The voice of freedom. [volume], August 24, 1839, Image 2

About The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848

Image provided by: University of Vermont

                
who would apologize for slavery. Tlie man's eyes
glistened with. joy. From this case it might be
seen that if the churches would come out honest
ly and not leave slavcholding a hiding place nor
rest till the monster had breathed its last gasp,
then would the religion of the Son of God stand
in the pure light of her own native heaven, and
no man would be so presumptuous as to say that
she sanctioned the most foul and abominable filth
that the nostrils of man had ever smelt.
Mr. Tappan desired to state one fact. A young
man from the North was laboring as a hired hand
on board a vessel in the port of Charleston, and at
ihc close of the clay handed a religious tract to a
colored man who had been laboring with him.
Fov this offence he was next day arrested and put
upon his trial yes for the crime ofgiving a tract
to his fellow laborer. He stated to the judge
that he had not been aware of the existence of any
law prohibiting such an act: that he had been ac
customed to give away tracts and had no id .-a of
committing any offence in so doing. The mag
istrate said in reply, " I believe your story : I have
no doubt you did it with the best intentions ;
but we have a law, and it is my duty to execute
it," whereupon he sentenced the young man to be
confined in the common jail for six months. Dur
ring the same period the American Tract Society
acknowledged the receipt of $1000 from the Tract
Society at Charleston. Both facts had been pub
lished, and went abroad to Europe. lie believed
the statement lo bo true ; he had never hoard it
contradicted. He hoped . the reporter would re
port this statement in full that the American peo
ple might sec the monstrous inconsistency. He
had forgotten to state thatthe donation was a spe
cial one, " for distribution among the heathen in
foreign lands."
Wednesday Afternoon.
The Convention met and was opened wjth
prayer.
The first resolution reported by the business
committee was still under discussion.
Mr. Denison read a quotation from a newspa
per entitled the Baptist Advocate, in confirmation
of the statements made at a previous sitting, by
the Ecv. Mr. Brown. He said that not one word
in opposition to slavery or in favor of abolition
was allowed to enter this Baptist religious journ
al, although the Baptist denomination had hun
dreds and thousands of members in the West In
dies, where the abolition enterprise had been
crowned wun sucn signal success. All tins was
carefully kept out of sight. Ho further stated that
the Philadelphia Religious Telegraph, established
as the organ of the new school party in the Pres
byterian church had been expressly pledged to si
lence on tlie subject ot slavery.
The latter statement was fully confirmed by
the President of the Convention.
Mr. Bradley, of Philadelphia, explained on the
same subject. He said that the Telegraph had
formerly been published at the South, but an e
inergeney in the Presbyterian church having re
quired the united strength of certain churches at
the North and South, to carry the new school
party, the Telegraph was united with another re
ligious paper called the Philadelphia Observer,
and the southern editor had been transferred from
the South, to Philadelphia to take charge of the
two papers thus amalgamated into one, under an
express pledge given by the patrons of a northern
paper to the patrons of the southern, that if they
would consent to the union of the two, the new
paper should not touch on the subject of slavery.
Mr. Mellon, of Boston stated as a reason, why
the churches of every religious denomination
should purge themselves from -the contamination
oi slavery;' that a certain minister at the South
not only held and sold slaves, but actually owned
a slave who was himself a minister. When one
minister of Christ professed to own another as
his property it was time for the churches to speak-
out.
Mr. Patton.of New York, farther explained
respecting the pledge given by the Telcgrapfi and
Observer. He stated that Kev. Mr. Barnes, who
stood high with the new school party, had exerted
his influance in effecting the arrangement, but the
pledge had been given, not to gratify the wishes
of the people of the South, but of those residing
in Philadelphia who were apprehensive that Mr.
