INTRODUCTION.
After the flood of light respecting the evils of the execrable system of chattel Slavery, thrown upon the minds of the community by eighteen years of Anti-Slavery preaching; it would seem almost a work of supererogation to attempt to cast any more light upon the subject; therefore in this work, nothing will be said in reference to this part of the subject; but every effort will be made to convince the reader of the efficacy of the remedy here proposed.
It will be necessary to say at the commencement of this work, that the author is no politician, and does not write for party purposes; neither is he the agent, or the organ of any Anti-Slavery society, but writes on his own authority, and that of truth; being responsible to no man for what he shall assert.
My object is to present to the public mind, what I deem to be the only true and effectual remedy for the terrible disease of Slavery. If in doing this, you are condemned, reader, judge not hastily that I am wrong; but give me a candid and impartial hearing. In the language of the apostle, "prove all things, and hold fast that which is good."
I am not a disunionist, from any wish to see anarchy casting its direful shade over our land; but from a sincere desire to prevent "confusion worse confounded" from reigning in our midst, as most assuredly will be the case if Slavery exists many years longer. Let us then "give the pull, the long pull, and the pull altogether," and drag this terrific monster from his hiding place between the walls of the sanctuary, and the halls of legislation, giving him no rest, until he flees from earth, back to perdition from whence he sprang.
THE AUTHOR.
THE WAY TO ABOLISH SLAVERY.
Slavery is the medium through which the corrupt passions of men flow with resistless power. Beneath its influence every plant of virtue sickens and dies. Its putrid form taints the air which we breathe, and exhales all manner of foul odors, which render it so obnoxious to truth and purity, that these angels would speedily end its existence, if it were not for the support it derives from other sources than itself. Although coarse and brawny in its outward appearance, yet it is within full of disease; and nothing but continual doses of medicine enable it to present the appearance of life. It is said that a celebrated magnetiser, once preserved a dead body from putrefaction for a long time, by the power of magnetism. At length he withdrew the magnetising power, and the body instantly crumbled to atoms. Thus with Slavery; withdraw the enchantments from it, which priests, politicians, and speculators have thrown around it, and it expires of its own corruption. It lives only by this outward support, just as the virtue of some men is caused only by their being paid or praised for it. Apply, then, the finger of truth to its gigantic form; let but the mighty arm of righteousness lay hold of these sustaining influences, and sweep them from it; and it will fall as quickly as a huge statue would, if the pedestal on which it stands should be removed from under it.
Slavery, to be sure, reaches mountain high, towering over all other eminences in this nation; far above the highest steeple, or State-house cupola, (church and State;) yet tall and commanding as it is, it shall be laid lowly in the dust, if but truth can reach the props and guards which keep it alive. Herculean though it may be in strength, it shall then become powerless and impotent; the life that is in it being like the light of the moon, not its own, but derived from a source independent of itself.
What then are the props of Slavery? They may be divided into two classes, political, and religious ones; or in other words, both church and state may be regarded as sustaining the dreadful system. It is recorded in history, that at one entrance to a certain island there was stationed an immense brazen statue astride the water which lay before the island; and that there was no ingress to the city, except by sailing betwixt the legs of this statue, each foot of which rested on a promontory of the island. Imagine, then, the great giant Slavery standing with one foot on the American Church, and the other on the Union, requiring all wishing to enter the port of popularity and renown, to run this gauntlet, and you have a faint idea of Slavery. It plants its right foot firmly on the government of the United States, and receives its principal support from that; but to make its foothold firm and sure, it extends its left foot to the Church, and there finds additional support. Without these two props, it cannot exist a moment.
But let us see if it is true that it exists by the power of these two institutions. 1st. Does the church give it any support? We would bring no railing accusations against the church; all we wish to know is, does it render any support to Slavery? It will not be questioned, that in the slave-holding States Slavery is sanctioned by the church. Every one knows that slave-holding is no disqualification for church membership, throughout the entire South. Very few ministers refuse to hold Slaves, and neither ministers nor church members are ever censured for the act. The author has resided several years in two Slave States, and knows this to be the fact. He travelled and preached constantly, and was therefore in the families of a large number of religious people; and he never knew of a case where slave-holding was spoken of as rendering a man unfit for church membership. He was at many revivals of religion, and never knew a word said to any of the converts about giving up their Slaves, except what he said himself. Slave-holding was considered no more inconsistent with Christianity, than hiring servants is at the North. No man dreamed of giving up his Slaves because of his conversion. Slave-holders were the most prominent men in the churches; elders, deacons, class-leaders, stewards, and ministers. Of course if the church consider it right, the people generally will; for who ever heard of a purer public sentiment, than what the church approves of. Streams never rise higher than their fountains; and, of course, as the fountain of morals in any community is always its religion, never than the religion of that country. It is idle to expect the community to be better than its religious teachers; therefore such teachers are always regarded as more pure than the mass of the people. And the very idea of a church, is a company of people professing more purity than others; of course whatever sin is practised in accordance with the will of the church, will be by the rest of the community. If adultery was considered no disqualification for church membership, how long would it be before the land would be full of adulterers? It is plain that whatever sin takes refuge in the bosom of the church, will be practised by the world; therefore all attempts to correct any great evil are useless, as long as the church upholds them, and at the same time possesses any power. Take, for instance, intemperance. What a mighty argument it was in opposition to temperance, that church members made, sold and drank rum? And if this practice was followed universally by church members now, as it once was, what hope would there be of the progress of the temperance enterprise? As Christ says, "if the light that is in the world be darkness, how great is that darkness." The church lays claim to being the representation of Christianity, the embodiment of virtue. It says, "we are holy and inspired; if you speak against us you blaspheme God, for we are his children."
Then, of course, if it upholds Slavery, it says that it is a good and divine institution; perfectly adapted to promote the welfare of mankind. If the church forbade the practice of slave-holding, as it does those of drunkenness, adultery, theft and murder, and excommunicated those practising it, as it does those guilty of the above sins, the case would be far different, even if its members were in the habit secretly of practising it. If it even preached against Slavery, it would be a different matter; but instead of that, we have ministers justifying it from the Bible, and exhorting Slaves to obey their masters, because God requires it, and threatening them with hell, if they disobey them. Then we have the spectacle of a large church at the South, seceding from its northern brethren, because the latter did not like to have a bishop hold Slaves! They would not remain in connection with a church at all opposed to Slavery.
