, " to regard and to treat the third
clause of the fourth Article of the Constitution of the United States," &c, "as utterly null
and void," &c. Is not religion the rule, the sanction, the everything involving responsi
bility in this transaction ? Nor is it a declaration of principles to suffer, but of principles to
act ¦ nor of submission, but of aggression ; nor for the use of moral means alone, but to take
hold on political power ; they are- a political party, and were at that moment assembled to
nominate a President and Vice President of the United States ! '
Men, making the highest religious pretensions, have taken lead, and are at the head of the
movement; numerous religious papers are employed to advocate it; a large corps of religious
missionaries are in the field to preach it ; numerous churches and pulpits are chiefly devoted
to it and are thence called Abolition Churches ; its most religious Champion, Mr. Gerntt
Smith has publicly announced, that he will go forth, and preach the doctrine m Christian
pulpits, on the Christian Sabbath ; and religion everywhere is the high and holy sanction
relied upon to enforce the doctrine. Nearly all the political Abobtiomsts, and with scarcely
an exception, all the abolition preachers, lecturers, and missionaries, are religious men. It
is, indeed, a proper religiom enterprise. In this statement we have tlisclos ed A great, impor
tant, MOMENTOUS FACT.
39. Danger to the State oftenappears in quarters unexpected and in disguistd forms. ^
> From' post experience it would naturally be expected, that religion, seeking for power in
the State, would make its attempts throughEcclesiastical organizations. But, as the jealous eye
«f the American public is constantly fixed on all these bodies, and that of each rehgious sect is
en uaUvwatchful of every other, every incipient movement of thiskind would be liable to instant
Sure. We are not, therefore, aware, that there is any such danger from these quarters.
But from the well-known activity of the American mmd, and the special activity of the reli-
™ pStkms of aociety-all which is well, if well directed-it shordd not be deemed strange,
if unhallowed ambition should assume the garb ol religion, avail itself of the more popular
forms of American society, and attempt to direct the strong rehgious sentiments of the people

14
into improper channels, while the people themselves are honest and unapprized of the conse
quences ofthe movement into which they are being persuaded.
40. But " we must obey God rather than man."
So says the Buffalo Manifesto, having assumed the thing to be proved, viz :' that God com
mands it. It is obvious there is no answer to this reason, or no reasoning with such persons,
if they think they have such authority. If they could prove their mission by miracles, it
would be sufficient ; but as this is only their opinion, a sentiment of their own, the conscience of
those who think otherwise, is at least as good as theirs, and worthy of as much respect.
Other Christians, and the great majority think, that God has not commanded this ; that, in
the days of the Apostles, when the state of political society was a great deal worse than it is
now, anl slavery far worse and more extensive, as history attests, not only was submission to
" the powers that be," enjoined on all Christians, even to martyrdom, but "servants" (slaves)
were commanded "to obey their masters in all things,-" that St. Paul sent back Onesimus,
a fugitive slave, to his master, Philemon, to be treated according to his will, thereby recogni-
. sing Philemon's authority in the case ; that the Apostles not only had a special authority by
immediate revelation from God in regard to the matters referred to when they said, " We
ought to obey God rather than man," but that they did not say this as a reason for disobey
ing existing regulations of society ; that both Christ and his Apostles were most scrupulous
observers of all 3uch regulations, and could always defend themselves on that ground ; that
the duty of such submission to such authorities is paramount to man's individual right to
arraign the law ; that obedience to civil society results from Divine command ; that political
society, as it exists at any time, ia any place, is " the ordinance of God," requiring our sub
mission; that God's government, or Christ's kingdom is moral, in distinction from the political
edifices of man ; and that the design of Christianity is to avail itself of the order of political
society, without being responsible for its defects, to set all things right, by making all hearts
good. Hence, as they think, the scrupulous care and frequent injunctions of Christ and his
Apostles not to disturb society, as its peace and order are necessary to accomplish the aims of
Christianity. • 41. A Deduction. '"
If the above thoughts are correct— we believe they are — it will follow, that no man can,
with propriety-or good reason, invoke Divine authority to justify a use of political power in up
setting political society, or reforming the State. If a Christian employs political power to
attain what he thinks desirable in the State, he does it as a member of the political common
wealth, and not as being on a mission from God, armed with a Divine command, imperative
on himself, and which he may proclaim as imperative on all others. No Christian, in our
view, is authorized to invoke such a Divine sanction for such an act. It is, if we mistake
not, identical with the principle, which we, as American citizens and American freemen, in
our organization of political society, have very distinctly and very emphatically repudiated,
viz : the authority of religion in the State and orer it. And yet, as all will see, this is pre
cisely the sanction of the Buffalo Manifesto, and precisely the principle on which that docu
ment is founded. The American people have solemnly resolved and declared, against the
usurpation of authority in the State by religion. And yet, here it is, sprung upon us by sur
prise, by the public act of a public Convention, with the declared object of overrunning and
revolutionizing the State, and the first step taken has been to plant its foot on the Supreme
law of the land, proclaiming a part of it, " to this nation and to the world," "as utterly
NULL AND VOID" — " ABSOLUTELY VOID !" - l
42. The actual junction of religion and political power.
They have organized as a part)' on the platform of this religioso-political creed; they have
nominated a President and Vice President of the United States ; they have gone forth into the
field, established presses, opened churches, and set up pulpits ; they have an army of agents
and missionaries ; their candidate for the Presidency, himself acting as an agent and mission.
ari/,boasted in Faneuil Hall, Boston, that they had increased from 7,000 in 1839, to 35,000
in 1843 ; and that it is an actual junction of religion and political power, appears from the
facts, that religion is the sentiment, and the machinery of State the means employed to accom
plish the end. If we rightly understand the essential elements of Church and State united,
apart from the accidents of form, this appears to be the thing. It comprises the most potent
agencies of the kind recognised in history, as it takes hold of the fundamental power of the.
State, and would sweep all before it, when once it shall have gained the ascendency.
43. The Abolition Church.
It is the party, and the party is a religious brotherhood. They have one creed, one faith.
one baptism. To all others, intolerant and denunciatory, they regard themselves as the onlv
pure Church. They call, not only their political, but their religious opponents, " a brotherhood
of thieves," « manstealers," « robbers," " murderers/' « adulterers," « liars," " infidels," Jte.