Converse,' the editor, would otherwise pursue the
same course at Philadelphia which he had at
the South in the promulgating of pro slavery sen
timents. Mr. Neal, of Philadelphia, said that he had
lately been travelling in the State of Delaware,
and on his return approached an ancient grave
yard, in which a beloved relation had been n few
months interred. The ground lay open and ex
posed to the road ; a murmuring brook made its
way down a rav ine under the dark sliades of some
copsewood, while the only sound wTiich interrupt
ed its murmurs was the lonely note of the wood
robin. Wishing to visit the grave of his ralation,
he alighted and made his way to the spot where
it was said to be, and there he found in a state of
ruin and dilapidation a stone chimney, together
with a portion of a wall which had once formed
the side of a meeting-house of the Friend's Socie
ty. The meeting had once numbered from two
to four hundred members. It had recently been
sold for fifty dollars to a dealer in the Moths Mul
ticaulis. He need not ask whyhe need not inquire
why no meeting had . been held on that spot for
eight years. The resolution woifjd tell why". Sla
very was there, and as it was well known that
their religious principles wero utterly opposed to
slavery, whose influence was always aggressive,
they had been gradually driven out from their
ancient possessions, until their sanctuary was a ru
in, and the enclosure which contained the sacred
, ashes of the dead lay open without a wall to eve
ry Dcast oi the Held. While there, he had search
ed for another grave, it was that of his own grand
father, but who was he ? Mr. N. did not refer to
liis name in a spirit of boasting, he came not there
to-vaunt of being the descendant of any man, but
when he stated that the grave he sought could no
where be found, that there was not a stone or
clod to mark its place, the Convention would be
astonished to learn that this was the condition of
ill.- grave of Warner Mifflin. What must that
system bo whose aggressive influence could de
fend so low as to insult the very dust and ash
es of the dead;
He added that he was happy to see some Del
awareans there present, and he hoped their names
would be found upon the Secretary's list, each
with a donation of a hundred dollars attached to it.
ihe question being now put, the resolution ns
amended was agreed to.
Mr. Stanton, of the business committee, report
ed the following resolutions :
" 1. Resolved, That wo will neither vote for,
nor support the election any man for President or
THE
Vice President of the United Slates, or for Gov
ernor or Lieutenant Governor, or for any legisla
tive office, who is not in favor of the immediate
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
"2. Resolved, That every abolitionist who has
a right to vote, be earnestly entreated to lose no
opportunity to carry his abolition principles to the
polls, and thereby cause our petitions to heard
through the medium of the ballot-box.
" Whereas the subject of nominating distinct
anti-slavcrv candidates for offices in the gift of the
people, has been presented to this Convention,
Therefore
" Resolved, That it be recommended to aboli
tionists to adopt such course in their respective
sections of country, in regard to this matter, as
will, in their judgment, best subserve the cause of
immediate abolition."
Mr. Goodcll said that the few remarks he had
now to submit, would have reference to the two
first of the resolutions which had been reported.
He wished lo present a few reasons why aboli
tionists in pursuing their grand object, ought to
act politically and his first reason was, that they
owed it to self-consistency. As abolitionists they
had long been in the habit of sending petitions to
the legislature in behalf of their cause. In their
petitions they asked their rulers to put forth polit
ical action. With what consistency, then, could
they afterwards refuse to act politically themslves?
The duties of their rulers were not more imperi
ous than their own. If it was the duty of legisla
tors to use their constitutional power against sla
very, surely it must bo the duty of abolitionists to
do "the same. Legislators were their representa
tives ; how ridiculous it was to ask their own
representatives to put forth political action, whilst
they themselves, with a full knowledge lljat their
rulers would not comply with the request, still
persevered in giving such rulers their votes. The
one act contradicted the other. By their words
they declared themselves abolitionists, by their
votes th ey declared the contrary.