But all this you may say does not apply to the northern churches. Well, if the northern churches countenance the southern in slave-holding, it certainly does. If they recognize them as Christian churches, receive their ministers as Christian ministers, and forbear reproving them for their sins, then is the northern church guilty of upholding Slavery. And it gives a double sanction to it; for it says we believe Slavery is not incompatible with Christian character; and we have been brought up away from its influence. It does more to support the vile system, than even southern churches themselves; for southerners expect those brought up under the influence of Slavery, will think it lawful; but when they see churches living away from its place of existence, countenancing it and fellowshipping it, they conclude at once it cannot be wrong. Why the churches of the North should countenance it, what motive they have in so doing, is not for us to say now. The great and appalling fact stands out before the world, that there is scarcely a church throughout the whole of the free North, but what is in some way in fellowship with Slavery. If they do not fellowship southern churches, they do northern churches, which give the right hand of fellowship to southern ones. And where is the church at the North, the members of which are all out-spoken Abolitionists? Is there scarcely a church where "no union with slave-holders" is made a test of admission? We have never heard of but one, and that the church of the Covenanters in Pennsylvania. To be sure, the Wesleyans will not recognise the southern churches, as Christians; but they will fellowship those that do; exchange with their ministers, and receive their members, and more than all, allow their members to vote for slave-holders, even for Gen. Taylor! Certainly, no church can be Anti-Slavery which has members who voted for that king of southern slave-holders! That this is true, witness the case of Seth Sprague, of Duxbury, who is a Wesleyan, and made almost the first speech in favor of Gen. Taylor made in the State. But all our churches contain such men, and certainly are upholding Slavery. Witness the great number of ministers in this State, who voted for Gen. Taylor. Drs. of Divinity, as well as those less honorable; and some illuminated their houses in honor of his election, as in the case of Dr. E., of Salem. Others preached sermons in favor of the act, as in the case of Dr. S., of North Brookfield. Probably there is scarcely a church throughout New England, all the members of which, who voted at all, voted against the extension of Slavery.
Before proceeding to comment upon the guilt of the church, in this respect, let us for one moment consider the terrible situation of the poor Slave, as hurried from his family, he is transferred to the chain-gang of a negro driver, to be transported to California, or New Mexico. "Husband, where are you going?" plaintively enquires the sorrow-stricken wife, as he is knocked off upon the auction block to the highest bidder, and returns to bid farewell to his companion. "Wife, I know not! Farewell! farewell!" responds the sobbing husband; and away he is hurried from her presence, and perhaps beaten for speaking to his wife. An eye witness of these scenes, and one who has himself been separated from his mother, says he has known the driver beat with sticks the husband and wife as they clung around each other's necks, just before parting. The author at one time, while travelling in Kentucky, met a Slave who seemed very much dejected. He stopped and asked him what the matter was. "Oh," said he, "I have been to take leave of my wife, who has just been sent off to Missouri to live with my young mistress, lately married, and I never expect to see her again, as long as I live!"
What must be the humanity of these persons who cannot feel for the poor Slave in such conditions as these? No one denies that these things continually happen at the South; and yet but little sympathy is excited in consequence. The hearts of the people have become as hard as adamant. Their sensibilities are totally blunted. They are destitute of all feeling.
What a picture has just been presented before this nation! A new territory, free from Slavery, demands protection from its awful curse. A large majority of all the people in the United States, treat this prayer with contempt, and virtually say it shall not be granted by voting for candidates for the presidency, known to be in favor of its admission there. Here the mangled victims of Slavery, have these 50 years, lain bleeding upon the plantations of the South, loudly calling upon our government to desist from protecting their cruel masters; but their cries have been stifled by the clamor of noisy politicians, who have talked of the necessity of preserving our glorious Union, at whatever expense to the crushed and manacled Slave.
A new era seemed about to commence. The question is obtruded upon the whole country, and becomes the pivot upon which the presidential election is made to turn. Shall these cries of three millions of Slaves be made louder and more acute, or shall a barrier be interposed between them, and all increase of their sufferings? Shall Mexico be the slough of despondency, into whose terrible mire shall be cast the gasping Slave, and a new mart be opened for the gratification of men who examine the bodies of their victims, as a man does a horse he is about to purchase, and women as well as men; or shall a sword of cherubic power, guard all entrance to this country, as the angel's sword protected the garden of Eden?
This was the question brought before the people of this country at the last election, and how was it decided? Let history shrink back astonished as she pens the degrading fact, that the whole country was rocked with emotion, and reeled with the mighty efforts put forth, to place a man in the presidential chair known to be in favor of this extension. It needs no argument to prove the turpitude of such a people. Their guilt is self-evident, their hypocrisy glaring. It stares all the world in its face, like the lurid flames of hell, ascending from their subterranean enclosure. Guilt, did we say? There are no terms in the English language sufficiently strong to describe the wickedness of this transaction; and yet the church participated in it. No warning voice was heard from her public bodies arousing her members to opposition to this direful deed. On the contrary, many of her ministers volunteered to help forward the accursed transaction. The piety of Gen. Taylor was vouched for by reverend fathers in God; and saints of the most high, were found bowing in reverential adoration before this Juggernaut. Few and far between were the voices of single ministers, in opposition to this course; and now that the deed is done, who exclaims against it? Who comes out from the churches where these guilty men rule? Who refuses to hear ministers preach or pray who voted for Gen. Taylor? What society has yet dismissed its minister for so doing? What church has passed resolutions in opposition to the recognition of such men as Christian ministers? Why, a highway robber has as good a claim to the character of a Christian minister, as one has who voted for Gen. Taylor.
We have yet to learn of the first church ejecting a member for this flagitious transaction; and yet voting for Taylor is as much worse than common stealing, as a man is of more value than a beast or a dollar. By voting for a slave-holding warrior, you say that Slavery is right, reputable, and worthy of praise. Instead of frowning upon the slave-holder, as you would upon the horse-thief, you elevate him to the highest office in your gift; thus doing all in your power to render slave-holding honorable. It is just as great a crime to aid in elevating a slave-holder to the presidency, as it is to hold Slaves. It does more to uphold Slavery; for it says we will heap the highest honors of society upon slave-holders. We will place them where all their influence can be used to strengthen the system; and it serves to shut the mouths of Anti-Slavery men; for it will not do to cry out against slave-holders as robbers, when our President is a slave-holder.
