FALLACIOUS REASONING TO SUSTAIN THE CHARGE. 73 By this description the Judge means by "abolitionists" those whom the country commonly accept under this designation, headed by Garrison, Phillips, and their coadjutors, some of whom have heretofore joined with their opposition to slavery, opposition to the Sabbath, the ministry, the Church, and the Bible. He quotes one of their pet phrases which shows that he means them. We enter no defence of this class, as abolitionists. We have always been opposed to their schemes and to the spirit by which they seem to have been actuated. We make these quotations, however, and we remark upon them, for the purpose of endeavoring to determine where the real responsibility we are seeking lies. We believe in giving "the devil his due," and even William Lloyd Garrison and his associates are entitled to at least that measure of consideration. As we totally disagree with the eminent jurist in locating this responsibility, we cannot refrain from a vindication of these men, so far as the charge is concerned, that they are "primarily and pre-eminently accountable" for the rebellion and the horrors of the war. We not only deny the allegation, and shall give ample evidence to sustain the denial, and show where the responsibility lies, but we are amazed at the reasoning by which the Judge would sustain the charge, though we have frequently met with the like before. FALLACIOUS REASONING TO SUSTAIN THE CHARGE. In the first place, we do not see why, in the chain of sequences which the Judge employs, he should either begin or end just where he does. His point is, that the abolitionists are responsible for the war; "for, had there been no abolitionism, there would have been no secession yet, if ever, and had there been no secession there would have been no war." Why may we not, with equal cogency, so far as the logic of the case is concerned, begin with at least one prior step?-thus: "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no abolitionism," &c. The case admits of this, beyond question. The proposition is logically true, and true in fact. Abolitionism, whether right or wrong, is aimed only at slavery, and could not exist without it. They have lived side by side, and they will die together. Nor is there any logical necessity for beginning with this one prior step. With perfect truth, we may reason thus: "Had there been no sin there would have been no slavery." And the chain might be extended further. But the position of slavery in this longer chain is not only logically correct, but it is so in morals; and this, too, whether slavery is a sin per se or not. It is, at the very least, the fruit of sin, as all classes admit, and one of the palpable signs of a fallen race. The ablest defenders of slavery as a divine institution, declare it to have originated in a "curse" inflicted for sin, and to be one of its most striking badges; and all this, while arguing that in these latter days it has been transmuted into a "blessing" to all concerned, political, social, and moral, by a sort of metaphysical alchemy in which its defenders are peculiarly skilled. THEY WOULD DISCUSS THE SUBJECT. But in the next place, passing by the logic of this passage, there is a moral aspect which the case suggests beyond that which we have incidentally stated. Remarkably few, taking the general judgment of Christendom, agree with the men of the extreme South in their modern views of slavery. With a unanimity that has few parallels, it is regarded as an evil, political and social; and by great numbers, as a sin. Whether they are right or wrong in their judgment is not now material; they claim the right ABDUCTION OF SLAVES. 75 to discuss the question. try that they shall not discuss any question of morals, politics, or religion. It cannot be prevented. There is neither authority nor power to prevent it; and we trust it will never be attempted, unless the liberty of speech or of the press shall be abused to the injury of individuals or of society. It is idle to tell men in our coun Now it is notorious that the head and front of the offence committed by the class of whom Judge Robertson speaks, is that they would discuss the question of slavery; or, if the term suits any better, that they would "agitate" the subject. They had, as all the world knows, a peculiar way of their own; but if they transgressed no law, that peculiarity was a part of their right. They called hard names, and unnecessarily stirred up bitter feelings. In this they committed an offence against good taste and Christian propriety, and we have always disapproved of their course. But that they, in common with all men, had a perfect right to discuss the subject to their hearts' content, all must admit. If discussion disturbed slavery, as it is universally conceded it did, and must necessarily do so, however conducted, it was one of the misfortunes of the institution which from its nature could not be avoided, and for which it was alone responsible. And it will be seen in the sequel, that here is where the great "grievance" lies, when the case is sifted to the bottom. Mankind would discuss the merits of slavery. Hence the germ of Southern dissatisfaction. ABDUCTION OF SLAVES. But the abolitionists are charged with doing far worse than discussing the subject. It is said, they stole Southern property; when fugitive slaves were pursued, they made open resistance to the laws; and finally, their schemes cul minated in the John Brown raid. We shall not defend any of these things. We have always condemned them. We have advocated in the pulpit, in a Northern State, obedience to the laws, active or passive, the Fugitive Slave Law included, specifying it by name, and have condemned mob violence, and our views have heretofore been published. We should take the same course with regard to any properly enacted law, without regard to its character. We know of no other course which a Christian can justly take. But suppose it be admitted that the abolitionists did all that is here charged, what does it amount to as justifying or even extenuating this gigantic rebellion? South Carolina formally presents in her " Declaration of Causes which induced the Secession" of the State, and as "justifying" it, this spoliation of her slave property; and yet, South Carolina, as the men of her Convention must have known from the statistics extant, suffered very little in this regard, and even less than any other State. All the seceded States suffered comparatively little, and those most noisy about secession least of all, from their geographical position; while the Border States, from which the largest number escaped, were content to remain in the Union, and condemned in not very measured terms the course of the States farther South. This complaint of the rebel States, of the loss of their property, when presented to justify either secession or rebellion, is too well known to be the most shallow and hypocritical of all false pretences. THE WHOLE NORTH CHARGED WITH IT. The attempt has been made to implicate the mass of the Northern people in these breaches of the law and good faith towards the South. Certain newspapers, North and South, have rung with such charges, and certain Northern ABOLITIONISTS NOT REPUBLICANS. 77 and many Southern orators in Congress have made them. But their falsity is obvious. No evidence has ever been found to sustain them, even after the most diligent search. It was charged, for example, that the whole North aided. and abetted John Brown; or, at least, as was again said, the whole Republican party; or, with still another abatement, certainly the leaders of that party, though in the face of their positive denials. Senator Mason, of Virginia, was so sure of his game that he called for a Committee of the United States Senate, "with full power to send for persons and papers," to investigate the subject. He was promptly accommodated, and was made chairman. After a long research without let or hindrance, and with all the power of a willing Administration to aid him, he made a report and asked for the Committee's discharge. He found nothing and reported it. ABOLITIONISTS NOT REPUBLICANS. In regard to the abolitionists, who are held "primarily and pre-eminently accountable" for the horrors of this rebellion, it is well known that they have ever formed a remarkably small fraction of the community, and that their influence with the mass of the people has been insignificant. They have never, in any Presidential election, as a party, acted with the Republican party, but have opposed it with violence and bitterness, always having their own can. didate. Since the rebellion has been in progress, the leaders of that faction have sometimes been found supporting the Government and sometimes abusing it; according to our observation, most commonly the latter. Wendell Phillips, the most renowned orator among them, has frequently, and of late, denounced the President by name, and the Adminis tration, for the policy pursued in conducting the war, and |
