Slavery’s Northern Bulwarks: An Address Delivered in Rochester, New York, on January 12, 1851
SLAVERY’S NORTHERN BULWARKS: AN ADDRESS
DELIVERED IN ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, ON 12 JANUARY 1851
North Star, 16 January 1851. Another text in Foner, Life and Writings, 5: 170-80.
Douglass delivered the seventh lecture in his series of antislavery lectures on
Sunday evening, 12 January 1851, at Corinthian Hall in Rochester.
I rise to give my seventh lecture on American slavery under feelings of very
deep seriousness. The return of Henry Long1Fugitive slave Henry Long, who was estimated to be in his mid-thirties at the time of his seizure by federal marshals in New York City on 23 December 1850, was born in Christianburgh, Virginia, and owned by a slaveowner named Anderson. When Anderson died around 1839, his son-in-Iaw, Dr. John T. Smith of Russell County, Virginia, acquired title to Long, Smith did not inherit Long's aged mother, who remained on the Anderson place, and did not own Long's slave wife, who lived about one hundred miles from Smith’s farm. Having carried some of his slaves, Long among them, to Mississippi in 1840-41, Smith later returned to Virginia, bringing Long back with him. Permitted to hire himself out, Long eventually set up a small confectionery shop, where he also did some barbering. In 1846 Smith was threatened with indictment by a grand jury for failing to supervise Long properly. He then requested a relative, Dr. William W. Parker of Richmond, to hire Long out there. Parker hired the slave out in 1847 and 1848, first to a local hotel and later, though Long had become “hard to please, and wanted to hire himself, as his master had previously permitted him to do," to the owners of a store near the Richmond docks, where Long loaded waiting vessels. Parker learned that Long was missing in December 1848. When a Richmond resident recognized Long in New York City and informed Parker of the fugitive's whereabouts, Parker traveled to New York to claim him on Smith's behalf. After a hearing that lasted more than two weeks, on 8 January 1851 the court ordered that Long be returned to Virginia. Weeks later, in Richmond, Long was auctioned off to a Georgia slave trader for $750 under the express condition that the slave be removed farther south. At the auction, a Richmond correspondent of the New York Evening Post overheard Long inform a spectator who was anxious to know if Long was “sorry” that he had been returned to Virginia, “Well, the best of men have their downfalls." New York Herald, 24, 25, 29 December 1850, 9 January 1851; NASS, 26 December 1850, 2, 9, 23, 30 January 1851; Lib., 24, 31 January 1851; NS, 30 January 1851; American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, Annual Report, 1851, 26. to all the horrors of a life of
endless slavery has shrouded my spirit in gloom. But a few days ago, he
walked abroad in the streets of New York in the full enjoyment of freedom,
his mind occupied with thoughts, hopes and aspirations becoming the mind
of a virtuous freeman. But, in a moment, he has been snatched away by a
hand more dreadful than that of death. His hopes and aspirations, plans and
purposes, have been cut off and destroyed. From a MAN, he has fallen to a
chattel; and instead of breathing the free air of New York, in the pride of his
liberty and in the society of freemen, he is now doomed to the appalling
condition of a slave, and must drag out his life in Virginia, under all the
horrors of the whip and fetter.
Henry Long is the second victim surrendered by New York under the
inhuman and barbarous provisions of the fugitive slave bill; and there are
some circumstances attending his surrender, which make it even more
alarming and distressing than the case of James Hamlet. The latter was
arrested, tried and delivered up in a most secret and hasty manner, without
the legal and friendly aid which might have been rendered, despite the
furious haste required by the fugitive slave bill. The case of Long is dif-
ferent. Between the time of his arrest and the time of his surrender, there
was ample opportunity for rendering him all the assistance of which the law
and the case would allow. His arrest was known, and his trial open to public
gaze. There was time for the vigilance of his friends to be exercised; and
that vigilance, to a certain extent, was exercised. Yet Henry Long was
surrendered, and, in broad day light, dragged out of the city of New York,
without even an attempt being made to rescue him.
