R. D. Wills to Frederick Douglass, December 17, 1852
Patriotism—God's Decree against Liberty.
Friend Douglass:—The following is an extract from the Northern Farmer, a monthly agricultural journal published at Utica, Oneida Co., and edited by T. B. Miner.
"We are American in every vein. We love the land of our nativity, and are ready to exclaim, 'Right or wrong, still our country.' She has faults; she has sins: and she has blots on her fame, the removal of which would cause our heart to thrill with joy. But the day of universal liberty is not for this age. God has so decreed it, and we but kick against the pricks in our efforts to hasten it; yet we approve of moral suasion, and friendly, kind acts, and as much as you please through the ballot box; but when you come to interfere with vested rights, we says 'hands off.'"
The Editor of the Farmer is undoubtedly a patriot; and, to express the depth of his patriotism, he exclaims, "Right or wrong, still our country." There are those who think that this motto denotes the name of patiotism; and thus when they wish to manifest an unbounded devotion to their country, in the height of their enthusiasm, they exclaim, "Right or wrong, still our country," or more frequently, which is the same thing, "Our country, right or wrong." But does this sentiment really denote true patriotism? True patriotism is love of one's country. He who is truly a lover of his country, is one who regards not only her welfare and prosperity, but is also jealous of her character, her honor, and her fame. He is one who wishes to see her occupying such a moral and political eminence, that he may justly feel proud of her; that she may be a true light—a safeguard to other nations, and lead them in the path of re[c]titude and true glory, should they in any respects choose to follow her example, and that shall defy the criticisms of the present, and withstand, with unsullied honor, the scrutiny of coming generations. He believes there are such things as National Morality and Virtue: and that upon these, as well as upon her progress in the various departments of civilized life, that her true glory depends. In short, he must believe that "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." But if this be true, what becomes of the sentiment,
"Right or wrong, still our country?" Is it correct? Is it a true one for he real patriot, in its common acceptation? Can he adopt it practically? Can he uphold the wrong or justify his country in perpetration of a wrong? It seems to me that he cannot; but that in so doing, he himself becomes the enemy of his country. The true patriot regards the honor of his country.—Virtue and Morality are the standards by which her honor and glory are estimated.—He who justifies his country in a wrong, justifies that which brings reproach and dishonor upon her, and which may engulph her in irretrievable ruin. But the true patriot must view with pain and regret the errors and vices of his country, and will willing labor for her redemption, and rejoice at every well-directed effort for the removal of her "faults, her sins and the blots from her fame." The Editor of the Farmer evidently alludes to slavery, and regards it as one of his country's sins—one of the blots upon her fame, "the removal of which would cause his heart to thrill with joy;" for immediately after asserting that she has faults, sins and blots upon her fame, he adds—"But the day of universal liberty is not for this age." And why not for this age? Hear him: "GOD has so decreed it!" When, and where? What! GOD decreed that the inexpressibly wicked, outrageous and inhuman system of American slavery shall not cease during this age? No, never. 'Tis most impious blasphemy to impute such a decree or such a character as it would indicate to the Almighty. It is in consequence of man's disregard and utter contempt of God's decrees, and the substitution of his own, that slavery exists. If God's decrees were regarded, slavery would cease even now. The tyrant would tyrannize over his poor and defenceless fellow-beings no longer; no longer deprive them of their dearest and inherent rights—rights which justly belong to them as much as to him; no longer imbrute and dehumanize them, and keep them bowed down in ignorance and cruel servitude to promote his own aggradizement, that he may live in ignoble ease, but he would undo the heavy burdens, break every yoke, and let the oppressed go free, and with the rising of to-morrow's sun, all now wearing the direful bonds of slavery, and groaning under its accumulated evils, would walk forth free.
For the dawning of that glorious day, every true patriot, every philanthropist must ever labor—every true Christian ever pray. But what says the Editor of the Farmer?—"We but kick against the pricks in our efforts to hasten it." What does he mean? Would he have all anti-slavery effort, all the attempts to free our land from the sin, the curse and disgrace of slavery, and to hasten the day of the slave's redemption, and of the dawning of Universal Liberty cease during the present age? Does he believe that the day of Universal Liberty is to be brought about by the fiat of the Almighty, independent of human instrumentalities? No. He cannot; for hear him still further: "yet we approve of moral suasion, and friendly, kind acts, and as much as you please through the ballot box." And what use would he have us make of these instrumentalities? Why, it seems that he would have us fight against the Almighty! or at least against His decree. But we may profitably and advantageously avail ourselves of these instrumentalities to hasten the day of Universal Liberty; and in so doing we shall not come in contact with God's decree; we may do this and not "be found fighting against God," although we endeavor to bring it about during the present age. We shall not kick against the pricks in the sense in which that expression is used, although we may have to kick against the pricks that the foes of Universal Liberty may thrust in our path.
Having said thus much with regard to the above extract, perhaps I should quote another, showing the Editor's opinion of Uncle Tom's Cabin, &c. It is given in the preceding number, and follows a review of the controversy between Mrs. Stowe and Dr. Parker, in which, although he professes to have carefully perused both sides, yet he seems to have the substance of his article from the N. Y. Observer, regardless of important facts. He represents Mrs. Stowe's style in the correspondence as being "cool, pompous, haughty and self-sufficient, and Mrs. Stowe as being willfully blind and obstinate, not deigning to give Dr. Parker even courteous
treatment, but treating him with a contempt until intimidated by the law; but of Dr. Parker he says, "his letters were all couched in the mildest, politest language, and in the most charitable Christian spirit." As you have published the whole controversy, those of your readers interested are able to judge for themselves in regard to the cause, and the style and spirit exhibited by each party.
The Editor next proves (to his satisfaction) H. W. Beecher's guilty of forgery and says of him: "A more self-conceited, self-righteous fanatic never existed." Then he attacks Uncle Tom's Cabin, discoursing as follows: "The whole tendency of the work is anti-Christian, and aims to disgrace the clergy.—Its success has been only a morbid taste for thev marvellous, and not to any real merit as a literary production." Undoubtedly, Mrs. Stowe's numerous admirers, critics and reviewers will hang their heads for shame, when they learn that their supposition, that Mrs. Stowe's work possessed any real literary merit, was wholly owing to their morbosity of taste. He continues: "The London Times has give it its deserts, and the 'sober second thoughts' of the people are now against it. Like Kossuth, it had its run; and like Kossuth, it will soon rest in along eternal oblivion—like Kossuth, it has robbed the people of the money that had better have been spent for bread—and, like Kossuth, the authoress will soon retire to spend the proceeds 'unhonored and unwept.'"
There: what possible hope of farther success can Mrs. Stowe or her publishers have after this dogmatical prediction? What a pity that J. P. Jewett & Co. had not learned this before they published that edition of Uncle Tom's Cabin, a short time since, at $5,00 per copy, and printed a million copies at 37½ cents.
It is possible that this prediction may prove true, and Mrs. Stowe retire 'unknown and unwept;' but when the Editor of the Northern Farmer shall have done as much in exposing error and diffusing knowledge upon any important subject, in promoting liberal principles and a right public sentiment, and in advancing the cause of humanity, community will not be so ungrateful and unmindful of him, as to suffer him thus to retire.
R. D. Wills.
New Hartford, N.Y., Dec. 17, '52