Chapter VII

THE ANARCHICAL PRINCIPLES OF ABOLITIONISM.

_Nous verrons_--Onward! seems to be alike the maxim and tendency of all violent reforms. It may be said, that Abolitionism has at last come to a fair and palpable _denoument_, in the formation of the _New England Non-resistence Society_, which was organized at Boston, in September, 1838, with William Lloyd Garrison, and such others, men and _women_, leaders. The fundamental principle of this new association is _identical_ with that of the Abolition movement. Both hinge upon the same pivot. Indeed, it will be found, that all the violent reforms of our country are based upon this. It is stated in the Constitution of the Non-resistence Society in the following terms: “It appears to us a self-evident truth, that whatever the Gospel is designed to _destroy_ at any period of the world, being contrary to it, ought _now_ to be abandoned.” The mischievous element of this proposition, as reduced to practice by the violent reformers, is _occult_, and would appear in its naked form by substituting for the last word “_abandoned_,” that of _destroyed_--“ought _now_ to be _destroyed_;” for these reformers do not admit, that those customs and laws, judged by their interpretation of the Gospel unlawful, may be retained till _persuasion_ shall produce reform, and simply preach, that they “_ought_ to be _abandoned_.” But they clearly show their meaning is, that they “ought to be _destroyed_” and that it is not only lawful, but praiseworthy and a duty, to destroy them. _Destruction_ is the ruling power of the code; and society, the world, is to take its chances for the setting up of a better state of things.

Now, we maintain, that this is a fair statement of the principles of Abolitionism, and of all other of the violent movements. Their doctrine of _immediatism_--if we may invent a new term--is always one and the same, and always has been. Wherever they find an evil, or wrong--_Down with it_--is the rule. _Fiat Justitia, ruat calum_--a sound principle, certainly; and a good maxim, in prudent hands; but a terrible one, in rash hands.

It is a good thing, and a very instructive result, that the principles of these Destructives have at last come out, and been openly published to the world, in the Constitution and “Bill of sentiments,” adopted by the New England Non-resistance Society. There is now no longer a disguise. They openly renounce allegiance to all government: “_We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government!_” Here, then, it is, fairly ushered into the light of day--_a condition of universal anarchy_, the proclaimed Jubilee of these reformers. We have only to say, that this new Society has come honestly and openly to the end, to which all the _Immediatists_ of whatever name, are rapidly advancing. The maxim--_Down with it_--which governs them all, and which is the soul, body, and foundation of their enterprise--cannot stop short of anarchy. There is nothing of importance in the avowed principles of this new Society, revolting and shocking as they are, which is not a legitimate consequence of Abolitionism; or, by the remotest degree of relationship, cousin-german to it. In the first place, they renounce allegiance to human government; the Abolitionists, to be consistent, ought to do the same; for they have made open war against it. _They_ have announced the doctrine of _Immediatism_[1] as their fundamental principle; that also is the fundamental principle of the Abolitionists. _They_ have levelled all distinctions in society, of rank, color, caste, and _sex_; and the doctrines of Abolitionism, carried out, have legitimately led them to this. _They_ have proclaimed the Agrarian principle, in all forms of application, and denied the right of defending property, or any civil inheritance, by human authority, or force of arms; and Abolitionism requires the sanction of this principle to affect its designs. _They_ recognise but one ruler--the King of heaven; it is equally necessary for the Abolitionists to set aside the authorities of earth. _They_ have no country but the world, and no countrymen but mankind; the Abolitionists seem to be equally devoid of patriotism. _They_ avow that neither nations, nor individuals, have a right to defend themselves against aggression; this will be convenient, and even necessary, to Abolitionists, in the execution of their plans. _They_ pronounce the doctrine, that “the powers that be are ordained of God,” “an absurd and impious dogma;” this, too, will be convenient to the Abolitionists, and it might be supposed, they had adopted it. _They_ declare against all military preparations; we presume the Abolitionists are equally unfriendly to them, as they might prove uncomfortable opponents in their career. “As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its laws enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet,” _they_ “repudiate all human politics” and legislation; the Abolitionists are equally averse to the “politics” and legislation of the slave-holding States, and of course to the political fabric of the Union. _They_ deny the right of prosecution and indemnification for felony, which of course would be impossible, where there is no law; the Abolitionists deny the right of indemnification for the deprivation of property in slaves. _They_ deny the right of all punishment for crimes; this would be extremely convenient for Abolitionists. _They_ deny that their “doctrines are Jacobinical;” and why set up this defence before they are accused, except from the consciousness, that all the world will pronounce them so? The Abolitionists, too, as we think, are somewhat involved in this predicament. The members of this new Society are advocates of Non-resistance, _on one side_; and so are the Abolitionists: both are averse to being _opposed_, except so far as it may afford them the opportunity and title to plead the rights of the honest Connecticut negro’s conscience, who, being asked by his master, what it said, replied, “Why, Massa, it says, I _won’t_.” But the members of this Society are to be great fighters, after all, and that, too, in the way of _aggression_, as they claim the right and declare the purpose of making war “boldly, by the application of their principles, upon all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions;” that is, as one, remarking well on their scheme, hath it, “to take the greatest possible pains to get mobbed, persecuted, imprisoned, hung, and murdered.” And little pity would they get. They, of course, are the framers of their own conscience, and its interpreters; and that is the empire, the rights of which they claim, under their professions of _Non-resistance_. Allow any man that, and what, repudiating the restraints of law, could he ask more?