It is stated that there was not a sign of “disturbance” when the unfortu-
nate man was taken to the ferry from which he departed for the South, and
that the only thing unusual in that vicinity at the time, was the appearance of
Captain Isaiah Rynders, parading about with rifle in hand, swearing ven-
geance against abolitionists.2Some five thousand people “of all ranks and conditions” had gathered at the Jersey City Ferry on 8 January 1851 to watch as Henry Long and federal marshals, escorted by two hundred New York City policemen, boarded the ferry that would take them to a Richmond-bound train. Isaiah Ryndecrs reportedly marched among the throng, swearing that he was looking for “A DAMNED ABOLITIONIST." NASS, 16 January 1851; Lib., 31 January 1851; New York Herald, 9 January 1851. If this be so, it is a shame and a scandal which
the colored people of New York should seize the first opportunity to wash
out. It is humiliating in the extreme, that, in a city with a colored population
of more than twenty thousand, such a high-handed and daring atrocity
could be perpetrated without any intervention on the part of any among
them. I know not what would have been the chances of success had any
attempt been made to rescue Henry Long. It is possible that no chance of
success appeared in his case. For the credit of the colored people alone, I
hope that the latter is true. It ought NOT to be said of a people like those of
New York, that they stood mute spectators of a scene which might well
have roused the courage even of dastards to deeds of blood. Some explana-
tion, some apology for the apparent indifference and utter inactivity man-
ifested by the colored people of New York City, is demanded. I say again, I
do not know what the chance of success would have been in an effort at the
rescue of Henry Long: but this I do know, that the absence of any attempt to
break the jaws of the oppressor, and to rend the victim from his horrid
clutch, will form the strongest possible ground of encouragement to other
slave-hunters who may be disposed to prosecute their infamous business in
New York City. I am free to say that nothing short of physical resistance
will render the colored people of the North safe from the horrible enor-
mities which must result from the execution of the fugitive slave law; and I
had rather have heard that colored men had been beaten down by the two
hundred police men employed on that occasion, than that there should have
been no manifestation of physical resistance to the re-enslavement of poor
Long. My very blood chilled, and I felt myself degraded, when I read that
the demand of the slave catcher for a sufficient force to remove Henry Long
from New York was answered by Judge Judson to the effect that “he
apprehended no disturbance."3After Connecticut attorney and district court judge Andrew T. Judson (1784-1853) ruled that Henry Long be returned to Virginia, the counsel for plaintiff William W. Parker introduced an affidavit which noted that, “in consequence of the excitement which prevailed," an attempt to rescue Long was likely. Parker therefore requested that federal marshals escort Long to Virginia. Long's counselor, John Jay, doubted that a rescue would be attempted, arguing that “there was no disposition manifested, particularly on the part of the colored population, to make any resistance." Judson concurred, expressing his “entire confidence in this community" and his certainty that “there was no danger of the law being resisted." Judson, called to preside over the case when the New York district judge fell ill, was not unknown to abolitionists. In 1833, while selectman of Canterbury, Connecticut, Judson opposed Quaker schoolmistress Prudence Crandall's attempt to establish a high school for black females in Canterbury, avowing, “that nigger school shall never be allowed in Canterbury, nor in any town in this State." A prominent local Democrat and an officer in the county colonization society, he was influential in securing the passage of the “Connecticut Black Act" of 1833, which banned “any school, academy, or literary institution, for the instruction or education of colored persons who are not inhabitants of this state" and required that instruction of black Connecticut residents take place only with approval by local authorities. New York Herald, 9 January 1851; Litwack, North of Slavery, 128; William Jay, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery (Boston, 1853), 34-43; ACAB, 3: 485. "No disturbance!" Doom the innocent to
perpetual bondage, and no fear of “disturbance!” Why, when a guilty
felon is to be hanged, a murderous assassin, who, for the love of gold, has
plunged his dagger into the heart of an innocent brother, such are the
sympathies of human nature, and such is the proneness of man to forget the
crime of the criminal in reflecting on his horrible fate, that, even in such a
case, there is always danger of "disturbance" for his rescue, and provision
made against such an occurrence. But here, in the case of an innocent
man—a man unstained by any crime, and against whom there is not even
the shadow of an allegation, we see him hurried away to a fate more terrible
than death itself, and “no disturbance” on account of it is apprehended.