15
We take these epithets, thus bestowed, as they come from their presses, and are heard from
their pulpits. 44. This the only mode by which Church and State can be united in this country.
If it is to come at all, it will not come in the forms heretofore known in history, but it will
steal upon us. The old form would be instantly recognised, and reprobated. But, to succeed,
it must take a form corresponding With the popular modes of action in American society.
Can anything be nearer to it than this ? It is the very model, the perfect type of our social
system, in an original popular movement. It is nothing more, nothing less, but the very
Ming. We have only to ask, what is the element of this movement ? Is it religion 7 Or is it
not ? If it is, then it is Church and State, and an attempt to unite the two.
45. This would be a fearful power, if it should prevail.
It is a power that mounts the hobby of one principle to ride overall others— a sword that
cuts all ties, however sacred, for the sake of cutting one admitted to be bad. They do not
consider, that the great principles of the moral and social system are numerous, all having
their respective claims, and that, like men in society, they modify each other, in their practical
application ; but they take one out from all the rest, and propound it as an abstraction to gov
ern the world — to break down every other that comes in its way.
It is no disparagement to state the well-known fact, that all religious sects have their fa
vorite opinions, and often one favorite opinion. Holding them dear, they of course wish to see
them reduced to practice, and if they had the power, they would not only urge them elo
quently, but, preadventure, would enforce them rigorously. It is for this reason that religion is
-hsid toTte a'aangerous power in the State — certainly so, until we can.be sure that the opin
ions adopted are sound. If a favorite opinion of a religious sect is unsound, and if it is to be
come a hobby in power, to be enforced any how, and by whatever means, it then becomes a ter
rible power. History exhibits too melancholy « record of devastations wrought in society by
this cause, not to be a solemn warning.
46. A difference between religion and true religion.
'-* There are a thousand, not to say ten thousand religions ia the world, but only one that is true ;
and there are forms of Christianity by no means free from error. As a general rule, the more
intolerant, fierce, and bloody a religion is, the farther is it from the pure religion of a pure
Christianity. Is not political abolition intolerant? Is it not fierce? And who will say,
that, in all its tendencies, it is not rushing onward to the opening of rivers and seas of
blood ? 47. The duty of all true Christians m regard to this movement.
The time is coming, has come, when religion, in the face and in violation of the American
political creed and of American fundamental political law, is to be made responsible for an
attempt to usurp the powers of State. It behooves all true Christians among us, to see, that
Christianity is not held responsible for this. Christianity, rightly interpreted and properly
understood, can not, in our view, be responsible for it. We do not deny, on the contrary we
admit and believe, that many true Christians, with sincere and conscientious minds, have been
and are being persuaded into the ranks of this religioso-political sect, and that it is chiefly
effected by an appeal to their religious feelings. They are persuaded to believe things which
are not true, and they listen to interpretations of Divine command, which are unwarranted
in the application that i3 made of them. The line of demarcation between " rendering unto
Caesar the things that are Csesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," is effaced from their
minds by the doctrines they read in abolition papers, and hear from abolition pulpits, and they
lose sight of that great and fundamental principle of American institutions, equally impor
tant and equally precious to all freemen and to all religiou3 sects, viz : that religion shall not
have authority in the State, and may not usurp it. They are told, that "we ought to obey
God rather than man ;" — but they are not told that one part of such obedience is to " submit
to the powers that be," that is, to the ordinances of civil society. The very precept that is
invoked to lead them astray, is most directly in point to keep them right. They do not see>
for the time being, though they may afterward see it with regret and sorrow, that religion,
taking hold of the machinery of State, as religion, is entirely out of place, not only in regard
to the design of our political institutions, but equally so in regard to the design of Christian
ity. The latter, in maintaining the character of a " kingdom not of this world," has a loftier
mission, and more universal functions, than to raise a conflict with political powers, by using-
Political weapons. Its errand is with the heart, and its power is over the heart. Its moral
power is disarmed, the moment it resorts to political power, and God is no longer with. it. The
spirit has fled, and it is not Christianity, whatever may be its pretensions; nor can Christian
ity be made responsible for that which its precepts and spirit alike forbid. If these are just
thoughts, every true Christian, as well as every true patriot, will be apprized of bis duty in
regard to pohtical abolition. Most respectfully? most kindly, and with affectionate concern,

