« PreviousContinue »
on which great stress is laid. The men, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. The deed, which was said to have made them immortal, the adoption of a basis of constitutional freedom, and the declaration of independence. And the day, which was to be celebrated by bonfires, and fireworks, triumphal arches, the peal of merry bells, and the roar of cannon-processions and music-orations, and huzzas, henceforth and for ever. If we examine the nature and character of those documents subscribed to, endorsed, and ratified by the men already referred to-documents which embodied the deed which they performed-to the execution of which they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honour; and if we consider that these documents guarantee and secure to all men unrestricted freedom, irrespective of colour, sex, or age, we may triumphantly ask where is the "tip of the last joint" of that thing which is called "gentlemanly honour and standing?" When they signed those instruments did they free their slaves? Or, did they put the negro on an equality with the white man?
What does impartial history say? With a voice like thunder it says, No! Many, therefore, plead that, as they did not do these things, they did not understand these instruments as including the negro, or, as conscientious men, they would have freed their slaves, and restored the negro to an equality with the white man; be this as it may, these documents place it beyond a doubt or a peradventure that all were included, without restriction as to race, or dis
tinction as to colour; and therefore it is a monstrous fraud to cover up their delinquencies in the avowal that they proceeded on the basis of making the white people the governing race, and others their inferiors.
If we cast our eyes on the successive pages of our history in connection with our government from the days of Washington to Lincoln, we find the same betrayal of trust, forfeiture of all claim to respect in the abominable fraud which has been perpetrated on the black man; and in no one has this been more manifested than in the person of "Honest Abe Lincoln," so called, who disputed the "exclusive right" and "monopoly" of the late Judge Douglas of being on all sides of all questions in a speech which he delivered at Alton, Illinois, Oct. 15, 1858. And that he shared in the supposed blessings of what he called this "High Privilege" is abundantly made manifest in his published speeches, of which we have already given some remarkable specimens, and could give many more, but we will make one or two suffice. In a speech which Lincoln made at Galesburgh, Illinois, Oct. 7, 1858, he said, "I believe that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly affirmed in the Constitution." In another which he delivered at Cincinnati, Ohio, September, 1859, he said, addressing himself to slaveholders, "When we do, as we say, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. I will tell you," said he, " we mean to treat you as near as we possibly can as Washington,
Jefferson, and Madison treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with your institution (slavery)—to abide by all and every compromise of the constitution." What he meant by this phrase, "all and every compromise of the Constitution," we learn in his Inaugural Address on the 4th of March, 1861, when he said, "There is much. controversy about the delivering up of fugitive slaves from service or labour. The rendition clause is as plainly written as any other of its provisions. No person, held to service or labour in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." "It is scarcely questioned," said Lincoln, "that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves, and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution, and to this provision as much as any other. To the proposition, therefore, whose cases come within the terms of this clause, 'shall be delivered up,' their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make an effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath."
The Constitution, therefore, according to Lincoln,
does not include property in man, and it does include it!
When solicited by a convention in Chicago to proclaim emancipation to the slaves on the basis of a military necessity, he replied that "it would be as inoperative as a bull against a comet." About three weeks from that time he issued the proclamation referred to!
In an address which he delivered at Ottawa, Illinois, Aug. 21, 1858, Lincoln said, "I think I would not hold one (a slave) in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them, politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this !"
Again, when addressing the people at Chicago, July 10, 1858, he said, "I have always hated slavery, I think, as much as any abolitionist." Where is the tip of the last joint, of gentlemanly honour and standing in the above? Has it not disappeared and gone out of sight?
We shall find the same results if we trace the history of the abolitionists. We have seen already in the convention held by them at Albany the ring of metal which they gave in connection with the Union, proclaiming it to be an outrage on civilization, and a curse to be removed. In the letter of Mrs Stowe to Lord Shaftesbury we are informed that all classes of emancipationists stand shoulder to shoulder in the war for the Union, although there has been no change
amongst the administrators of the government or the people towards the negro as a man; and at a large meeting recently held in the Church of the Puritans, one of the principal advocates has avowed that President Lincoln is the first slave that ought to be emancipated! Here, again, the "tip of the last joint" of "gentlemanly honour and standing" has gone out of sight.
In our religious war crusaders we witness the same lamentable results. One moment they cry mightily to God as the author of peace and lover of concord, and the next, use their prayers as a whetstone on which their people may sharpen their war hatchets still to let out deluges of blood! In such a war as that, we behold no gentlemanly honour or standing-no, not even the "tip of the last joint."
The blasts of the war trumpet by the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher are terrific! How sadly he has mistaken his vocation. And when the writer penned his glowing tribute to the Rev. M. D. Conway in his book, "American States, Churches, and Slavery," he closed his remarks as follows:-"Neither have we seen from Conway any appeals to the material sword. But amidst the general defections that have obtained in the above respect, it is difficult to say who amongst the little band of Christian emancipationists have stood true to their mission of peace and good-will. Since then, Conway has mounted the war horse, blown with all his soul the war trumpet, and urged on the carnival of death; and is now, as well as Beecher, in