Abolition a Sedition Part 4

But, form a Society of these very persons, and send out an Agent to the Antipodes to hunt up the misery that may be found there, to report in due form on precisely the same cases of distress, or on such, perhaps, as are not half so worthy of pity, and the tear of sympathy will be seen trickling down the cheek of the sentimentalist, as he reads the printed doc.u.ment in his easy chair, or listens to the fervid eloquence of the platform orator, who feels the same pleasure in telling the story which his hearers do in receiving it. "'Tis distance lends enchantment," and because these persons can luxuriate in the indulgence of their benevolence in agreeable circ.u.mstances, without being compelled to come in actual contact with the squalid and disgusting forms of misery; or like Howard, to sacrifice home and comfort to look it up, and administer consolation at the expense of ease and better society.

To all this we have no objection. Even if the statements are exaggerated, and the pictures highly colored; though the Agents engaged in this work know well, that their support depends on the interest they create; though there is not half the good accomplished that was dreamt of, or is supposed; nay, though all the fruits of this sympathy were expended on the way to its objects, and in sustaining this machinery, still the world is made better, and the compensation is abundant, though nothing else be gained, but the good and kind feeling it has kindled up at home. It is even better, that they who will not relieve the miserable objects that lie at their doors, or perish in the streets, or starve in the comfortless abodes of their own city or town, should have some small pittances of their abundance drawn out by the workings of a romantic sympathy for the remotest objects, than that they should do nothing at all. If they feel not for the wretched before their eyes, it is yet good that they can be made to feel for those who are far off.

The Christian missions of the age, and all purely benevolent enterprises, which meddle not with the political structures of society, are most worthy of patronage and support, _under a suitable organization_. However they may, in some degree, fall under these strictures, our remarks are only an echo of practical and faithful missionaries, who have themselves written largely on the romance of Missions, and laboured to chasten the views and expectations of contributors to the cause, and to establish the work on the basis of sound Christian principle. As we have before intimated, the Abolition movement is a wandering star, an eccentric and fiery orb, that has broken loose from the Religious and Benevolent Society system, with all its armor on, and betrayed and violated the principles of that system, by plunging into the battle field of political strife, and running riot in a wild and mad encounter with the political interests of mankind. It is a comet out of place, thrown off from its own sphere by the violence of its centrifugal action, and comes dashing on its way into a family of planetary worlds, whose orderly course around a common centre it threatens to throw into confusion, and is likely to plunge full sweep on that great central ORB which gives us light and heat, and which, we hope and pray, will be able to sustain the shock without injury.

The romance of Abolitionism is well ill.u.s.trated in the history of that crusade which roused all Europe, and led forth its armies upon the plains of Western Asia against the infidels, to rescue "the Holy City"

from "the abomination of desolation;" and we will venture to say, that the great majority of Abolitionists are equally and no more wise, in the expedition to which they are lending their aid. They know just as much of the real state of things in the slave-holding States, and seem to be equally blind to the romantic character of the enterprise.

Let it be always understood, that we make no controversy with the Abolitionists, as to the right or wrong of slavery, in this country or any other, or in any case whatever. For in all cases, we presume, that we are as much opposed to slavery as they are. We consider, that this question is entirely forced aside by the position a.s.sumed by the Abolitionists, and by principles they have avowed before the public, which must necessarily supercede this question, till those principles are practically settled. Abolitionists claim the right to a political interference, which is denied to them alike by the Const.i.tutional law of the land, by the expressed opinions of our national authorities, by the parties most intimately concerned, and by the general voice of public opinion. And this is the ground upon which we meet them, and only upon this ground. We have no objection to their opinion concerning the inexpediency and sin of slavery, or to any proper modes of expressing that opinion. This has long been known to be the common opinion of the North, without disturbing society in the South; and the action of that opinion, in a proper way, was likely to make advances, and ultimately to gain its object, if it had not been checked by this inauspicious interference with existing political society and political claims. Abolition, in the peculiar circ.u.mstances and relations of American political society, can never, as we think, be _enforced_ by political action from abroad; it can only be gained through the moral sense of those who have the charge of slavery, in connexion with their interests. While, therefore, we declare the general ignorance of Abolitionists of the real state of slavery, as a reason why they should not meddle with it in the way they propose, we protest against being represented as the apologist of slavery.

Since, therefore, the people of the North cannot interfere _politically_ with the slavery of the South--for we deem ourselves ent.i.tled to a.s.sume this ground, in view of the reasons already presented--and since a wide spread and powerful political combination is in the field, mustering additional forces, and stirring up their ranks to an onward course, by exaggerated and unfair representations, we think it important, by all suitable means, to endeavour to break that spell of romance, which, we conceive, has no small share in this undertaking. We say, then, that the great body of Abolitionists have not the means of knowing, and consequently do not know, the real condition of slavery in the States where it exists, either as to what it is in itself, or as to what it is in comparison of other states of society in this and other countries. Instructed and excited by the doc.u.ments and various literary emissions of the Society--all of which appear to be greatly exaggerated in their representation of facts, inflammatory in their character, and some of the most influential of them purely fict.i.tious--they have obtained views of slavery at the South which cannot be sustained by the truth of the case, and have been stirred up to a sympathy which is for the most part romantic.