Again, their reputation for sincerity required
this course. When men acted with palpable in
consistency, they exposed themselves to the sus
picion of insincerity. It was true, that men might
sometimes be inconsistent without being msin
cere ; but when the inconsistency was so open an
glaring, it was calculated, at least to induce sus
pieion. When they petitioned for the abolition
of slavery in the District of. Columbia, and yet
voted for men as rulers who would not only not
grant the petition, but not suher it even to be read
could men believe them sincere? When, as ab
olltionists. they sent up their petitions, what did
they say ? The very annunciation of the subject
spoke lor itsell, and showed that, they regarded
this subject paramount to all others. The subject
of human liberty need but be named; it spoke its
own importance; it asserted its own claim of su
pcriorily over all other interests in a free State
above all, over the lime contemptible ones
tions of dollars and cents, and the best mode of
collecting the revenue. If their petitions meant
any thing, they meant that this intercut was, in
their view, paramount. Jjut it, while presenting
such petitions, they would still cast their votes for
men who openly refused to legislate against s
very, it was but obvious they must do so only for
the sake of party politics. JJid they not thereby
show that mere party questions, involving a differ
ence of opinion on political economy, were of
more importance in their estimation than the
questions of liberty and slavery? In their peti
Hons, they prolcssed lo place the abolition quest
ion on moral grounds far above all considerations
of a merely temporal and political character, and
yet they would vote for men who placed every
thing above it. Surely their actions and the
words did not agree. In words they said that ah
olition was nil important ; by their votes they de
i i.i.-i i . '
ciared mat tne suu-ireasury question was more
important than it.
Once more, ns Christian citizens they asked of
God to give the country wise and good rulers
men that would execute judgment in the morn
ing, and deliver the oppressed ; but when they
voted, ihey contradicted their own prayers. W illi
the weapon of accomplishment in their own han
ihey refused to use it to effect the object for which
ihey prayed ; but wrested ' tlie sceptre out of the
hand of the Almighty, and used it to secure
themselves evil rulers.
Ihey were bound to act politically ler exam
pies sake. All great moral reionnations had
been carried by the torce oi example. What was
the true secret of the success which had attende
the temperance cause ? It was the irresistable
power of consistent example. And now what
was it they asked lrom tlie outh W hat was
it less than to break every yoke, to revoke and
reverse the evil laws, they had themselves passed
and to prostrate, by legis'ation that system ol slave
rv which their hands had set up? Now, unless
they, who asked this, exerted llicir own politico
power to accomplish the same object, what a
mount of moral suasion could they expect to exert
upon the South? iheir arguments had not the
weight of a leather so long as they re I used lo
make use of their own franchise. They asked
Virginia and Maryland to repeal the slave laws
in their respective States, while they, the petition
ers, relused to repeal those laws in the District ol
Columbia. Why did slavery exist in the District?
Congress had established it there. Let hiin not
be told that slavery had existed there before the
cession of the District to the United Slates. What
of that? In the very act of cession, all the slave
laws would have died of themselves had thev not
been continued and revived by ihe prospective leg-
e r. mi.... i , -
isiuuuii vi vuuiess. nicy, me peopled me
northern States, were just as responsible fertile
existence of slavery in that District, as were the
people of the southern States. Northern voter
were as much called upon to abolish it there by
llieir votes, as southern voters by theirs.
There was another reason, aside from the in
terests of the slave. It was because the people
ol the North professed to be republicans and
friends of liberty. Mr. G. would not stop to prove
to a convention ol abolitionists that slavery was
diametrically opposed to republican's : he mere
ly alluded to the fact, that if, they were republi
y
cans, then they were bound to moke the republic
what it professed to be, a government to respect
the rights of ihe people.
Further, this is the only way in which we can
preserve our own liberties. He would not antici
pate the details of the subject, nor enumerate the
aggressions of the slave power in the free slates.
He only alluded to them as constituting a distinct
reason in favor of political action. Slavery was
continually putting forth its whole power against
vour liberties. The right of petition hail been clo
en down, freedom of speech had been struck dumb.
The censorship of the press had been attempted.
VOICE OF FREEDOM
The pillage of the United States mails connived
at. The vast force of legislation had been wield
ed to establish the slave system. And this with
ihe express avowal of southern statesmen, that the
continuance of that system tended ultimately to
destroy the liberty .of the freemen of the North.
The freedom of the northern man was thus identi
fied with the freedom of the southern slave. It
might here be proper to read the declarations of
JcHerson, of Washington, and of Wythe.
Once more, till slavery was abolished, a State
or nation was in effect without a penal code, so
far as regards the restraining of one class of citi
zens from outrage upon another. Till then one
portion of the community was made the prey of
the oilier. Till then one-half of the community
is released from (he force of penal law. All char
acteristics which distinguished the American slave
system were acts which by the laws of other na
tions were declared to be crimes punishable by
law so that in fact the law of slavery repealed
the penal code it exhibited the anomaly of a na
tion repealing its own code of penal law.
