Page images

the Northerns must be equally foolish in shedding such rivers of blood, and producing such wide-spread misery and woe to attain an object which was already within their power to realise without the firing of a single shot, or the destruction of a single life!

Next comes Henry Vincent, Esq., with his lofty assumption that the present conflict between the North and South in America is a "Great Rebellion." Hear what the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher in his Harper's Ferry Sermon says: "These sovereign States are united to us not by any federal ligaments, but by vital interests, by a common national life. And the question of duty is not simply what is duty towards the blacks, not what is duty towards the whites, but what is duty to each and to both united I am bound by the great law of love to consider my duties towards the slave, and I am bound by the great law of love also, to consider my duties towards the white man, who is his master. Both are to be treated with Christian wisdom and forbearance. We must seek to benefit the slave as much as the white man, and the white man as really as the slave. We must keep in mind the interest of every part-of the slaves themselves, of the white population, and of the whole brotherhood of States federated into national life." Mr Vincent will hardly dispute the above authority, since he has espoused the cause of Mr. Beecher's partisans; we entreat the reader therefore, to mark the stress which Mr Beecher lays on the sovereignty of the different States-on vital interests

as being the bond of Union, and not federal ligaments

on the different States as constituting a brotherhood; that these vital interests have federated the whole brotherhood of States into national life; that this federation and brotherhood bring obligations to seek the mutual benefit of the slave and the white man his master; and that the recognition of those obligations are to be associated with Christian wisdom and forbearance.

Now if these vital interests are to be the forge to produce the links in the chain that is to bind the States together in the federation or brotherhood of the Union, may not vital interests also be a forge to produce a sledge hammer to dissever the links in this chain of federation, and destroy the brotherhood of the Union? And who are to be the judge but the administrators and people of what Mr. Beecher calls "These sovereign States."

But should Mr. Vincent repudiate these "vital interests," and fall back on federal ligaments as the bond of Union, which Mr. Beecher says do not exist, and deny the right of any of the States to secede, we would remind him of the broad emphasis Mr. Beecher has laid on these sovereign States. If the powers vested in sovereignty are sacred and supreme, so it is with the States, or they could not with any degree of propriety be called "sovereign States." And should Mr. Vincent repudiate not only vitality of interest as the bond of Union, but the sovereignty of the States, and fall back on the parchments or

written bonds, we would remind him that these are worthless where there is no vitality of interest, and also very insecure when their binding power is dependent on sovereigns, as shewn in the German and Danish war. And there is not a clause in the written bond of the constitution, which our whole brotherhood of States have not trampled under their black hoofs at every period of our history as a people; and Mr. Vincent would hardly allege that law-breakers can put in a plea in favour of constitutional law and order.

But should Mr. Vincent fall back still on the vox populi, we would remind him that the people who live in the slave States, whom Professor Newman calls "Thugs," have the same right as the Poles, Hungarians, Italians, or any other people, to "change their rulers, government, their whole political condition." "This," says the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, "belongs to all men on the face of the globe, without regard to complexion. This right is not either granted or limited in the New Testament. It is left as is air, water, and existence, itself, as things not requiring command or legislation." How foolish to call the American war a rebellion. We can conceive how the whole brotherhood of States have rebelled against God, and are justly suffering the penalty due to their terrible crimes. In this sense it may be But we cannot see how it

called a "great rebellion." can be called a rebellion towards man, when our written parchments, such as the constitution and

declaration of independence, like our liberty, poles of contradiction in our cities, towns, and villages, are a swift witness against our whole people for treachery and folly! We have now done with you Mr. Vincent, and you can take your Bolton placards or bill-posters and your "Great Rebellion" with you.

Mr. Mason Jones according to the Manchester Examiner and Times, Feb. 24, 1864, in a lecture delivered at Halifax, is reported to have said that "he denounced the blasphemous utterances of the Rev. Dr. Palmer, who maintained that slavery was a divine institution, remarking that though he had never met him in a dark lane, yet he did not hesitate to say that if he could lay his hands on the Dr. he would string him up as high as heaven. (Loud cheers.) Many have felt it inconvenient to be surrounded with the broad light of heaven, and be subject to the public gaze in the performance of atrocious deeds- and therefore have waited with feverish anxiety for the evening shade to cover them when they have sneaked their way into "dark lanes" where they have laid "snares privily," and carried out their diabolical schemes, exclaiming "who shall see them?" And we are sorry that Mr. Jones, in aspiring to Calcraft's situation, should seek to stand out in his new character associated with dark lanes." But if Mr. Jones was to commence his work nearer home, and to hang all clergymen or ministers who maintain that slavery is a divine institution in this country, or in the Northern States of America first, Dr. Palmer would have a long lease


of his life before his turn came round. If Mr. Jones is ignorant of this fact, he ought to know that there are many, very many Bible defenders of slavery in this country amongst the avowed ministers of Christ. The writer met with one in Edinburgh, who turned. down the chapter and verse in the Epistles of Saint Paul From another in Manchester he received a tremendous castigation, because he could not see and feel as his reverence saw and felt in regard to slavery on Bible grounds. By another of these Bible defenders of slavery the writer was denounced and ostracised for twenty years before he left this country for America for the unpardonable sin and crime of calling in question his ipse dixit, in the assumption of arbitrary power, and exercising the right of private judgment, and honouring his convictions in accordance with Noncomformist theory and acknowledged polity.

But whilst Mason Jones would find plenty of work in his new occupation in this grand old country, so consecrated with hallowed spots, so precious with the memories of the good and great, and so ennobled with the priceless gem of liberty, in the Northern States of America he would find quite a "heap "more of such work to do, than he would find here. He would find in accordance with his theory, a fitting subject on whom to try his hand in the Rev. H. J. Vandyke of New York, who, unrebuked by his copresbyters, boldly asserted "that the idea of property in man is an enormity and a crime, blasphemes the name of God and his doctrine," so that if blas

« PreviousContinue »