This reveals a popular acquiescence in the execution of this inhuman law,
which is at once disgraceful and heart-sickening—an acquiescence which
will not fail to inspire with hope other two-legged bloodhounds who are
meditating Northern excursions in pursuit of their prey. The contemplation
of these things makes me sad. But more saddening still is the present aspect
of the public mind throughout the North.
It is impossible not to see a determination on the part of men in high
places to put down, if possible, all efforts made to promote anti-slavery
sentiment in this country. Politicians, in and out of office, are evidently
conspiring against the agitation of the question of slavery, and are exerting
themselves to the utmost to quiet the public mind on the subject. Distin-
guished individuals, both of the Whig and Democratic party, whose voices
rang through the land last winter, proclaiming manly hostility to the slave
power, are now as hushed as though slavery had ceased to exist, and the
slave power were no more. Meanwhile, the pulpit is sending forth sermons,
in pamphlet form, boldly and shamelessly advocating obedience to the
fugitive slave law, and, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, defending the
slave system. The Rev. Dr. Lord, of Buffalo, in a sermon enjoining obedi-
ence to the fugitive slave bill, says: “But there is higher authority for the
determination of this question, than anything we have yet suggested. The
existence of domestic slavery was expressly allowed, sanctioned and regu-
lated by the Supreme Law-giver, in that divine economy which he gave to
the Hebrew state. The fact is open and undisputed. The record and proof of
it are in the hands of every man who has in his possession a copy of the
Bible. All the ingenuity of all the abolitionists in the United States can
never destroy the necessary conclusion of this admitted divine sanction of
slavery, that it is an institution which may lawfully exist, and concerning
which governments may pass laws and execute penalties for their evasion
or resistance.” Dr. Lord is the minister of a Presbyterian Church in Buf-
falo; and so gratifying was the sermon, of which the above extract is a fair
sample, that nineteen of the respectable gentlemen and Christians of his
church sent him a letter, requesting it for publication. With this request it
seems he cheerfully complied, and his sermon now appears before the
public in a pamphlet of 32 pages.4John Chase Lord (1805-77), founder and pastor (1835-73) of Central Presbyterian Church, Buffalo, New York, urged obedience to the Fugitive Slave Law in a sermon delivered in his church on New York's Thanksgiving observance of 12 December 1850. The quoted passage from Lord's sermon appears, with minor variations, in John C. Lord, “The Higher Law, " in its Application to the Fugitive Slave Bill: A Sermon on the Duties Men owe to God and to Governments (New York, 1851), 10. The pamphlet, which is 16, not 32, pages in length, was published by the coalition of one hundred of New York City's leading Whig and Democratic businessmen that in October 1850 adopted the name the Union Safety Committee. In a campaign to defuse secessionist appeals in the South by demonstrating that the North would comply with the Fugitive Slave Law, and seeking to weaken the influence of Seward abolitionists among New York Whigs, the Committee solicited many sermons like Lord's from clergymen throughout the state. The Committee urged ministers to devote the New York state Thanksgiving holiday to prayers that the Compromise of 1850 secure lasting national harmony. By March 1851 the Committee had raised $25,000 to pay for the printing and distribution of these sermons. Philip S. Foner, Business and Slavery: The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict (Chapel Hill, N. C., 1941), 42, 55-57; Campbell., Slave Catchers, 73-75; New York Journal of Commerce, 12, 28 December 1850'; ACAB, 4: 25. Another Doctor of Divinity, the Rev. Dr.