This led him to a still farther view of the sub
ject. If the ground last alluded to was sound, the
people of no State had a right to maintain a civil
government which tolerates the slave system.
For what purpose was civil government establish
ed, if not to repress crime ? for what was all the
cumbrous machinery of law, if not to restrain ag
gression ? But when a nation established the sys
tem of slavery by law, as we had done in the Dis
trict of Columbia, it placed itself in a position an
tagonist to the very purposes of law. Nothing
could be drawn, either from morals or expediency,
in favor of the existence of law, unless it were for
the preservation of those very things which slave
ry allowed. Let us in our own persons be expos
ed to sale like beasts, driven to labor by the lash,
and denied almost all social and family privileges.
Should we not think that the very design'of civil
government must be to deliver us from such a
condition ? A government which protected one
class, but not all classes, vacated its charter in the
fitness of things, so far as it professed to be a mor
al institute, and sustained by the divine law.
Again, abolitionists were bound to resort to po
litical action, because they could not innocently
neglect it. Our rulers were the men of our
choice, and in an important sense our servants,
this they themselves admitted ; they called them
selves the servants of the people, and professed
it their duty to do the people's bidding ; they
were therefore to make laws with ihe will of the
people. Clearly then it was the people's duty to
make that will known at the ballot-boxes. This
was the way to teach their rulers that they were
indeed their servants, and whatever might be the
high powers they had received from God, through
the people, and whatever might be the authority
they exercised, their crimes were our crimes, un
less we rebuked them at the ballot-box. So then,
if Congress were criminal in the matter of slave
ry, the people of the U. S. were criminal. This
consideration brought every man down to his own
individual responsibility. The danger was, that
men would cast away this private and personal
responsibility. We were all in the habit of cast
ing it on ecclesiastical or legislative bodies, and of
practically forgetting that we were ourselves inte
grnl parts of the sovereign people. If the clouds
of Divine vengeance lowered on our country, we
were individually held responsible. In view of
the past history of the world, especiallly as con
taincd in the Bible, we ought to remember what
wo were all so apt to forget, that God went upon
the great principle of holding men individually
responsible for national acts. Nations, as such,
had their existence only in this world, and there-
lore ihey were called to account here and not
hereafter. When God overthrew Pharaoh for his
iniquity, did Pharaoh perish alone ? When the
scathing blast of his judgments were let loose a
gaist the oppressor of Hebrew bondmen, (although
all they suffered was light as a feather in com
parison with what is endured by our victims,) he
smote the first born throughout the land of Egypt.
Pharaoh perished not alone. Were the people of
kgypt prolessed republicans f Had Ihey publish
ed a Bill of rights? Were they free electors?
Did they profess a religion full of meekness and
good will ? So far were they from all this that
they were groping in moral and political dark
ness, and were themselves the slaves of rharaoh.
Who might plead exemption from responsibility
if not the subjects of a despotic prince, who ruled
by force ? Yet God did not hold ihem guiltless
how much less would he hold us so, who were
ihe citizens of a free State, holding the legislative
power in our own hands, but neglecting the dis
charge of our duty in controlling it ! He might
pile examples as high as the heavens. Men talk
ed about other interests o: the government so
might Pharaoh in Egypt, for the Hebrews were
employed in great works of internal improvement,
mil the public interests in i-gypt were far greater
in importance than all our miserable disputes o-
bout sub-treasuries and national banks yet God
did not hold the Governor of Egypt justifiable on
these accounts, for keeping the Hebrew in bond-
neither would he hold abolitionists guiltless
if ihey neglected lo exert their political power for
e removal of what they professed to believe to
be the crying iniquity of our land.
JIr. Cummings, ot Mass. moved to amend the
resolution by striking out the words " we enrnest-
y entreat," and inserting in lieu thereof " it is the
imperious duly ol.
Mr. proposed to modify the amendment
by adding, "and when they go to -the polls thai
they do not neglect to carry their principles with
them."