16
would we implore those Christians, who have honestly enlisted in this enterprise, to pause and
consider. Their allegiance to God is doubtless first, highest, and most sacred. It is for that
we invoke their allegiance to the State, because God has enjoined it. We implore them to
consider both the scandal and prejudice that will attach to Christianity, by forcing religion-
into a political warfare, by buckling upon it a political harness, and putting into its hands
political weapons, for an inevitable discomfiture. Can it for a moment be imagined, that the
American people, having once opened their eyes to such an attempt, will tolerate it 7
-..,.,.' 48. Great Britain and American Abolition.
In the political aspects of this question, it is scarcely possible for us to shut our eyes to the
fact, that American citizens should stand up in the world's Convention at London, and pander
to the lust of empire, and of the world's empire, nourished in that capital and by the Govern
ment of that country, by denouncing the Government of the United States, and conspiring
with those who would embrace the first opportunity to overturn our institutions in a servile
and civil war. That the policy of Great Britain is morally allied to the abolition movement
of this country, is certain. The language that has been used by American Abolitionists, in
Exeter Hall, London, and in other public places of that empire, can not but be regarded as
utterly hostile to that fealty which every American citizen owes to the Government of his
country. When words, and such words, are so strong, can the heart be right ? If they have
not already conspired, can there be any doubt, that they would at any moment conspire with
the- Government of that country to overthrow the Government of this, to accomplish their
end ? — Doubtless the? aro-Jooked upon a* fsUow-icorkezs, whenwsrktheJatohGoyerriment
shall have occasion to employ them. ^s "¦

49. The denationalizes influence of political abolition.. -
The conduct of American Abolitionists abroad, as above referred to, is an anomaly in the
results of human society ; at .east, it is what no one could have anticipated, or would have
predicted. If, indeed, there be anything ia political abolition, which can so utterly denation-
.i.alizt Americans born, and set them against .their own country, to denounce it publicly ia
foreign parts, and to show a disposition to enter into any conspiracy to. overthrow the Ameri-
. can Government, it is high time that so unpatriotic a movement be understood, and appre
ciated.. 50. Perjury.
We must farther solicit that honest and conscientious portion of the community, who, with
( the most upright designs, have, as we believe, been seduced by the leaders of political aboli-
'- tion into that faith, to consider the position in which they are placed as religious men, by ad-
; hering to and acting with the Abolitionists, in the way proposed. How can they, as. Amer
ican citizens, bound by all the solemnities of- an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and
Government of the United States — for that oath is always implied in a ballot, and in many
States actually administered as- a qualification — how can they subscribe to such a declaration
as the Buffalo Manifesto, and then vote the abolition ticket, or how can they vote that
ticket at all, having such a declared object, without contracting the stain of perjury on thtii
¦souls? And is not the Manifesto itself a subornation of perjury I •'-}¦¦ .
-.' .. 51. Another view of this perjury.
'-- It is certainly a most extraordinary case, as it is perjury proposetl — and publicly proposed.
In this view it is shameless. It is farther than crime has ever before presumed, to go. But
observe the spectacle it would present, if it were carried out. The proposal and enterprise
is, to obtain a political ascendancy in the national councils, and to elect the Federal officers,
to administer the Government of the country. They invite this whole nation to perjure them
selves at the ballot-box ! Is it not saf — What a scene wouWthat be-! -Aiidnheysetup lhe-s
pulpit of religion to.persuadc them into it ! They profess to io it all in the name and by the
sanction of "the Supreme Ruler of the Universe!" •¦¦¦-.
When they shallhave accomplished this end, the President, elect is to stand up before the .-
, nation and the world, and take the following oath -. — " I do solemnly swear, that I will faith-
' fully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability,
'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." And he is to do this, with
a proclamation in his right hand, before uttered and published, that he will do neither, and that
he will violate every part of this oath. And the Vice President, and every memberof Congre" '
'' and every Federal Officer, throughout the land, belonging to this party, is to do the same Uf
' Was such a scene ever before projected to he enacted in human society ! — How it is.p/
to come to any other result, under the Buffalo Manifesto, we are utterly unable to si.,
'tierjured people, a. perjured Government, a perjured nation, punishing, in a common con
•'^josticej-witbthe heaviest penaltiev10"1* by which they attained their eminence .','*

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39002 00116'