Chapter VIII

THE INCENDIARY DOCTRINES OF ABOLITIONISM.

_Facit per alium, facit per se._ The accessory to a crime is by law, and in justice, made responsible with the principal. No man can deny, that the effect of the Abolition doctrines and measures on the slave-holding States, if they were not resisted, would speedily lead to insurrection and massacre; that scenes of this horrible kind would be constantly occurring, till the whole South would become a field of desolation. It is true, the Abolitionists say, it would not be so, if the slave-holders would give up. This, however is a justification, which, we suppose, is not likely to be admitted. Everybody knows, that the slave-holders will not give up, and that they are more remote from it now than when this agitation commenced. The Abolitionists are responsible for having, by their imprudence and rashness, rivetted the chains of slavery, and put far off the day of Emancipation, unless they shall succeed in breaking up society, by forcing abolition--the responsibility of which, we apprehend, would be immeasureably greater than that which now rests upon them. The right or wrong of slavery cannot now be discussed with any effect, because another great question has forced that aside. It is the question, whether the political fabric of the country, in relation to this subject, shall give way to violence? The claim of the slave to his freedom, we think, will never be listened to, till that is settled. We must take things as they are, and man as he is.

“No,” says the Abolitionist, “God forbid. We stick to _principle_; and our principle is, that the slave has a right to his freedom--a right paramount to any artificial and accidental state of society that exists, standing in the way of it; and the consequences of opposing this claim, _be_ on those who take this stand.” Is this a fair statement? We are inclined to think it is, as to those Abolitionists who lead and govern the cause. Certainly, we should be willing to state it in any other form, if we could do it more fairly. We only wish to know on what ground they stand, that we may know how to take them. From all we have been able to learn of their principles, we believe that the above statement does them no injustice.

Let us, then, observe the following facts: The slave-holders are resolved they will not give up; the Abolitionists are resolved they shall. The more the latter do, in the way they are now engaged, to accomplish their end, so much the more determined are the former to maintain what they claim to be their rights. The former point, first, to the Federal Constitution, as their security; next, to their own swords. Such, undoubtedly, is the true state of the case. The right of the slave to his freedom, as claimed by the Abolitionists in his behalf, is out of the question, till this political warfare is ended; and every step makes the case worse and worse. Such is the present position of the cause of Abolition in this country: the Abolitionists stick to their principle, that “the duty, safety, and best interests of all concerned, require the _immediate abandonment_” of slavery. Such is the language of their Constitution, italicised as above; and they are accustomed to press that principle by all the means in their power, _without regard to consequences_; and we think it may be fairly added, as a general fact, _without respect to the supreme law of the land_, which happens to be against them. They view the right claimed for the slave _paramount to all law that stands opposed_. We believe we do not mistake in this. Every one may see what such principles, carried out and enforced, lead to; and when we consider the certainty of their being opposed, and opposed to the last, we think it not unjust to pronounce them _incendiary_ in their character.

We will illustrate this state of things by a case of fact. We happened to be acquainted with a very estimable and exemplary clergyman, some ten years ago, or more, mild and benevolent in his disposition, bland in his manners, of unquestionable piety, and in all respects agreeable; but we observed, with some concern, that he appeared to be tending strongly to the way of violent reforms. In the spring of 1838 we were glad to meet him again, as an old friend; but found him thoroughly in for Abolition, according to the modern type. In the course of conversation, it was suggested, that Abolition, hardly pushed, would chance to make some bad work. “No matter,” said the gentleman, “the principle is sacred.” “And must be maintained at all events?” “Certainly.” “But it may occasion the effusion of blood.” “We can’t help it.” “There will be insurrections and massacres.” “That is the fault of those who committed the first sin; and they must take the consequences.” It will be seen, that they who committed the first sin, were out of the way many generations ago, and were never citizens of this country. “But, do you mean to advocate the _instant_ manumission of all slaves, without regard to consequences?” “Certainly. Slavery is sin; and all sin ought to be left off instantly.” “But do you not see, that slavery is interwoven with a complicated state of society, political and domestic; and that it is impossible to do it away _immediately_?” “No matter; it is wrong, and ought not to continue a moment.” “But your doctrine will produce anarchy.” “No--God will take care of that. God never required any thing, that will produce a bad result. Obedience to his will is always safe; and disobedience unsafe. Slavery is sin; and all sin should be repented _now_, radically and thoroughly, in practice as well as in heart.” “But, there is the law of the land.” “And there is the law of God, and of nature.” “But the law of God says, _the powers that be are ordained of God. Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey magistrates._” “That is a general rule, and was never intended to vitiate the authority of conscience. If it is to be construed strictly, and without exception, we had never had the Protestant Reformation, nor American Independence. The indefeasible rights of conscience, and of liberty, in the sense now maintained, may always be asserted, and ought to be.” “But may we go on a crusade, in behalf of others, for these objects?” “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, and shalt not suffer sin upon thy brother.” “Then you are in favor of carrying Abolition _forthwith_, as best it can be done, in despite of the law of the land, and without regard to consequences?” “Undoubtedly. It is impossible, there should be a higher law, than that asserted in this cause. The law of the land will never be altered, if we let it alone; and the only way to bring it about, is to press matters by agitation. There are always enough on the side of order, and we have no fear of consequences in so good and holy an enterprise,” &c. &c.