Mr. Cummings said he had three reasons to
give why the amendment ought to be adopted.
I he lirst was, because it was the duty of all abo-
itionists lo vole it they desired to have a good
government, and to be free from oppressive laws.
The present legislature of the U. States consisted
of Senators who were chosen to serve for six years,
and of Representatives who served for two. Some
body must choose them, or the legislative branch
of the government must come to an end in six
ears.
Were we prepared to give it up? If not,
then we must choose our representatives, and who
must they be? Wicked men ? Men destitute of
moral principle? If so, the government must be
wicked government, and we might expect that
the laws it enacted would be like those who made
them. If we wished for pure and upright laws,
was our duty as christians lo bring them into
existence, or if they did exist to perpetuate them
and ought wo to confide this power to wicked
men ? But what was our duty as abolitionists ?
Our rulers, it was clear, must be chosen either by
abolitionists or by pro-slavery men if by the lat
ter, they would be such men as approved of laws
to perpetuate nnd extend slavery. As long as
such men were in power, slave laws would never
be repealed. Abolitionists, therefore, had a sol
emn duty to perform. They must go" to the polls
and choose such men to be our rulers as would re
peal wicked laws.
This was our duty from another consideration.
All the power which legislators wielded, was pow
er which we put into their hands, so that, in fact,
we might be said to do up our legislation at the
ballot box. This was far as we could go. If,
therefore, wo let"pro-slavery men choose the rul
ers, they would exercise a pro-slavery power. It
was our . duty to put into their hands an abolition
power, so that when they should go up to Con
gress and stand where we could not, they might
carry out our principles and fulfil our will. Could
wo innocently bury our talent in a napkin ? If
we did, then .we were responsible for the laws
which held our fellow beings in slavery. How
must we appear asking men to exercise their pow
er in behalf of abolition, who were chosen by pro
slavery electors ? With what face could we ask
them to be recreant to their own constituents ?
There was no ceistency in memorializing legis
lators whom we refused lo choose. Suppose we
could convert them while in Congress into aboli
tionists, what real difference would there be be
tween doing this, and doing the same thing before
hand, at the bollot box ? There was no getting
away from the argument, Abolitionists to be con
sistent with themselves, must create a class of rul
ers like themselves.
A third reason was, that slavery never could be
abolished without this political action. Suppose
four fifths of the nation were abolitionists, and all
staid away from the polls, who would go to the
ballot-box ? The remaining one fifth, and the
rulers, being chosen by pro-slavery men, would
hold themsel ves bound to carry out the will of
their own- constituents. And thus slavery, which
was the creature of law, would still live and flour
ish, though four fifths of the nation wero its dead
ly enemies ; but if these four-fifths would do their
duty, slave laws would be at once abolished, and
the slave would be elevated into a human being.
How this was ever to be effected but by the polit
ical action of his friends, Mr. C. had never been
able to understand.
Was it not then their solemn duty, in view of
all these consederations, to wield their political
poiver. Conld the Convention satisfy their con
science by merely exhorting and entreating their
brethren ? Would they not declare this course to
be their solemn duty ? How could they be inno
cent, if with the power in their pocket to abolish
slavery, tney reiuseu to maice use o; it s io his
own mind the case was so clear that nothing-could
make it more so.
He would add one word further in consequence
of the remark of the gentleman who had second
ed the motion. That gentleman wished abolition
ists to carry their principles to the polls, so did
Mr. C, and when they got there, their duty was
to vote lor an abolitionist. What! Would men
profess abolition principles and then go forward
and vote for a man who was pledged to veto the
laws which the humanity of Congress might have
created? Surely it could never be. To vote for
a man who has not even a puliation of moral feel
ing in his bosom ! for a man who has so little hu
manity as to use his brief authority to add to the
oppression of the down-trodden and the destitute.
Let no abolitionist be found voting for a man who
is the apologist of slavery under any.circumstanc
cs. If he did,, he was a partaker of his guilt ; he
helped to extort the agonizing cry lrom every
string tortured slave in the land. If he did he
plunged the despot deeper in despotism, and lent
his aid in wringing out tlie last drop ot blood lrom
oppressed and expiring humanity. Would any
abolitionist take a stand like this? Never, nev-
or
Better let his right arm be paralizcd when
ho took the ballot in his hand, than cast one vote
for a man who would perpetuate the system of
slavery or palliate its guilt. No. It was the duty
of a consistent abolitionist to go to the polls, and
there to remember his brethren who are in bonds.