Besides this, a very large portion of the church cast their votes for a man pledged to go for the extension of Slavery, although not nominally a slave-holder. Gen. Cass justified the extension of Slavery, and argued in favor of the unconstitutionality of prohibiting its extension; and thousands of votes were cast for him, by church members. To their praise be it said, many church members and ministers refused to vote for either of these men; but what action have they taken in their churches in reference to those who did? If such acts as these are to be passed over, in silence, then is the sanction of the church given to slave-holding, and the extension of Slavery. Recollect that the question was not, should Slavery exist at all? On that question there might have been some excuse for inaction; but it was should it be extended over a territory nearly half as large as the whole of the United States? It would seem as if Christians could not have hesitated a moment on this point; as if the whole host of God's elect, as the church claims to be, would have been marshalled in battle array against the myrmidons of the slave-power. But no, a death like silence pervades the entire church upon this point. It matters not to her whether Slavery "covers the earth, as the waters cover the sea," or not. Her "mission is to let it alone." To cry out against gambling, whoredom, Sabbath breaking, and such unpopular sins, is her duty; but to advance before public opinion, and create a purer one, is no part of her work. She is so engaged in saving souls, she has no time to attend to the bodies of the people. But seriously, is it not a terrible state of things when the churches of our land are asleep over such a dreadful evil? When the voice of the watchman is but faintly heard, if at all, in rebuke of the most heaven daring of crimes? We appeal to all who are in the habit of attending church. Does your minister every Sunday, exclaim against the horrid enormities of extending Slavery, to say nothing of it where it now is? Do you hear from his lips as severe denunciations of those engaged in this wicked business, as fell from the lips of Jesus Christ, as he reproved the oppressors of his day? No, you do not, only occasionally. It is considered a rare instance of courage if a minister dares to rebuke his people for having voted for Gen. Taylor?
What, then, is to be done in the matter? That the church at the North upholds Slavery can no longer be denied, for she goes farther, and upholds its extension; yea, farther yet, she countenances fighting for its increased power, murdering men, women and children, that it may exist, where it could not without this fighting. O, shame on a church having in its folds a single member who cast a vote for that most wicked of men—Gen. Zachary Taylor! But declamation will avail nothing without action. We propose a remedy for all this wickedness. We call upon all true friends of the Slave to leave those churches where ministers or members voted for Taylor or Cass. Further, we invite you all to make a critical examination of your relations to Southern slave-holding churches, and see if your associations, your conferences, or your conventions, are not in league with slave-holders, or with those who are allied with them. If you belong to a church not having a single member in it who voted for Taylor or Cass; yet if your church fellowships those churches having such members, are you not a pro-slavery church? To fellowship the churches who retain pro-slavery voters, is to say that such voting is not wrong. But if you cut loose from all such relations, do you not fellowship northern churches, who have slave-holders themselves in their bounds; for instance the northern Methodist Church, having still slave-holding members?
But if you are clear from all such connections, there is still another point we beg leave to submit to your serious consideration, which brings us to the second great pillar the statue of Slavery stands upon. You have seen the influence given to the system by the church; now look at the power given to it by the Government. This is the principal foothold of the dreadful system. Destroy this prop, and Slavery falls; but before advancing to this position in our argument, let us see for a moment how Slavery is acknowledged by law; for it is in this relation we are about to contemplate it.
The Government of the United States creates no Slaves; it only recognises as lawful the Slavery existing in the several States, or to use the words of the Constitution, "held to service or labor, under the laws thereof." The laws of the several slave-holding States are made the standard for the general government's action upon this subject. No quibble can possibly evade this, for it is not necessary to prove that a runaway Slave justly owes service to his master, but only if he does, under the the laws of his master. The master has made certain laws, claiming his Slaves as absolute property; the Constitution says, "persons owing service under these laws," shall be returned, thus making the most complete provision for the support of the system. The laws of the State in which the claimant lives, are the rule to go by, not the feelings of the judge, respecting the abstract question of the possibility of one human being owing compulsory service to another. It is just as much a violation of his oath, for a judge to refuse to deliver a Slave proved to be such, under the laws of the State, without "a bill of sale from the Almighty," as the Vermont judge did, as it would be to refuse to deliver the Slave with the bill of sale from the Almighty. If it is the bond that we contend for so strictly, as the Jew did for the pound of flesh, we must abide by the bond, which says, not if the Almighty furnishes a bill of sale, shall the Slave be delivered up; but if the laws of the State say he is a Slave. The recent decision of judge Edmonds in behalf of Belt, the most favorable one on record, fully recognises this principle; and Belt owes his liberty not so much to the humanity of the judge, as to the absence of positive proof that the laws of Maryland uphold Slavery. A copy of the Slave laws of Maryland was produced, but it only said published by authority, and not by the authority of the legislature, therefore Belt was allowed to go free. The omission of one word in a book, saved Belt from the jaws of Slavery, more than any other thing. To be sure, it was proved that the master did not take legal steps after the seizure of Belt, and therefore had no right to him; but the main reason for his discharge was, not the wrongfulness of delivering him up, not because God had given Lee no bill of sale, but because a lawyer could not swear that a certain book was the laws of Maryland!
From this decision there is no appeal, until a higher authority has decided differently. All that a slave-hunter has to do, is merely to bring an attested copy of the laws of the State, in which he lives, and prove that in such a State he held the person claimed as his Slave, and there is no redress for the panting fugitive. He must be returned to his former bondage, without any power to protect him from the punishment his master may choose to inflict upon him in consequence of his escape. Thus is Slavery legalized by our laws; and if we cannot expect a higher standard of morality than what the church upholds, certainly we cannot expect practices to cease, which the government pronounces lawful. People are not generally so much in advance of their laws and religion, as to refuse to perpetrate what those laws and that religion justify, and pronounce honorable. Thus the whole influence of jurisprudence, and church action, is thrown around Slavery. Is it any wonder, that it exists in so much power, and now seeks to extend its sway over new territory? What then is necessary to be done to remove this prop from under the colossal statue of Slavery? Plainly, to repeal all laws recognising its existence. Do this, and refuse to obey any of the claims of the South in reference to this matter, and Slavery ceases as soon as the earth would cease to turn upon its axis, if the Almighty should remove his hand from the crank of the mighty wheel. Or to drop all figure, as soon as the Slaves should arise and assert their liberty; which would be almost instantly, if it were not for the North. We are so hemmed in now by compromises and promises, that even in the act of voting not to extend Slavery, we unconsciously pledge ourselves to sustain it where it now exists.