Lathrop, of Auburn, has signalized himself by devoting “Thanksgiving
day” to rebuking disobedience to the fugitive slave law, and exhorting his
brother Christians to a faithful discharge of their slave-catching duties.5Born in Hebron, Connecticut, and educated at Middlebury College, Leonard Elijah Lathrop (1796-1857) ministered to New School Presbyterian congregations in North Carolina and Connecticut before being called to the pulpit of the Second Presbyterian Church of Auburn, New York, in 1836. In his Thanksgiving Day sermon on the Fugitive Slave Law, Lathrop declared “that both patriotism and religion require that the law should be obeyed." In the published version of the sermon, however, Lathrop added a footnote in which he excused disobedience to the law on grounds of personal conscience “if the individual chooses quietly to incur the penalty." L[eonard] E. Lathrop, A Discourse, Delivered At Auburn, on the Day of the Annual Thanksgiving, December 12, 1850 (Auburn, 1850), 10; L. P. Hickok, A Sermon on the Death of Leonard E. Lathrop, D.D. (New York, 1857), 12-22. On
the same day, the Rev. Dr. Sharpe preached a sermon in Boston to the same
end;6Baptist clergyman Daniel Sharp served as pastor of Boston's Third Baptist Church for fortyone years. Although no text of Sharp‘s sermon has been located. someone who heard the sermon, delivered on Massachusetts' s Thanksgiving holiday of 28 November 1850, reported that Sharp spoke from Titus 3 : 1: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work. “ Boston Evening Transcript, 29 November 1850. and we are informed that sundry learned Doctors of Divinity have
come out on this, as on “the Lord’s side,” in this struggle for human
freedom. Dr. Lathrop says that the fugitive slave law is the law of the land,
“enacted by the powers that be,” and that “are ordained of God.” “What,
then,” he asks, “is the duty of the Christian and the citizen?” and he
adds—“We answer, that both patriotism and religion require that the law
should be obeyed.” “Suppose,” says he, “that we deny the right of
property in a human being, and insist upon it that one man has no moral
right to hold another as his property; still, we must admit that, for the time
being, he has a legal right, according to the constitution and laws of the State
in which he lives. Other States entering into a confederacy with this one,
have agreed that it may hold slaves as property, and manage its own
internal concerns in its own way. The confederacy is entered into for the
security of other and commanding and common interests, which are of
paramount importance. If by any act of legislation by this confederated
government we are required to restore to them that property to which they
have a legal right, however much we may doubt the morality of that claim,
or the law upon which it is founded, the duty of good citizenship, and the
claims of true patriotism, would demand obedience to the law. The respon~
sibility in regard to the morality or the wisdom of the law, rests not with us.
That lies somewhere else. But with us is the responsibility of obeying the
laws of the land, which have been established by the powers that be, and
that are ordained of God."7Douglass makes only minor variations in quoting from Lathrop, Discourse, 10-11.
In a lecture delivered in this hall a few evenings ago, I undertook to
show why abolitionists are often called infidels.8Douglass probably refers to his sixth Sunday lecture, delivered in Corinthian Hall on 5 January 1851. No text of this speech has been located. If I did not satisfy my
hearers on that occasion, with the causes which first led to that popular cry,
the foregoing extracts may succeed in doing so. Here we have all that [is]
sacred in heaven and earth—God, Christ and the Apostles, the Bible,
Christianity and patriotism, all blasphemously paraded in support of slav-
ery, and in justification of obedience to that concentration of hellish
cruelty, the fugitive slave law.
I believe this audience will agree with me, that the true enemy of the
Christian religion and of the Bible, is not he who uniformly appeals to them
in support of justice, mercy, and goodness—not he who regards them as on
the side of the abused and enslaved; but rather he who, though clothed in
sacerdotal robes, and assuming to be the chosen minister of God, dares to
quote the Bible in defence of robbery and wrong. Such men do more in one
hour to undermine the reverence of mankind for the Bible, than the most
skillful infidel could effect in ages!