_All_ their views of the practicability of that form of action they have a.s.sumed, being itself an unlawful organisation, as we have shown, and at war with the political structure of our society, are, as we think, purely romantic. They are generally, therefore, involved in an atmosphere of romance on this subject.

As to the practicability of _immediate emanc.i.p.ation_--which is the avowed doctrine and aim of the Abolitionists--either for the good of the slaves, or the safety of society, it receives the unqualified negative of all Northern men and foreigners, who have visited the slave-holding States, without having been previously committed to the principles of Abolitionism; and that, too, against all the reports that have been brought from the British West Indies, down to this time, by the Agents of the American Anti-Slavery Society, or through other more circuitous or direct channels. Every practical man may see, that the experiment of emanc.i.p.ation in the West Indies is not yet fairly tested. We have read Thome's & Kimball's "Six Months' Tour" and Professor Hovey's "Letters," and compared them with other evidence and the unalterable principles of human nature; and after making those abatements which experience teaches are always due to ex parte statements, we honestly conceive, that the argument is neutralised, and the whole subject is necessarily left in suspense as to the legitimate influence of such testimony.

We say, then, without fear of contradiction, that every disinterested _man's_ report from the South, whether American or foreigner, on the question of _immediate abolition_, declares decidedly and solemnly to the Abolitionists, "Gentlemen, you are wrong. It is impossible."

But the doctrine of _immediate_ abolition, _dictated_ to the slave-holding States, and _imposed_ upon them, even though it were safely practicable, a.s.sumes the right of interference, and therefore cannot be expected to be conceded by those concerned, and who claim the right of originating and deciding this question for themselves.

The same right has been claimed by the Northern States, where slavery formerly existed, and in no case have they seen fit to attempt _immediate_ emanc.i.p.ation. To enforce it upon the South by foreign dictation would be despotic, nay, an invasion, and, as we think, "contrary to the principles of our republican form of Government." We declare, in the first place, that foreign, that is, Northern Abolitionists are, from the necessities of their position, _incompetent_ judges of this question; and next, that they are unconst.i.tutional, and therefore unlawful judges. Certainly, we do not mean by this to debar the right of opinion, or any const.i.tutional modes of expressing it; but only, that they have no right to sit in judgment on this question for the purposes of dictation and legislation, or for that which is tantamount to legislation, to _enforce_ this principle.

Moreover, some of the most influential literary emissions of the American Anti-Slavery Society are _purely fict.i.tious_, and generally so exaggerated and highly coloured, or so unfaithful in not giving the whole truth, as to misrepresent the truth. "The narrative of James Williams," which has probably had more influence, and excited more feeling, than any other single doc.u.ment, and which was thought of sufficient importance to be made conspicuous in the last Annual Report of the Society, by devoting one third of a page _to attest its veracity_, notwithstanding the Abolitionists had been sufficiently advised, _that it was false_. They have at last been forced to make public confession, _that it is a fiction_! It is impossible to say, what proportion of the issues of this Society are of this character, because the proof of a negative, especially in such matters, is always slow and difficult; but the exceeding avidity of the Abolitionists to take up and accredit such stories as "the Narrative of James Williams," directly in the face of reb.u.t.ting and conclusive evidence, and the strong temptations in such circ.u.mstances to fiction, may fairly establish the presumption, that many of their issues are purely fict.i.tious.

But exaggeration of statement, over-coloring of facts, and keeping back parts of truth which are essential to a correct judgment, are precisely of the nature of fiction. Such is the concurrent testimony from all quarters, and such the evidence of probability in the very nature of things, that this part of the budget must be immense. Every body, who has visited the slave States, _knows_, that slavery there is _not_ what it is represented to be in the publications of the American Anti-slavery Society, in general, or in particular. Certain specific evils, necessarily resulting from a system of slavery, no fair man can deny; that some of these are of a revolting character, candor requires to be confessed; that there are cruel and inhuman masters, is no less true. So also are there cruel and inhuman parents, husbands, masters of indented apprentices, and various other superiors in the relations of life, _out_ of the slave States. We will venture to say, from authoritative evidence submitted to the British Parliament, amounting to many volumes, that there is more maiming of the human body, and more crushing of the human mind, from infancy to the grave, in the manufactories of Great Britain, by the cruelties inflicted on that perpetual bondage which in fact endures from generation to generation, than the _whole amount_ of the same cla.s.s of evils inflicted on _all_ the slaves in the United States, notwithstanding the immense difference between the number of persons in one case and the other; and that this result may be established by the best certified evidence. If it should be said, that the bondage of the British manufactories is voluntary, we reply, _it is not_, and that the _law of necessity_ which imprisons its victims there, while they can work, on a bare subsistence, without enough to get away, and dismisses them when they can work no longer, without providing for their support, is far more cruel than American bondage, where the law that makes it hereditary, provides for the sick and superannuated. We are quite aware, that one of these cases does not justify, though it relieves, the other, by the light of comparison. There is no state of society in the world, not even in the free States of North America, where these cruelties and inhumanities cannot be found in great abundance. And why do not the Abolitionists begin at home, and tear down society in their respective Commonwealths, because these enormities are to be found, notwithstanding the law and public opinion are against them, in the same manner as law and opinion are against them in the slaveholding States? Or, since they have a propensity to these foreign missions, why do they not go to the nations of Europe, where bondage is more cruel, and where they might, in that proportion, be more useful, if, peradventure, they are likely to be useful at all? In all these cases, and in all parts of the world, these cruelties are exceptions to the general state of society, not the rule.