But let us examine another point a few moments. What gives 250,000 slave-holders power to hold 3,000,000 of Slaves in bondage? Not the power of non-slave-holders at the South, for they could not be relied on, in case of an insurrection. They suffer so much now in consequence of the degradation Slavery attaches to labor, and are so impoverished by its influence, that few and faint would be the blows they would strike in behalf of slave-holders; as a body they are envious of the slave-holders, and would like to see him deprived of all his Slaves. They gain nothing by the existence of Slavery, but on the contrary suffer much; for the labor of Slaves is so cheap, that their services are not demanded; and they are not respected as a general thing, except in those sections of country where but a few slave-holders reside. What motive have they to put down a Slave insurrection? There is not a man of them but would be more independent than the present slave-holders, if Slavery was abolished; for there is so much land lying idle at the South, that the Slaves after emancipation would be under no necessity of working for their former masters. It would not be with them as it is with the free laborer of the North; for their power would be so great, that they could take possession of the best plantations, and leave their masters to look out for themselves; and the latter being unused to labor would be miserably off, which would reduce them to a worse condition, than that of the poor whites, who would immediately become the aristocracy of the South. In fact, if an insurrection of the Slaves should take place, there is not much doubt but it would be encouraged by the non-slave-holders of the South. Who, then, give the 250,000 slave-holders of the South their power? Let the winds of heaven answer, as they blow across the fertile fields of the South, and waft the scent of the cotton, rice and sugar plantations, to the nostrils of the money-loving northerners. Let the cargoes of bleached cottons and handsome prints, slave-tools, hats, boots and shoes, whiskey, and all other northern goods, as they sail into southern ports, testify. Let the ships freighted with produce from one southern port to another, the great carrying trade, for which our fathers bartered their virtue, loudly respond. There goes not a vessel from the North to Savannah, Charleston or New Orleans, but it carries within its timbers and on its decks, proof to the slave-holder of northern readiness to sustain him in his foul business. In proof of this, let me ask who voted for Taylor at the recent election more than the great merchants of the North? Did not capitalists universally cry out, "Great is Zachary Taylor!" Was not Abbott Lawrence, the prince of northern manufacturers, loudest in his professions of zeal for "Old Zach?" Go throughout our country, up and down all its cities and villages, and enquire who in those places voted for Taylor, and you will be told that the great manufacturers, the rich merchants of those towns and cities did. That they poured out their ill-gotten gains in behalf of Gen. Taylor's election; that the South might be pleased, and northern industry protected! Perish the word industry from the vocabulary of man, if this is the basis upon which it rests. What! northern industry only protected by electing the greatest of idlers to the presidential chair? Who feels less sympathy for northern workingmen than the man who drives three hundred laborers to their daily toil, with the crack of the whip sounding in their ears, and who robs them of nearly all their earnings, and forces them to live in a state of prostitution? Is such a man a friend to the rights of northern laborers?
But it is these pretended friends of home industry, which means any thing but their own industry, who stand pledged to support the South. It is they who are so anxious to see Slavery extended, because they can sell as, they think, a few more goods for the use of the newly imported Slaves! Yes, they are ready, as one friend of the Slave has remarked, "to annex themselves to perdition, if by so doing, they could sell cotton cloth to its inhabitants for six cents a yard." They are unwilling to have Slavery abolished, for that would open one of the finest countries in the world, to the ingress of free laborers, who could manufacture their own goods, and would not purchase so many of Abbott Lawrence & Co., as they at present send to the South. But they are short sighted even in this; for the abolition of Slavery would open a market for many more goods than could be manufactured South, which would enrich the North much more than her present losing trade with the South does. They do not comprehend this problem, for if they did, the Couriers, Daily Advertisers, and Atlases, would be filled to overflowing with denunciations of Slavery, just as they were of the Mexican War, when political capital could be made out of such denunciations. Then the tariff must be upheld, or the North will go to ruin, and they hope to obtain the aid of the South in this matter, by assisting them to sustain Slavery. The great body of northern manufacturers, care as little for the existence of Slavery, as they do for the sufferings of men perishing on the scaffold, for crimes against law and order.
They are almost wholly selfish, as is evinced by the character of the men they set up for office. They care not whether 3,000,000 of Slaves clank their chains in their hearing or not, so long as the busy hum of their cotton-mills at Lowell and Manchester, and the noise of their trip-hammers in Pennsylvania, are heard to resound above these cries. The music of silver dollars rattling in their vaults, as drawer after drawer is deposited by their cashiers, is sufficiently beautiful to them, to operate as an offset against the shrieks and wailings of the Slaves. What though the Lord of Sabbaoth lends a listening ear to the sobs of the bondmen, it matters not to them, as long as the gold clinks in their chests. All heaven may cease its songs of joy, to listen to the shrieks of the Slave; but worlds of Slaves might shriek and groan, until the noise shook old earth from its foundations, and sounded in the ears of saints like the sound of "many waters" to the apostle John; and these men would not turn from the dull music of their water-wheels, or the clatter of their spinning-jennies. Indeed, it is a question, whether they would turn from their tables of discount, and their columns of bank stock, if God himself should speak from heaven, and request sympathy from them. Sympathy! they have none! Their hearts are made of silver and gold, polished to an icy coldness. If the blood of the slave-driver's lash should increase until it flowed over the entire South, and turned to red the color of the element upon which their ships sailed; it would not mar the harmony between them and the South, until it rusted the bottom of their vessels, and rendered them unfit for the carrying trade.
To be sure all the people who vote aid these cotton lords in sustaining Slavery; but let them pursue a different course; let the leaders of the two great political parties of the North, adopt another principle than that of subserviency to the slave-power, and the people would not long object. The result of the last election has fully shown the willingness of the people to adopt the watch-word of their party, whatever it may be, and it would be arguing a great amount of villany on their part to suppose, that they would refuse to follow them in the paths of righteousness, when they clung so closely to them, as they took the most conspicuous part of the broad road. Certainly the great body of the Whigs and Democrats, would not refuse to travel towards heaven, if their leaders should say so, when they have sprung with such alacrity to join them in the road to hell. How it would be with the rank and file of the Free Soil party we know not. As they have shown a readiness to burst party bonds, these would not operate upon them so much; but charity prompts us to believe, that if the leaders of this party were to propose the measure of a secession from the Union, the Anti-Slavery feeling of their followers would willingly respond to the call. It is then to the leaders of both church and state, that the rebuke of Nathan to David applies, "thou art the man." It is the prominent men in all parties who are to blame for the existence of Slavery.