I do NOT believe that the Bible sanctions American slavery. I do NOT
believe that Christ and his Apostles approved of slave-holding, nor of
slave-catching. From the depths of my soul, I appeal with confidence to the
pages of Holy Writ, in behalf of my imbruted and plundered fellow-
countrymen. Despite the teachings of American divines, (slave though I
have been), I will continue to look to God and to Christ for support in my
humble efforts for the emancipation of my race. But here I will say, that
should doctors of divinity ever convince me that the Bible sanctions
American slavery, that Christ and his apostles justify returning men to
bondage, then will I give the Bible to the flames, and no more worship God
in the name of Christ. For of what value to men would a religion be which
not only permitted, but enjoined upon men the enslavement of each other,
and which would leave them to the sway of physical force, and permit the
strong to enslave the weak? What better would such a religion be than blank
atheism, which knows no God? To defend slavery in the name of God, is
simply to reduce mankind absolutely to the law of brute force. It places men
in relation to each other on a footing with the wild beasts of the forest which
live and prey upon each other. If you may enslave the black man in
America, of course the black man may enslave the American in Africa; and
as the Bible is made for all mankind, of course, if it sanction slavery at all, it
may be quoted by the African priest in favor of enslaving the whites, with
as much propriety as it can be quoted by the whites as authority for enslav-
ing the blacks; and the God of the Bible would be at once the God of slavery
to all mankind. The law of force would in this case take the place of the law
of love, and he who could succeed in man-stealing on the most extensive
scale, would best represent the attributes of the Divine mind.
But away with this revolting and blasphemous theory! And away with
those hypocritical Doctors of Divinity! They are wolves in sheep’s
clothing—thieves and liars, who wrest and torture the pages of the Holy
Bible to sanctify popular crimes!
The fact that such sentiments as those which I have quoted from Dr.
Lord and Dr. Lathrop can be taught with impunity from Northern pulpits,
implies a depth of moral debasement and blindness in the community
beyond the power of human language to describe.
The responsibility of politicians for slavery, is great; but infinitely
greater is the guilt of the American clergy. They frame a tangled web of
arguments in support of slavery, of which politicians would never dream,
and urge them with a show of piety which, in any other men, would but
provoke popular contempt and scorn. Common men would be utterly
ashamed to shield villainy under such sophistry. In discussing the question
of American slavery, I would far rather encounter twenty lawyers, than one
Doctor of Divinity; for if I should convict the former of self-contradiction
and falsehood, blind as the public are, they would decide according to the
facts; it is only the doctor of divinity who, skulking in the shadow of his
priestly office, is able to affright the common people from forming an
intelligent estimate of his character and conduct.
The abolitionists of the United States have been objected to on the
score of using harsh language; but what language is sufficiently stern and
denunciatory to characterize the conduct of men who, while acting as the
constituted guardians of the public morality, and claiming the reverence
and respect due to those who hold their commission from the most high
God, yet bring the whole scope of their influence to the side of the oppres-
sor against the oppressed, to prop up a system in which are combined every
sin and pollution that has a name? When I speak of such men, I can find no
more appropriate language than the words of our Savior to the Scribes and
Pharisees; and if any here deem the language I have already used harsh, or
denunciatory, I commend to them the burning words of our Savior, applied
eighteen hundred years ago to the same class of men as those who are now
standing in the way of the slave’s redemption: “Woe unto you, Scribes,
Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint, and anise and cummin, and
have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith.
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you,
Scribes and Pharisees, for ye are like unto whited sepulchures, which,
indeed, appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones,
and all uncleanness. Ye serpents! ye generation of vipers, how can ye
escape the damnation of hell?"9Douglass selectively quotes portions of Matt. 23: 23-33.