[Footnote 1: The abstract notion, that whatever is judged to be wrong in the customs or laws of society, _may_ and _must_ be broken down, or rooted out, _forthwith_, without any regard to consequences.]

But, notwithstanding the magisterial offices of society, they say, “We believe that the penal code of the old Covenant, ‘_An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth_,’ has been abrogated by Jesus Christ,” &c. In other words, we suppose, they mean to set aside the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures; of course, the Decalogue: and _in_ course, proceeding onward, the whole Bible. In this way, the Abolitionists would gain an important point, and procure the right of making a Bible to suit themselves. Thus endeth the career of violent reform--_in universal anarchy_. The New England Non-resistance Society is the climax; and it is remarkable, that there is scarcely a principle involved in the public declaration of their Creed, which, in some form of application, does not exactly suit the case and cause of the Abolitionists.--None, we apprehend, which does not very naturally and legitimately flow from it. _They were_ Abolitionists in the previous stage of their career, and one of them was the founder of Abolitionism.[2] It only happens, that he still keeps the lead; and he and his present associates are only more consistent and more honest, in having opened the entire budget to the public gaze. There are, indeed, some few _outré_ peculiarities of this new Association, ingeniously appended and incorporated, just enough to attract attention, and make it interesting as a curiosity. But there is nothing surprising in it, when we inquire into the causes which have generated the extravagant opinions, and set on foot the violent reforms, of our country. They may all be traced backward, through all their stages, and in all their connexions, under the broad and clear sun light of philosophical research.

[Footnote 2: Of Abolitionism in its modern garb of a violent reform--a totally, radically, and essentially, different thing from Emancipation in the sense attached to it before this agitation commenced. Abolitionism is now identified with an unconstitutional, and as we have proved, seditious interference of a combination of people in the free States, with the domestic condition of the slave States. It is shorn of the honors, both of a humane and patriotic enterprise, and merged in the responsibility of a political misdemeanor. This is the sense in which we use the term throughout this work; and we have supposed there was some foundation for ascribing the authorship of this movement to the gentleman above alluded to. Certainly, he was the most conspicuous actor, when it began to attract public attention. And behold! he is at the head, and we suppose at the bottom--(for we take for granted he must be the leader wherever he is)--of an Association set up professedly and without disguise, to overthrow all Government. This last stage--for we see not how it can go any further--is, in our esteem, an open and fair _denoument_ of the principles of Abolitionism. Not, indeed, that the Abolitionists, as a body, have any such designs--for we charitably suppose, and fully believe, they have not--but the action of their fundamental principle of _immediatism_, to gain, by a _coup de main_, a visionary state of _perfectionism_, cannot stop short of this.]

It is proper to remark, that, in the comprehensive picture given in this chapter, of the principles of the New England Non-resistance Society, we have taken the liberty to lay aside the garb in which they have presented them, except here and there a literal quotation, not only for brevity’s sake, but to show them in their naked form. We think, however, that we have not misrepresented; and even if we have done so, in any slight shades, the moiety of this delicious _morceau_, is enough to show the _taste_ of those who have swallowed it, and how the _physic_ is likely to operate. As to the feature of _non-resistance_, it is what is vulgarly called a “fudge,” they having reserved to themselves the privilege of conscience, according to their own interpretation of its prerogatives, and moreover declared their resolute and unflinching purpose to “_assail_ all existing institutions.” Besides, this _pretension_, to adopt their own language, is “a measure of sound policy;” for they could not otherwise be tolerated for a moment; and they hope to gain sympathy by _appearing_ not to resist, while they themselves are engaged in _open war_ on every thing that is valuable and dear to society. To show the connexion between this and things that had gone before, it is only necessary to quote one sentence from their own hand: “The triumphant progress of the cause of _Temperance_ and _Abolition_ in our land ... _encourages us_ to _combine_ our own means and efforts for the promotion of a STILL GREATER CAUSE.” Far be it from us, however, by this allusion, to disparage the Temperance reformation, any farther than the violent and overstrained part of it is concerned. And this qualification, we trust, will be satisfactory to all, whose good opinion we have any hope of enjoying.