A word now respecting the abolition of the laws which uphold Slavery; or in other words in regard to the amendment of the Constitution. If this can be carried out without dissolving the Union, we should like to know it; but how can it? What is it to alter the Constitution, but in fact to dissolve the Union? The Constitution is the bond of Union; the instrument which binds the North and South together. How, then, can you change it, in its important features, without, for the time being, dissolving the Union between the North and South? Let us see. A proposal is made to Congress for an alteration of the Constitution, in respect to Slavery. That is, the North is tired of the bargain she made through her fathers with the South, and wishes a new one. Of course, if this new bargain is made, the old one must be declared no longer binding; and we have virtually a dissolution of the Union, although a re -union may have followed. This shows that the dissolution of the Union will not necessarily create civil war, any more than the passage of any other law by Congress.
The great question is, how shall this alteration of the Constitution be brought about? Of course, as long as we assert that it is good enough already, we shall not wish to change it; therefore we must first be convinced of its wicked character, which we hope all our readers are convinced of by this time; but as some of them may not be, we will dwell awhile on this point. No intelligent man will deny that it was the intention of our fathers to sustain Slavery. Mr. Lysander Spooner himself admits it. Sufficient proof exists of this fact to satisfy every reasonable mind. Almost all politicians admit it, certainly all honest ones. No one doubts that our fathers meant to uphold Slavery, when they adopted the Constitution; and the question now with us is, not so much the technical meaning of the Constitution, as its real import. We know that honesty always leads us to decide upon the meaning of an author, by understanding the circumstances under which he wrote. For instance, if an editor speaks of "fighting earnestly" in the approaching campaign; he would be deemed a very dishonest man, who should assert from the authority of this language, that the editor recommended physical fighting, and was in favor of bloodshed; but he would be no more so, it seems to us, than one who knowing what our fathers were debating about, should contend that they did not mean Slaves, because they said "persons held to service." Of course, being partners in the guilt of the transaction, they did not wish to brand themselves with infamy, by inserting the word Slaves, any more than the duellist is willing to term himself a murderer, instead of "a gentleman of honor;" or a lewd woman a harlot, instead of "a lady of pleasure."
Intoxication is alluded to, by its victims, in various genteel terms, instead of the plain one—drunkenness; and robbing and stealing on the ocean in time of war is termed by the mild name of privateering. So with all villany. Robbers are only lightening the pockets of their victims; thieves only picking up the crumbs of the rich; and slave-holders are only masters; Slaves, "persons held to service," or "other persons," or something else, to hide the shame of the guilty ones. Go to the South, and you will never hear the word Slave spoken; but it is "my people," "my boy," "my girl," &c. If you go so strictly by names, you might never know by living at the South, that they consider their servants Slaves.
What, then, did our fathers mean, by "other persons?" The clause reads as follows:
"Representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned * * by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons ."
Our enquiry is not what the Constitution can be made to mean, but what is the natural and fair import of its language? Of course, we can pervert the meaning of any instrument, and by false reasoning and wordy controversy, make black appear white, and vice versa. When I say "John, come to dinner," to a fair, impartial listener, my meaning would appear plain; but to a technical quibbler, I might be made to be a great tyrant. For instance, I assert authority. I utter a command. I do not ask John to come to dinner, but I require him to come, and a long argument might be entered into to prove my tyrannical nature, such as that I was forcing John to eat whether he wished to or not; that I required him to eat a good deal, a dinner, instead of a little, and above all, that I was disposed to force him to obey me. By such reasoning, the kindest of parents might be proved to be severe and hardhearted. On the contrary, if I say "dinner is ready, John," the same quibbler might accuse me of indifference to my child's welfare, that I did not care whether he came or not, and so on.
Now in all these cases, that sterling quality, common sense, is to be brought into requisition. When I promise to carry my friend to ride to-morrow, unforeseen accidents are of course considered as an excuse for the non-fulfilment of my promise; but Mr. Lysander Spooner, in behalf of my friend, might enter an action in law against me; for there are my words in writing, "I will take you to ride to-morrow;" but common sense would excuse me, if my horse should be sick, or my carriage be stolen. Mr. Spooner argues like an earnest man, to prove that these expressions do not mean Slaves, because they cannot be proved to have reference to such a class, by the exact meaning of the words. "The word free is not the correlative of Slavery; for a variety of reasons," he says. He thinks "all persons" mean aliens. Now, what an absurdity. Who ever heard of three-fifths of the aliens in each State being added to the naturalized citizens in making out the apportionment of representatives? How many representatives have seats in Congress, in consequence of aliens residing in their districts? Not one, and yet twenty-five men are seated there, in consequence of Slaves residing in their districts. It is a burning shame for a man to prostitute such noble powers of thought as Mr. Spooner possesses, to such a silly and contemptible mode of reasoning. Why, if his arguments are correct, all poetry and figures of speech are wrong; all metaphorical language, and personifications in writing are out of place; and nothing is left us but plain, straight forward words, which have a precise meaning, and can mean nothing else. If I say "the wind blows," I lie, for wind is an action of something else, and, of course, it is absurd to talk of its blowing. If I say "I am in pain," it is not true, for the pain is in me; and if I talk of God's moving the world by his arm, it is false, for he has no arm. If I say "the giant of Slavery stalks abroad, over our land," it is false, for there is no such moving thing as Slavery, for Slavery is merely the term applied to a particular act of a man; but who accuses me of falsehood in speaking of these things? To put the strictest literal construction upon every word of the Constitution, would involve us in some of J. C. Calhoun's criticisms, such as men not being born, and not being born equal, &c.