It would be easy to preach a sermon from these passages of scripture,
and to show their literal application to the pro-slavery church and clergy of
our day; but this is, I hope, unnecessary, as l have already had much to say
on that subject in a previous lecture.
I turn, therefore, for the present, from the pro-slavery church, and its
clerical defenders of slavery. The slave has nothing to hope from either.
They are moved only as they are moved upon by popular sentiment; and
when that becomes anti-slavery, they will become anti-slavery, and will be
among the first to arrogate to themselves the glory of the achievement.
Not many weeks ago, a State election took place in this State; and
important anti-slavery results were said to be depending upon that election.
The Whigs and Democrats came before the people with their respective
claims. Hunt and Seymour were the candidates for Governor of the State.
Seymour was openly in favor of measures adopted by Congress, as a
complete settlement of the slavery question. Hunt was represented as a
Seward Whig, and, of course, as opposed to the fugitive slave bill;10The 1850 New York gubernatorial contest took place during widespread anxiety in the state over the durability of the Compromise of 1850. Conservative New York Whigs had been critical of the influence that New York's junior senator, William H. Seward, had exerted in party affairs during the administration of President Zachary Taylor. When New York conservative Millard Fillmore of Buffalo succeeded to the presidency after Taylor's death in the summer of 1850 and shortly thereafter signed the Fugitive Slave Law, New York politicians turned to the upcoming state elections to measure the popularity of Seward's strictures against the Fugitive Slave Law, memorably fixed by his assertion that a “higher law” than the Constitution required the abolition of slavery. At their state convention in September, New York Democrats urged vigorous enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law. Their nominee for governor. conservative assemblyman Horatio Seymour (1810-86), denounced federal interference with slavery, maintaining that the greater efficiency of free labor made inevitable its triumph in the southwestern territories. The Whig candidate for the governorship, moderate former U.S. congressman and state comptroller Washington Hunt (1811-67), urged several “essential modifications" of the Fugitive Slave Law. Though in 1850 Hunt still enjoyed the support of Seward's close advisor, Albany editor and Whig boss Thurlow Weed, Hunt's candidacy nevertheless received the official endorsement of the faction of conservative Whigs who, led by Francis Granger, had bolted the party's state convention in September when it passed a resolution praising Seward. Hunt defeated Seymour by fewer than 300 votes in the November elections. Foner, Business and Slavery, 42; Harry J. Carman and Reinhard H. Luthin, “The Seward-Fillmore Feud and the Crisis of 1850," NYH, 24: 163-84 (April 1943); Jane H. Pease, “The Road to the Higher Law," NYH, 40: 131-36 (April 1959); Philip G. Auchampaugh, “Politics and Slavery. 1850—1860," in Alexander C. Flick, ed., History of the State of New York, 10 vols. (New York 1945), 7: 63-72; Stewart Mitchell, Horatio Seymour of New York (Cambridge, Mass, 1938), 114-16; ACAB, 3: 319-20, 5: 475-78; NCAB, 3: 48-50; DAB, 9: 395-96, 17: 6-9. but
how little there was to choose between the two, may be seen by perusing the
recent message of Governor Hunt. Not one word can be found in it con-
demning the immorality, the inhumanity, and the unconstitutionality of the
fugitive slave law; there is not one word in it recommending the repeal, or
the modification of that atrocious enactment. There is not one word of
dissatisfaction with regard to the law; not one word of apprehension for the
safety of the colored citizens of this State; but there is to be found in it, what
in all the circumstances must be regarded as a cheerful acquiescence in all
its horrid provisions. The Governor says:
“Notwithstanding the violent discussions which have agitated the
country, and the wide diversity of opinion which exists in respect to the
questions involved in the recent action of Congress, a general disposition is
evinced to acquiesce in the measures referred to, and to regard them as a
final settlement of these territorial controversies. The people of this State
continue to indulge a strong desire that harmony and mutual good will may
prevail between all portions of our widely extended Republic. They are a
law-abiding people; they cherish the most friendly sentiment toward their
brethren of the South; and have always conceded to the slave States the
entire right to maintain and regulate Slavery within their own limits, and to
exercise all those rights without abridgement or hindrance which the Con-
stitution confers. More than this ought not to be claimed or expected.”11Douglass quotes from Hunt's annual message, delivered to the legislature on 7 January 1851. See Charles Z. Lincoln, ed., State of New York: Messages from the Governors, 11 vols. (Albany, 1909), 4: 565.