It was his duty to remember them upon his knees
to remember them in the sanctuary to remem
ber them in the closet to remember them in the
house to remember them by tire way to plead
their cause in the stages and in steamboats in
the public meeting and in the private circle. But
could a man do this, and then when he came to
the spot where alone he could apply the lever of
political power to aid their cause, lorget the slave,
lorgct his principles, lorget himselt, anu all iortne
sake of some pro-slavery leader? Never! No,
never !
Mr. Bradburn said that the subject which ap
peared so clear to his brother was not at all clear
to his mind. It was no more evident to him that
it was the duty oi all abolitionists to act politic
ally in favor of the abolition cause, than it was to
his brother that a negro, because of his retreating
forehead, nnd his curly hair, and hi black skin,
was created to be a hewer of wood and a drawer
of water to the end of time. Mr. B. for one was
in favor of political action. He had perhaps done
as much in favor of the cause politically as those
who talked so much about it. All the arguments
of the brother would have been just and conclu
sive hut for one fact which he well knew, butbr-
got. to mention, lie well knew that there were
many members of the National Abolition Society
who had conscientious scruples against going to
the polls, from the opinion which they held that
the government as now constituted and adminis-
ed was built upon the principles of cut-throats, and
sustained by laws which required men to blow
out each other's brains. Many of -these were a -
rnoiig the most prominent advocates of the aboli
uon cause, and nau done as mucn lor the over
throw of slavery as any of its enemies. Mr. B
said he had been greatly surprised to hear his
brother say that it was the imperative duty of ev
cry abolitionist to act politically in favor of his
own principles. Could the brother mean to tel
abolitionists like those he had named, that it was
their solemn duly to trample on their own con
science, yet this was the amount of what the a
inendmcnt did declare. Wis he prepared to say
that it was a non-resistant's duty to go to the polls ?
He knew that ground had been taken m New York
a few months since, when it had been openly de
dared that it was as much a man s duty to go to
the polls as to repent of his sins. Now Mr. 15.
maintained that if that brother could find an indi
vidual whose conscience declared to him that it
was not his duty to repent, then it would not be
that man s duty, let whoever would command it.
Liut such a case could never occur. Mr. 15. hap
pened to know some of those who had scruples a-
gainst going to the polls, and ho knew that ihey
had labored in Ihe cause as diligently and with as
much effect ns any others. Who was it that had
influenced the Legislature of Massachusetts to
take the stand they had assumed, and by which
they had done themselves immortal honor ? It
was William Lloyd Garrison, who had done more
to effect it than all the other abolitionists put to
gether. Gentlemen might say that in this he was
inconsistent, but if they would have political ac
tion, how could they be so scrupulous for consist
ency ? They wanted political action, did they not,
whether a man's conscience annrovod it or no.
By the amendment they would make a man in
consistent. But for himself he could not think
that this was honestly urged.
The Chair here called Mr. Bradburn to order,
reminding him that no imputation on men's mo
tives could be permitted.
Mr. li. resumed. He did not consider Mr.
Garrison so inconsistent in this course as he was
represented to him. A man might influence a
Legislature at the same time that he could not
conscientiously vote to make a member of it. He
might exhort men to do their duty at the noils.
though he could not go there himself and in fact
the non-resistants had been as effective in Massac
chusetts as any other class of the friends of abolU
Hon. Mr. Is. did not think the great danger lay
in men's neglect to go to the polls they were in
general ready enough to go to the polls but the great
difficulty was to get them to act right when they
were there. Mr. B. entered his solemn protest
against the amendment. However much he was
in favor of political action (and he always carried
it but in his own person) he never would consent
to say to any man that it was his duly to trample
upon his own conscience. Truth to conscience
was the only hope of the world. There was just
as much consistency in exhorting politicians to he
true to their principles, as church members to be
true to theirs. They might as well exhort an abo
litionist to join the church without speaking lo the
church about the duty of opposing slavery. He
would never join a church unless ho could speak
to the church and tell them that it was their duty
to remember those that are in bonds as bound
with them. A carpenter must hew to the line
though the chips should fly in his own eyes, so
Mr. B. would speak truth to the clergy, though in
so doing he might hit himself. He would say that
in resisting the abolition cause, the churches were
recreant to Christ and to humanity, but if the 17,
000 Christian abolitionists would only do their
duty they might give slavery a blow that would
send it to its grave.