Let us follow Mr. Spooner's idea a little, in relation to free persons, meaning naturalized citizens. Mr. Spooner says that all the State Constitutions, at the time of the adoption of the U. S. Constitution, used this word in no other sense than the one signified in the English law, and of course that the U. S. Constitution used the word in that sense only. This argument, if it proves anything, proves too much; and we apprehend will operate fully as much against Mr. S.'s idea, as in favor of it. According to this law, the word free, Mr. S. assures us, means "persons possessing citizenship, or some other franchise or peculiar privilege, as distinguished from aliens, and persons not possessed of such franchise or privilege." Then the word free in this instance, must mean only the opposite of aliens. Aliens are those not entitled to vote, or to hold office. These are, I believe, the only privileges which they are debarred from. Then as the word free, means those possessing the privileges which aliens do not possess, it cannot mean either women or children, for they do not possess either of these privileges.
Thus, according to this definition, free persons are only voters and apprentices, and "all other persons," are foreigners not naturalized, and women and children. But Slaves do not possess, and never have possessed these "peculiar privileges," always having been debarred from the right of voting and holding office, and surely cannot rank as the opposites of aliens, any more than women and children, and therefore come under the head of "all other persons." If free persons are the opposite of aliens, and aliens are those deprived of peculiar privileges, then none can be free persons who do not possess these privileges. But Slaves never have been known to possess them, therefore they cannot be free persons. Free persons, Mr. Spooner says, are those possessing some franchise or privilege which aliens do not. Now, in the name of common sense, we ask what privileges have Slaves ever possessed, which aliens do not? Let their scarred backs, gaping wounds, and broken limbs answer. Slaves possessing privileges! and yet this is the definition Mr. Spooner chooses to give to the word free: "Persons possessing citizenship, or some other franchise or privilege, not possessed by aliens."
But a few words from the original adopters of the Constitution will settle this whole difficulty. Says Alexander Hamilton in the New York convention:
"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a representation for three-fifths of the negroes. * * Without this indulgence no union could possibly have been formed."
In Virginia, Mr. Madison said:
"Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess. At present, if any Slave elopes to any of those States where Slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this Constitution, 'no person held to service or labor 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 labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of Slaves to reclaim them . This is a better security than any that now exists."
Gen. Pinkney in the South Carolina convention, observed:
"We have obtained a right to recover our Slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before."
But the great question after all, is not what the Constitution says in words, but what use is made of it? If it is a suitable one for a free nation, it could not be capable of such an awful perversion as has been made of it by the legislation of the country ever since its adoption, Mr. Spooner's idea being correct. If it is Anti-Slavery, it is the first Anti-Slavery document, and the only one, Calhoun &. Co. were ever known to cherish and swear by. How remarkably keen-sighted must these wily southerners be, not to detect the Anti-Slavery spirit of the Constitution; and be hugging an abolition monster, when they fancy they are pressing to their bosoms their own bill of rights to hold Slaves. The southerners are not generally duped this way, and it is strange they should be so much so, in this case. For our own part, the very fact that the Constitution is valued so highly by the South, casts a shadow of suspicion over it, and induces us to reject it as an Anti-Slavery instrument. The South excludes even Sunday school books, tainted with Anti-Slavery, and poems alluding to freedom, are hardly allowed a circulation there; how strange then, that this great magna charta of human liberty should be so eulogised by them. The fact is, it suits them well. They never have complained of its not being pro-slavery enough, but have always rested satisfied with it, as their supporter and guide; and yet northern Anti-Slavery men will talk of its being an Anti-Slavery instrument. As well might the robber press to his bosom the precepts of Jesus Christ, or the gambler and drunkard, works on morality, as the slave-holder the Constitution, if he believed it Anti-Slavery.
We are aware of all that can be said in favor of independence of mind; we would by no means wish to bind any man down to the opinions of the past, or to say to any bold departure from established usages and opinions, "You are wrong, because you differ from great and learned men;" but still we would ask, if the Constitution is as Anti-Slavery as Mr. Spooner asserts it to be, how happens it that such egregious mistakes have been made concerning it? Can a real Anti-Slavery document be so misconstrued, as to satisfy slave-holders, who dread the least appearance of Anti-Slavery, as Satan does the truth of God? We will grant for the sake of argument, that it does not directly sanction Slavery; still we assert that it is a pro-slavery document for the following reason. Anti-Slavery is a bold, outspoken, and unmistakable thing. It is "known and read of all men, a living epistle," and can be no more mistaken for pro-slavery, than the shining of the sun, for total darkness. The difference between the two is so great, that they can never be mistaken, the one for the other; or at least genuine Anti-Slavery can never be regarded as pro-slavery to the full satisfaction of slave-holders. We cast our eyes over the history of our country, and from the commencement of its political existence until the present time, we see Slavery justified by the Constitution. From the President seated in the chair of State, to the representative of the smallest village in the most insignificant State of the Union; from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the petty lawyer and esquire of the country village; from the wisest statesman, to the most ignorant politician; from all who ever filled the presidential chair, down to him who hopes to fill it soon; from politicians of all parties, to men who abjure politics; we hear but one voice respecting the character of the Constitution, excepting a few persons like our friend Spooner, who seem to be disposed, for want of better employment, to test the power of their minds in arguing its Anti-Slavery character; as the philosophers of olden times, polished their logical weapons in discussing such questions, as "Whether God loved a possible unexisting angel, better than an existing insect;" or "whether an angel in travelling from point to point, passed through the intermediate points;" and "whether more than one can exist in the same space, at the same moment." Those mighty enquiries were the intellectual jousts and tournaments of the age of chivalry and knight errantry. Happy will it be for us, if a moral Don Quixotism does not intrude itself into our efforts for true reform. There is to us a great similarity between that celebrated genius's battle with the wind-mill, and our friend's long and laborious fight, to prove the Anti-Slavery character of the Constitution; for after he has made good his arguments, and proved, to the demonstration of all, that technically the Constitution does not uphold Slavery, what good has he accomplished? He has indeed fought the letter, and perhaps come off victorious; but does he invalidate its spirit? He rests like the knight of olden time, upon the field of chivalric combat, with a deep sense of having been engaged in mortal warfare; he has fought hard and valiantly; but alas, his foe still stands as powerful as ever, and not at all disposed to yield the field.