The fugitive slave law is not named especially here; but it is easy to see
when the Governor assures the South that the people of the State are a
law-abiding people, and that there is no disposition to abridge, nor to
hinder the slaveholding rights, which the Constitution is alleged to confer,
that the fugitive slave bill is in his mind, for that is the only measure to
which resistance is likely to be made, and about which there is any serious
dispute between the politicians of the North and South. Rightly to ap-
preciate the tame and submissive character of this part of the Governor’s
message, it should be contrast[ed] with the message of southern Gover-
nors. They are loud and boisterous in their accusations of faithlessness on
the part of the North, high and proud in their demands; there are no fawning
and sickly expressions of friendship for the North; their love of union is
ever held subject to their love of slavery. They care for the North just as
they care for their slaves—only so far as they are served by them. This is
open, and above-board; and, if not generous, it is, at least, frank; and if we
cannot honor the men of the South in adopting this policy, we certainly
cannot despise them. Their tone is bold and uncompromising—we know
where to find them; but not so with Northern politicians. They are ever
anxious to be understood as a most harmless set of beings, taking the world
as they find it, and especially desirous of peace and concord. With them,
THE UNION is above all earthly blessings; and to save it, they are willing to
sacrifice liberty, justice, and all manly independence; and although they
have ever been repaid for their undue devotion and deference to their
self-imposed task-masters, with the bitterest contempt and scorn, yet they
have not even the spirit of “the fugitive slave” to make their escape. This
readiness to concede everything to the South is not only disgraceful, but is a
great political mistake on the part of the North. If there be one political
truth more evident, and more frequently illustrated than another, it is, that
concessions to slavery only invite new demands and encroachments. The
more they get, the more they want; and the more tamely the North may
submit, the more imperious and arrogant will be their Southern masters.
Nothing is more ridiculous and absurd than to suppose that the restless and
ambitious spirit of southern slaveholders will be content with their present
advantages, when they know that they can have more at any time when they
shall make the demand.
There is no history extant in which is furnished a more striking illustra-
tion of what a few men can do in the way of getting possession of political
power, than in the history of the American Government.
The actual slaveholders are a mere fraction of the American people,
and a very small minority of the people in the Southern States. Three
hundred thousand is the largest estimate ever made of them; and l have seen
calculations with great show of accuracy, setting their number at one
hundred and fifty thousand; yet these men rule, speak for, and represent the
whole fifteen Southern States, as completely as though there was not a
white man in the whole South besides themselves. They are the governors
and officers of the State, and they enjoy a complete monopoly of all that
pertains to the government of the State. They mould the politics, the
morality, and the religion of that entire section of [the] country, and the
white workingmen are but a step removed from the slaves in their servility
to this lordly and imperious class of men.
You, who reside in the free States, can but poorly understand HOW
absolute is the authority of slaveholders, and HOW abject is the servility of
their white dependents in the slave States. There is scarcely a shadow of
difference between the cringing obsequiousness of the slave to the
slaveholder, and that of the poor white man who is not so fortunate as to
own a slave. But the power of the slaveholder is not confined to the
Southern States.
Slavery is the only interest represented by Southern men at the Capitol
of the nation; and he is a fortunate man that is elected from the South, who
is not himself a slaveholder. The purchase of Louisiana, her immense
south-western territory; the millions expended upon Florida; the annexa-
tion of Texas; the war with Mexico were all measures commenced and
carried forward to their consummation by that mere fraction of the Ameri-
can people, the Southern slaveholders.
