The Way to Abolish Slavery

by Charles Stearns

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.