Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

G

created by a long list of life members who are slaveholders and negro-haters, and which board, at that very time, according to the testimony of the Liberator, July 6, 1860, had for one of its “corporate members” the Rev. Dr. Plummer, a Presbyterian clergyman, who made a proposal to “burn alive such abolitionists as could be caught in Richmond, Virginia."

Mr. Beecher, in his “Harper's Ferry Sermon," avows that “the South has a Christian conscience ;" that the slaves held by men who possess this Christian conscience “ cannot be and will not be free for ages ;" that “we are to leave no pains untaken through the Christian conscience of the South to give to the slave himself a higher moral status ;" that “the time is

" rapidly coming when the Southern Christian will feel a new inspiration ;" that “we are not far removed from the doctrines of Christian manhood and the divine right of men;" that “when this Pentecost comes the slaves will be stirred by their own masters;” that “we must make the master discontented with slavery, and he will speedily take care of the rest ;" that “our Christian public sentiment” in America “owned and cherished by the masters of the slaves," and we who are to “work upon the master;" that such a Christian public sentiment “is a pendulum swinging between owning or exporting the poor in our midst ;' that those men who stand outside the great “cordon of darkness” in the South, with its “ Christian conscience, have no right to carry into the system of slavery exterior discontent;" that “it is not good for the slaves themselves;" that our Union, with such a “pendulum," and the atmosphere of such a public sentiment around it, “hath health in it;" and that John Brown was "insane" in disturbing the pendulum of the Union in his attempt to create such discontent “by inciting slaves to run away.”

As we have got such strange quartz from the diggings of Beecher's “Harper's Ferry Sermon,” let us turn to one of his Thanksgiving Sermons, reported in the “New York Tribune,” Nov. 28, 1861. On this memorable day Beecher said—“Our country has long lain in the ever-tightening serpent folds of slavery. The perplexing questions of race, caste, condition, and climate cast into the nation by the African bondman, which the wisest and strongest knew not how to deal with, were likely to be solved by the war. A direct political emancipation was impossible. He wished Adam had not sinned, and his posterity had not been affected, but that did not help the matter. He wished our fathers had stood out against the compromises of the constitution, for a serpent just hatched was not half so dangerous as a full-grown serpent. We had declared our fealty to the constitution, and we could not now break the pact. The war had not driven us into revolution. The constitution was not superior to right, conscience, or liberty. We must keep by our plighted faith, and when we could not abide by our promise we had better stand apart as two separate peoples. Were we then shut up by this reasoning ? No.

What the pen of the legislator could not do the sword of the warrior would do.” Mr Beecher, in his Manchester speech at the Free Trade Hall, said—“Let me say one word here about the constitution of America. It recognises slavery as a fact, but it does not recognise the doctrine of slavery whatever.” In this paragraph Mr. Beecher puts the constitution of our dis-United States in the saine relationship to slavery as the Bible stands to sin. It recognises sin as a fact, but not as a doctrine otherwise than to be shunned, contemned, despised, abhorred. But Mr. Beecher in the paragraph extracted from his Thanksgiving Sermon speaks of the “compromises of the constitution.” What does he mean by them ? Surely not the recognition of slavery as a fact, but a doctrine to be believed in, embraced, and practised. He wished it had been otherwise, as in the case of Adam's transgression, but that did'nt help the matter." Quite true, Mr. Beecher ; but you say that it made “political emancipation impossible.” This is a most strange, delusive, and dangerous doctrine to be taught by any man, but especially by an avowed minister and disciple of Christ.

But why was political emancipation impossible ? Let Mr. Beecher answer—“We had sworn fealty to the constitution” (with its compromises), which at Manchester he said contained no compromises ; "we had made a promise," and if we could not keep "our plighted faith, and abide by our promise, we had better stand apart as two peoples.” But have the Northern partners in our black partnership concern

[ocr errors]

kept their promise, or maintained their plighted faith to a constitution which, according to Beecher, the administrators of the government, with the consent of the people, had made a covenant with death and an agreement with hell ? No. “But what the pen

? of the legislator could not do the sword of the warrior would,” said Beecher. Instead of sensibly standing apart as two peoples, the more inhuman, irrational, and terrible arbitrament of the sword is resorted to. The above pretexts of Mr. Beecher are not only hollow, but horrible ; and it would be quite in harmony with Mr. Beecher's theory to throw off his prophet's mantle, or to lay aside his shepherd's crook in his lecture, in the Philharmonic Hall, next Friday evening, and to appear in his “ Pantomime covered with the war paint, and holding the “war hatchet” in his hands.

Mr. Beecher, in his speech at Manchester, spoke of a class of men who licked the feet of slaveholding

“ men." In the facts, however, that we have given we leave our readers to judge who has been the greatest "lickspittle."

Thus, Mr. Beecher has gone for saving the union by keeping his plighted faith with the constitution and “its compromises,” but now a spirit has come over his dreams, and he throws “his compromises " overboard to urge men to get not at what he calls the “Christian conscience of the South,” but at the necks and throats of his “ Christian slaveholders,”

[ocr errors]

.

to preserve his blind devotion to and superstitious veneration of the Union.

Mr. Beecher, in his recent speech at Glasgow, avowed that the Northerns would give “their last child and last dollar to restore the Union; but the conscription, associated with its dreadful tragedies, and his own avowal “that God and the negro are to save the Republic" do not harmonise, nor does also the belief which he avowed at Manchester that in the present fratricidal war the Northerns“ are giving their best blood for principle.” The seed corn of the old English martyrs was not associated with the doctrine of compromising truth with falsehood, or of uprooting error with the sword.

Mr. Beecher said—“ Under God, the South has done more to bring on this work of emancipation than the North itself.” First, they began after the the days of Calhoun to declare that they accepted slavery no more as a misfortune, but as a Divine blessing. The above is quite true, but it is not the whole truth, since the cause of this dreadful apostacy in the South originated in the teachings of the Northern pulpits, colleges, missionaries, and tract society boards, who for commercial causes introduced the “obscene goddess" of slavery, and proclaimed its humanity and divinity until, as Wendel Phillips, Esq., in 1860, declared orthodoxy was a “sea of rottenness.” So that, base and infamous as “the hierarchs of infidelity” may be in the South who declare that the foundation of the Southern republic

« PreviousContinue »