Governor Hunt, in his recent message, thus confesses the readiness in
which New York has ever bowed to the arrogant dictations and imperious
policy of Southern slaveholders; and he assures them of the continued
contentment of New York, in her servile condition. He says:
“Great injustice is done in assuming that we have intended or now
meditate encroachments upon the just rights of any portion of the Confed-
eracy. During the entire period of our national history, the people of New
York have manifested a spirit of kindly deference to the feelings and
prejudices of our sister States, and a readiness to sacrifice everything but
principle and honor for the sake of Union and concord. Their course has
been distinguished by a broad spirit of nationality, elevated far above the
indulgence of local views or sectional partialities. The limits of this com-
munication will not permit me to recall all the evidences in which our
history abounds of the generous spirit of concession which New York has
uniformly manifested as a prominent member of the Federal Union.
“For more than three-fourths of the period which has elapsed since the
adoption of the Constitution, Southern statesmen, elevated by the aid of her
voice, have filled the Presidential office. Every peaceful extension of our
Southern territorial limits was made with her concurrence, until by succes-
sive steps all the Slave territory on the North American Continent was
brought within the boundaries of the United States. Although every new
acquisition diminished the relative weight of New York to the National
Councils, she waived all views of State power or aggrandizement, and
yielded to the considerations urged by other sections in favor of annexing
the contiguous countries."12The quoted portion of Hunt's address of 7 January 1851 appears in Lincoln, Messages from the Governors, 4: 566-67.
A more true and humiliating statement never dropped from the lips of
any Governor of any sovereign State of this Union; and I put it to you,
citizens of New York, how long will you continue to manifest a spirit of
kindly deference to the feelings and prejudices of Southern slaveholders‘?
How long will you allow yourselves to compromise the dignity of this
“the Empire State,” by making base concessions to the ever-hungry slave
power, whose cry, like that of the voracious horse-leach is, “give, give,
give?”
It would be interesting on this occasion, if I had time, to enter into the
causes, and the means by which this small knot of tyrants have acquired
such indisputable power in the councils of the nation; how they have drawn
the reins of government into their own hands; how completely they have
brought both political parties to do their bidding; and how utterly impossi-
ble it has been for Northern statesmen to withstand their influence. I say, it
would be interesting if we could go into a minute description of the causes
of these things, for it is a marvel, until now, how readily every great man
from the North has been made to bow the knee to this mysterious power.
There is one obvious explanation of all this. There is but one interest at
the South; I mean there is but one that can get represented in the Congress
of the United States; and that is slavery. All other interests are cast into the
shade by the colossal greatness of this one, and around this all-absorbing
and all-commanding interest, both the great political parties of the South
rally, and make common cause. The South is united as one man; and nothing
diverts them from the one common object, which is the maintenance,
prosperity, and propagation of slavery. They talk of their “peculiar in-
stitutions, ” and about “Southern rights,” but the only thing meant by
these euphonious terms, is “slavery.” For this they are ready to sacrifice
“the Union,” “the Constitution,” the fraternal feeling between North
and South, and the glory of this great Republic. They make no hesitation
in declaring to the world that upon that question, there is but one party in
the whole South; while the North is divided, and subdivided, the South
is united; and it is her unity of action which must account for the success
which has attended her in every grand controversy which has occurred in
the politics and legislation of this country.
Until the North shall be as true to liberty as the South has been to
slavery; until she shall cease to worship the Union at the expense of every-
thing good and great; until she shall be inspired with a true self-respect, and
shall be represented in Congress by independent and high-minded men,
men to whom Presidential honors are utterly worthless in comparison with
an honest and faithful discharge of their duties as men, as patriots and as
Christians. Until then, the North must continue to be the mere cringing
vassal of the South; and she must expect to receive the wages of her
servitude, in an accumulation of kicks and disgrace.