A voice here cried " but conscience won't let
them." The remark was followed by a general
laugh. Mr. B. concluded by repeating the sur
prise he felt that the subject should be presented
in such a shape. He had hoped it would take
some form in which all would be united, but it
seemed to have been ordained otherwise and they
must submit, however painful it might be.
Mr. Miiler of Vermont said he had meant to
suggest a few considerations by way of caution.
He did so for good reasons. If the convention
went on at this rate they would soon drive off from
them all the men, both in the ministry and out of
it who were opposed to carrying their abolitionism
to the ballot box. They would all be driven off.
Why the whole whig party, almost, were aboli
tionists : but the moment the word "political" was
mentioned, they had seventeen hundred men on
foot who were ready with one voice to declare that
such a thing as making abolition a political mat
ter never should be permitted ; and they had the
mightiest man in the country to oppose it. Be
sides, all the men in the country who were warm
ly opposed to slavery and expected to get offices
next year, if abolition was made a political matter
would at once be against thein. He had met a
gentleman but the day before who said to him,
"Every pulsation of my heart beats for liberty,
hut if you are going to make this a political ques
tion I must go against you." lie had replied,
well, if you will not vote in favor of abolition what
are you going to do for the cause ? To which the
gentleman had replied " why I am thinking about
it." Loud laughter. Then there was the great
Orator of the West he had gone well for a time,
till he heard that political action was contempla
ted, then he had at once thrown himself into the
arms of slavery and kissed the very hem of her
garment.
When there had been a disturbance at Utica
another great whig dignitary who held a high sta
tion in the State, said much about those who
were going to move politically. Now Mr. M. did
not object to political action when it was in his
own favor a laugh. If the Convention continu
ed to urge this measure they would so enrage the
community that the people would begin to find at
the ballot-box that they had a conscience. The
eyes of not only a few States, the eyes of the
whole Union were concentrated on this assem
blage. This " negro business " was in all their
hearts : and on the action of this Covention"the
future prospects of the country mainly rested. It
had been well said by the President in his open
ing remarks, that they were met for weal or for
woe. Mr. M. therefore exhorted them to move
with caution. And at the same time they should
act with firmness. When they were pulled by
the sleeves and persuaded to do nothing, that was
ihe time to resolve on a firm and consistent course.
Mr. M. said lie should not have made these re
marks had he not seen a little breeze begin to
Ho would osk how did an army conduct
in lime of war ? did they stop at the opening ol
an action to see that every man's jacket was right
ly buttoned and that he had pointed his toe with
exact military precision ? No : not at all; the main
anxiety was to do their duty bravely and let tho
jackets and toes go ns they might. He hoped
they should not act like old Muckrake in the im
mortal talc of Bunyan, and be looking at straws
when a crown of glory was suspended over their
heads, when nn upright position and a bold hand
might reach and secure tho prize. Let them dis
regard all minor differences, and with one heart
resolve to do their duty.
(Continued next week.) .
The celebrated physician, Boerhaavc, through
life, consecrated the first hour after he rose in the
morning to meditation and prayer, declaring that
from thence he derived vigor and aptitude for busi
ness, together with cciuanimity under provocation,
and a perfect conquest over his irascible passions.
" The sparks of calumny," he would say, " will be
presently ex'inct of themselves, unless you would
blow them ; " and, therefore, in return, he chose
rnihpr to commend the good qnalities of his ca
lumniators, if they had any, than to dwell upon,
ihe bad.
Whenever you buy or sell, let or hire, make a
clear bargain, and never irust to, " we shan't dis
agree about trifles."
V