If the Constitution, as we sail across the waters of political life, affords us no sure and certain guide, but is like a chart, which has always misled the mariner, and instead of pointing the way to a city of civilization and virtue, has directed him to the rocky shores of some cannibal island, of what earthly use is it to us? We are sailing over a troublesome ocean. Dark and ominous clouds hang over our vessel. The sky begins to gather blackness. The red lightning shoots its lurid flashes before our eyes. The thunder utters its dismal groan in our ears. The waves begin to lash and foam against each other. Our course is uncertain; but amid the gathering darkness, we discern a light-house, dimly visible in the distance. We look upon our chart, not knowing where we are. That describes our past route, and asserts that a light-house is erected at the entrance of the harbor we wish to enter. We consult our compass. It indeed agrees not with the delineations of the chart; but a lawyer stands at our side and proves the correctness of the chart. We accordingly steer our vessel towards the light, but to our dismay find that it is but a false one, held out by miserable wreckers. Our chart was wrong. It had misled us. We tacked about and escaped the snare. We were not quite wrecked. Other seamen have experienced the same danger, but we still cling to the chart. We refuse to cast it from us, and even hearken to the suggestions of one who would tell us, that the chart is right enough. It is only our wrong way of reading it that has led us into danger. We resume our voyage, confident that we shall this time avoid all harm, for we now know what our chart means. Accordingly we hoist all our sails, and proceed in confidence to our destined haven. But a blacker cloud than before casts its dismal shadow over our vessel. We can hardly discern the words of our chart. The efforts to correct its false interpretations, have so marred its surface, that we can get no light from it. At one moment it seems to direct us as we are now sailing, then immediately in an almost totally opposite course, so that bewildered and confused, we drop it entirely. We then look to the unerring needle of our compass, and by its undeviating direction to the star of hope to the mariner, as well as to the fugitive Slave, we are able to keep from destruction,,until a correct chart is procured—one which admits of no evasion, nor contradiction, and by which we are able to steer our course, until we reach the haven desired.
Thus with the Constitution. It has misled us until we were well nigh wrecked on the shores of southern oppression. We now are not able to discover what it does mean. Its literal meaning conflicts with its real one. Shall we continue to trust the safety of the ship of State to such a Constitution; one which has misdirected us long, and the meaning of which all its interpreters have decided erroneously; or shall we abandon it, and trust temporarily to the northern star of hope; to the light which gleams from the hearts of those Anti-Slavery men, who are living Anti-Slavery epistles, and true apostles of liberty; to the faithful pointing of the needle of principle, as it ever inclines in an opposite direction from the South, and thus preserve our liberties until a true and safe Constitution can be adopted? Shall we trust to the dubious and contradictory readings of a bit of parchment, composed by men like ourselves; or shall we cut loose from all connexion with the dangerous islands of human oppression lying southward, surrendering our profitable trade with worse than cannibals; and launch our vessel upon the high sea of freedom and liberty, away from the rocky shores of these islands of death, steering with an undeviating course for some northern harbor, where we may moor our vessel, and safely land our passengers? What is there in the Constitution, after all, so much in favor of liberty, as to satisfy the sons of freemen? It may, indeed, do for such freemen as could fight for themselves, and yet bind chains upon their brethren; but for those who wish to abjure all oppression it will not answer. The constitutions of the true sons of liberty must be like their hearts, polished brightly; and free from the dust of pro-slavery, as well as from its grosser filth.
But Constitution or no Constitution, it is human liberty we are contending for. We cannot stop in our labors for the oppressed, to prove the truthfulness of our enemies' weapons. We cannot step aside amid the heat and dust of the conflict between light and darkness, to read lessons upon legal technicalities. The cries of the bleeding bondman sound too loudly in our ears, to allow us to deviate from our course so much as to descend to arguing for the sanctity of human constitutions. As we hear the noise of the wailings of the Slave, and every breeze wafted from the South is laden with the cries of 3,000,000 of stricken ones, how can we care whether constitutions or churches, are in the way of their emancipation, any more than a mother would care for the flames around her, while endeavoring to rescue her child from a burning dwelling? The fires of Slavery, tended by northern priests, and fed by northern politicians, have burnt fiercely these many years, scorching and blistering even those who stood by and watched over them; the Slave's form has become almost a blackened corpse; the little ones of a fond mother's love, are already gasping in the agonies of death; and the shrieks of the living are reaching heaven, while the glaring flames, have illuminated the firmament, like the flames of burning Moscow; and shall we turn the streams of the water of life away from these terrible flames, because forsooth sacred idols block the wheels of our engines? No, let us rather flood them all, Slavery, pro-slavery, churches and constitutions, with such a deluge of celestial waters, as shall as effectually sweep from the land all these supporters of Slavery, as Noah's flood, removed from the earth the sinners of his day. If we would abolish Slavery, we must be destructionists. The word has gone forth from the mouth of the Almighty, that Slavery shall be destroyed. The advancing spirit of the age in which we live, has decreed its overthrow; its fate is even now registered on the scroll of destiny, which contains the end of all oppression, and we cannot thwart this inevitable tendency. Reform has commenced to ride triumphantly across our earth. Error is fleeing to its native dwellings, in the rocks and caves of the earth; and truth with her holiday dress, is ascending the throne of the hearts of mankind. Truth, too long hidden in the fastnesses of the forests, almost afraid to exhibit its face, although thickly veiled, is removing her garb of concealment; is stepping from her wilderness retreat, and is boldly disputing the reign of the earth, with the monsters who have so long ruled it, but to curse it, and reign over it, but to mar its life. Henceforward, although many a long and bloody battle is to be fought, between the enemies of God and man; yet truth shall conquer. Man is arousing himself to noble deeds. Slavery, that giant of despair, so long planted in the road pursued by the pilgrims of truth, like Bunyan's gloomy giant of Doubting Castle, is retreating from all its former strongholds. There is scarcely a country within the bounds of this green earth, upon which the warm sun of heaven sheds its benignant rays, but what is delivering itself from this foul blot, America only excepted! Britons and French, Danes and Norwegians, Russians and Turks, Seminole Indians and Mexicans, Algerines and Tunisites, themselves, are all casting the execrable system from them, as a reproach to their fair names; but young America, loudest in her boasts of purity, freedom and piety, is lagging behind. She only, of all the nations of the earth, seems unwilling to let the captive go free. She who fought for her own liberty, the greatest of tyrants, almost the only Pharoah of the earth!