We have abridged this dialogue, and profess no more than to give the substance of it. And when we compare it with all we have seen, heard, and read on the side of Abolition, and with the ordinary features of the movement, we see not but it is a fair representation. Any persons, however, are at liberty to qualify it, as they may think it deserves. There are, doubtless, Abolitionists of all shades and degrees; but there is a common ground, on which those who constitute the strength of the movement, meet. We suppose it ought to be allowed, that most of them _profess_ respect for the authority of law on this point, and that they intend nothing but Constitutional modes of reformation. The Constitution of their great Society, proposes “to do all that is _lawfully_ in our power to bring about the extinction of slavery.” But every one construes the law for himself; and generally, that is lawful, which sets up the right of the slave to his freedom, as paramount to the law of the land. That we do no injustice to Abolitionists by these statements, is open to proof, by the high authority of the last Annual Report of their Parent Society, in which, however startling it may seem, they have not only in effect, _but in form_, set aside the authority of the Federal Constitution, in regard to slavery, by _construction_! After quoting the well known third clause of the second Section of the Fourth Article, which recognizes the validity of property in slaves, and provides to defend it, having first stated, that, “if strictly construed it could not apply to slaves,” because it does not _name_ them _as slaves_, the Report goes on to say: “It is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the _intentions_ of the framers--_whatever by historical evidence we may ascertain them to have been_--_cannot bind_ us to an interpretation of the Constitution which its own language does not render necessary, and which is inconsistent with objects for which it was professedly framed, to wit, ‘to establish justice,’ and ‘to secure the blessings of liberty.’ _But we go further_: We contend, that when the Constitution was framed, it was the understanding of _all parties_, that slavery was soon to be abolished by the States, and the clause intended to facilitate the recovery of fugitive slaves was a mere _temporary_ concession, to _expire_ with the unhallowed anomaly which called for it. If such be the case, it need hardly be said, that the slave States, after having _violated_, on their part, that good faith which was implied in the compact, _have no right_ to urge its fulfilment, beyond the letter, on the other part.” “Beyond the letter.” “The _letter_” does not happen to _name_ slaves.

Now, if _this_ is not _coming out_, and by the highest authority, by their own solemn and sanctioned Annual Scripture, declaring _null_ and _void_ the law of the land, and its highest law, in relation to the subject of controversy, it might be difficult to say what would be so. They even set aside the universally established rule of interpretation, confessing to the _intention_ of the law, but denying its authority. Henceforth the public may know what to expect. We think, that, with this document lying before our eyes, it is no libel to say, the Abolitionists _do not respect the law_; and that they have made up their minds, to trample it under foot. Their measures, and their language, would certainly imply it. They seem to be so far carried away by their sympathy for the slaves, that the hazard of causing to flow in rivers the best blood of the land, by a civil war, seems hardly sufficient to effect an abatement of their zeal; and if the slave-holders and their families, should be butchered in the strife of Abolition, “that is the fault of those who committed the first sin, and they must take the consequences.” _Immediate, instant emancipation_ is the word and the _principle, whatever comes_. There is no law above it--none that must not give way to it. Let the public judge, whether this principle be not incendiary, and sanguinary, in the most revolting aspects. The only barrier, hitherto supposed to stand in its way, the Federal Constitution, is swept away by an authoritative commentary, and the license to go forth to battle, has, by this act, received the sanction of the Supreme Legislative Assembly and high Court of the American Anti-Slavery Society!

We think the time has come, when the public of this country have a right to demand, whether the Abolitionists do indeed intend thus to _force_ the application of their principles, in contempt of law, and at the hazard of all consequences. Let them avow this scheme openly, and it will be enough. The uncharitable imputation of occult criminal designs is unwarrantable. But we submit, whether the passage just quoted from the Annual Report of this Society is not sufficiently open; and whether the habitual developements of the great movement, as made before the public, in so many forms, do not corroborate and confirm the impression which this document is calculated to produce?