But perhaps the most insolent attempt yet made to pervert the Federal Constitution to the support of slavery, was the expedient devised in Alabama to muzzle the Northern press. An article appeared in a newspaper published in New York, in 1835, which gave offence to certain planters in that State; and forthwith a grand jury, on their oaths, indicted the New York publisher, "late of the County of Tuscaloosa," for endeavoring to excite insurrection among the slaves, by circulating a seditious paper; and on this indictment the Governor had the impudence to make a formal requisition for the surrender of the publisher, as a fugitive from justice, although he had never breathed the air of Alabama.
We have said that the slaveholders hold their own laws and Constitutions in the same contempt as those of the Federal Government, whenever they conflict with the security and permanency of slavery. One of the most inestimable of constitutional privileges is trial by jury; and this, as we have seen, is trampled under foot with impunity, at the mandate of the slaveholders. Even John Tyler, as it appears, is for inflicting summary punishment on abolitionists, by a Lynch club, "without resorting to any other tribunal."
We now proceed to inquire how far they respect the liberty of speech and of the press.
IX. LIBERTY OF SPEECH.
The whole nation witnessed the late successful efforts of the slaveholders in Congress, by their various gag resolutions, and through the aid of recreant Northern politicians, to destroy all freedom of debate adverse to "the peculiar institution." They were themselves ready to dwell, in debate, on the charms of human bondage; but when a member took the other side of the question, then, indeed, he was out of order, the constitution was outraged, and the Union endangered. We all know the violent threats which have been used, to intimidate the friends of human rights from expressing their sentiments in the national legislature. "As long," says Governor McDuffie to the South Carolina Legislature, "as long as the halls of Congress shall be open to the discussion of this question, we can have neither peace nor security." The Charleston Mercury is, on this subject, very high authority; and in 1837 its editor announced that "Public opinion in the South would now, we are sure, justify an immediate resort to force by the Southern delegation, even on the floor of Congress, were they forthwith to seize and drag from the hall any man who dared to insult them, as that eccentric old showman, John Quincy Adams has dared to do."
When so much malignity is manifested against the freedom of speech, in the very sanctuary of American liberty, it is not to be supposed that it will be tolerated in the house of bondage. We have already quoted a Southern paper, which declares that the moment "any private individual attempts to lecture us on the evils and immorality of slavery, that very moment his tongue shall be cut out and cast upon the dunghill."
In Marion College, Missouri, there appeared some symptoms of anti-slavery feeling among the students. A Lynch club assembled, and the Rev. Dr. Ely, one of the professors, appeared before them, and denounced abolition, and submitted a series of resolutions passed by the faculty, and among them the following: "We do hereby forbid all discussions and public meetings among the students upon the subject of domestic slavery." The Lynchers were pacified, and neither tore down the college nor hung up the professors; but before separating they resolved that they would oppose the elevation to office of any man entertaining abolition sentiments, and would withhold their countenance and support from every such member of the community. Indeed, it is obvious to any person attentive to the movements of the South, that the slaveholders dread domestic far more than foreign interference with their darling system. They dread you, fellow-citizens, and they dread converts among themselves.
X. LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
The Constitutions of all the slave States guarantee, in the most solemn and explicit terms, the Liberty of the Press; but it is well understood that there is one exception to its otherwise unbounded license—Property in human flesh is too sacred to be assailed by the press. The attributes of the Deity may be discussed, but not the rights of the master. The characters of public, and even of private men, may be vilified at pleasure, provided no reproach is flung upon the slaveholder. Every abuse in Church or State may be ferreted out and exposed, except the cruelties practiced upon the slaves, unless when they happen to exceed the ordinary standard of cruelty established by general usage. Every measure of policy may be advocated, except that of free labor; every question of right may be examined, except that of a man to himself; every dogma in theology may be propagated, except that of the sinfulness of the slave code. The very instant the press ventures beyond its prescribed limits, the constitutional barriers erected for its protection sink into the dust, and a censorship, the more stern and vindictive from being illegal, crushes it into submission. The midnight burglary perpetrated upon the Charleston Post-office, and the conflagration of the anti-slavery papers found in it, are well known. These papers had been sent to distinguished citizens, but it was deemed inexpedient to permit them to read facts and arguments against slavery. Pains will be taken to prevent you from reading this address, and vast pains have been taken to keep slaveholders as well as others ignorant of every fact and argument that militates against the system. Hence Mr. Calhoun's famous bill, authorizing every Southern post-master to abstract from the mails every paper relating to slavery. Hence the insane efforts constantly made to expurgate the literature of the world of all recognition of the rights of black men. Novels, annuals, poems, and histories, containing sentiments hostile to human bondage, are proscribed at the South, and Northern publishers have had the extreme baseness to publish mutilated editions for the Southern market. [11]
[ [11] The Harpers, of New York, in reply to a letter from the South, complaining of the anti-slavery sentiments in a book they had recently published, stated, "since the receipt of your letter we have published an edition of the 'Woods and Fields,' in which the offensive matter has been omitted."