But thanks to a few in her borders, even her proud heart begins to grow faint; her limbs tremble slightly, and like the mariners in a storm, who rush to the bottle to drink their fill for the last time, she is growing desperate, and drinking more deeply than ever of the cup of Slavery, as the last draught she can obtain from its noisome fountain.
Courage, friends of your race! Let the breath of the Almighty inspire you, let his fiat strengthen you! Clothe yourselves in the panoply of truth afresh; gird on the gospel armor anew, and make a bolder attack than ever upon the Bastile of Slavery. This gloomy castle, which has so long frowned upon our liberties, shall be razed to the ground, and its pining inmates set free, to breathe the pure air of liberty.
Onward, friends of reform! Remember that "the battle is not to the strong, nor the race to the swift only, but that stronger is the armor of the Almighty, than all the weapons of your enemies." Gird on, not the clumsy armor of King Saul, but the "breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit," the weapons which are not "carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down the strong holds of Satan."
One enquiry more remains for us to answer, which is, how shall we dissolve the Union? It was asserted that if the Constitution could be altered without dissolution, such a step would be unnecessary; but be it remembered, that this event can never take place, until the South is partly Anti-Slavery. The consent of the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, is necessary to accomplish this, and we leave it to all candid persons to judge whether there is any hope of such consent ever being given. The only remedy plainly is for us to abjure the Constitution, proclaim ourselves free and independent of the South, and organize a new and separate government at the North.
The steps necessary are briefly these. Let a convention of the people of the Free States in favor of this movement be called; let the legislatures of the several States withdraw their Representatives and Senators from Congress, and let them meet together, and send delegates to this general convention, as our fathers did to the convention where the Declaration of Independence was adopted. Let them meet, and adopt a Constitution, fix upon some conspicuous place for a seat of government, Buffalo for instance, send home the constitution to be ratified by the several northern States, and having thus formed their own government, let them withdraw their portion of the Army and Navy from the South, refuse to pay duties to the general government, and send a minister to the southern government for the adjustment of all claims between the two. Of course the South would be too busy in settling their own affairs to disturb us for awhile; and if war come at last, it is easy to see who would be victorious; the North with all her resources, or the South with her 3,000,000 of Slaves in her borders. The whole territory north of Mason and Dixon's line would then be open to the fleeing fugitive. No Slave hunter would dare to venture on our soil, to recover his lost victim. Thus Slave property would be useless in Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, and probably those States would soon knock at our doors for admission to our union. That would destroy the value of Slaves still farther South, and eventually the whole country would become free. But there is another view of it. The Slaves could then arise and demand their freedom, and nought could prevent them from attaining it. "At the first tap of the drum, there are 10,000 northern bayonets, ready to be thrust into the bosoms of the Slaves, should they attempt an insurrection," says Mr. Underwood of Kentucky, on the floor of Congress. This danger would have vanished. No northern foe could then be ready to strike down the Slave fighting for liberty, but millions would sympathize with and assist him. Of course the people of the North must be converted before this change can take place, but come it must. It is the only remedy for Slavery that we have any confidence in, and there is no time to be lost.
Come it must, did we say? It has already come in one sense. The people, the bone and sinew of the country, are nearly ready for the change. The workingmen of the North can perceive the disadvantage Slavery is to them; how it degrades labor, and prevents the exaltation of the laborer; but their leaders are wily, and will endeavor to persuade them, that the Union is of more consequence than the abolition of Slavery. There can be no question, if it were not for the leaders in church and state, that a dissolution of the Union would be speedily brought about; but these men, always the curses of society, stand in the way of all improvement in this respect. If the people had been allowed to act according to their own impulses, would Zachary Taylor have been elected President of this nation? Witness the mighty gathering of freedom's hosts at Buffalo; and see to what a pitch popular feeling arose, when the nomination of men known to be thoroughly opposed to slavery extension was made known! The noise of acclamation, arising from nearly 50,000 hearts, sounded throughout this nation, like a thunder-clap in the ears of selfish and unprincipled leaders. No event ever produced such a change in the policy of corrupt men, as this demonstration of the first fruits of the spirit of freedom. Politicians as corrupt as putridity itself, trembled and cried aloud for help. A universal howl of despair went up from the hell of Slavery; but the faces of the sons of freedom every where grew bright, as the countenance of the mother is lit up with joy when she beholds her first-born child lying in her arms. If such a mighty change took place as the result of this, the morning light of freedom, what will be the howlings of the wicked, and the rejoicings of the good, when the sun of emancipation, shall shine in all the brightness of its meridian splendor, upon the dark and gloomy caverns of Slavery, as will be the case when a similar convention shall nominate a man for the presidency of the Northern Union?
If the faces of the southerners and their allies were elongated then, what will be their length when the news of such a convention shall reach their ears? We repeat it, the people are nearly ready for this change; and only need the word of command from their leaders, to adopt as their watchword, "No more union with slave-holders." But unprincipled leaders never will be converted only by the people advancing before them; therefore our work lies with the people.
Men and women of America, descendants of those pioneers of freedom, who braved the vicissitudes of fortune in a new and wilderness land, that liberty might be bestowed upon their children; sons and daughters of the warriors of Lexington and Bunker Hill; children of the patriots of the revolution; is there none of that spirit of liberty which actuated your fathers, remaining within your hearts? Have the fires of freedom become so nearly extinct in your breasts, as to leave no spark of liberty there, which can be made to ignite the hearts of cotton which surround you? Burns there no flame of indignation in your souls, at the remembrance of the insults you have received at the hands of the South? Say, ye children of proud and tyranny-hating parents, are ye sunk in such abject submission to your oppressors, that no trampling under foot your own and the Slave's rights, can arouse ye from your stupor? O, is there no portion of that hatred of tyranny, which prompted your fathers to say, "resistance to tyrants is obedience to God," left within your bosoms? Then, indeed, are you recreant to the principles your fathers struggled with adversity's power to establish, the base and degenerate sons of noble and energetic sires.
One word more, and our task is finished. What is the South, that ye should cling so closely to her? Is she not a polluting harlot, deceiving you by her gay attire, and attempting to seduce you from the path of virtue by her blandishments? Yea, has she not already beguiled your simple hearts, and now that she has bewitched you, and obtained power over you, seeking but to insult and cast contempt upon you? O, let us break away from her polluting embraces, and return to virtue and integrity. "Come out from her, my people, and be not partakers of her sins, that ye receive not of her plagues."