The decrease of the slave population of the West Indies, and the better economy--barbarous indeed--of keeping it up by importation, was adduced in evidence of the inhumanities of the system. And we think very fairly so. By the same rule, the rapid increase of the slave population in the Southern States, over the whites in the same States--it being in the proportion of 80 to 100 of the whites, and of 112 to 100 of the slaves, in the term of 40 years--proves, that slavery in the United States is comparatively mild. It is commonly reported and believed, by disinterested visitants to the slave States of the Union, that, from all appearances, the slaves, as a body, are the happiest people in the world. And although we are far from advocating the doctrine, in application to involuntary and hereditary bondage, as an element of society, that, "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise;" yet the real condition of American slavery, when fairly ascertained, may go to show, that the pains taken by Abolitionists, in the use of false testimony, to awaken a romantic sympathy in the North, and to muster and urge on a violent crusade upon the South, in violation of the laws of the land, and of the obvious proprieties of man's social condition, thereby disturbing the public peace, and threatening to bring about a civil war, involves a very grave responsibility. It is undoubtedly true, that the Abolitionists of the North know very little about Southern slavery; and that they know far less about it now, than they did before the Abolition press, under the American Anti-Slavery Society, began to instruct them. Nearly all their sympathy is romantic, resting on "the baseless fabric of a vision;" and they may rely upon it, that their crusade upon the South has as little hope of good result, as may now be read in the history of the crusade of the Christian nations of Europe upon "the Holy land."

CHAPTER XI.

EVERY MAN MIND HIS OWN BUSINESS.

The observance of this rule would secure universal peace. There would never be quarrelling, never war, on the smaller or larger scale; but the breach of it soon produces difficulty, and leads to strife. We have stated in a former chapter, to the effect, that the causes of the Abolition movement of this country, cannot be understood, without allusion to certain cognate events and reforming schemes, that have been set on foot among us, and to certain extravagant and peculiar features of those reforms, which fairly ent.i.tle them to the name of _violent_. For example, it was a.s.sumed, that the action and scope of Christian benevolence could not stop short of calling all men to account for their principles, manners, habits, and especially meats and drinks, according as these interrogators, _alias_ inquisitors, might judge to be wrong. Great Societies were formed to give to these measures the weight and sanction of their publicly declared opinion; and under the shield of Conventional and solemn resolutions, which struck at the root of all independence of private opinion and private character, and excommunicated from good society all that should refuse a strict conformity to these published "Bulls," by stamping them with the _taint_ of immorality, their Agents went forth upon the land to deal authoritative rebuke and denunciation against dissentients. The rest is known. All we have to say is, that schools of this kind--and we have only pointed to _one_ of many--were admirable preparations for the Abolition movement. A public that would bear all this, it was thought, would bear any thing else; and they who had been accustomed freely, and with little opposition, to use these high prerogatives in the religious and moral sphere, ventured _one_ step farther, into the _political_. They did it without scruple, seeming to regard themselves as well ent.i.tled to one field, as to the other; and to this day, they seem not to have discovered the impropriety of the trespa.s.s.

Now, let it be understood, that the application of these remarks does not go a whit farther, than to comprehend those violent reforms, of which the great body of the religious public of this country, of all denominations, or nearly all, are heartily tired, and earnestly wish them a good riddance. We think we are ent.i.tled, without offending any Christian, not an Abolitionist, to point to this indubitable source of this great movement, inasmuch as it would be impossible to do justice to this subject without this leave. It is the wide spread sanction that has been given to _meddling_ and _interference_ in the social state, and the protracted and almost undisputed use of this prerogative, that has conjured up the spirit of Abolitionism, and given it weight and influence among that cla.s.s of persons, who sustained the other violent reforms, with few exceptions. They have generally pa.s.sed readily and regularly, as a matter of course, from one sphere of action to the other, acc.u.mulating forces as they advanced. It is even astonishing to observe, how that gem of society, independence of private character, and the right of private opinion, has been marred and prostrated before the authoritative edicts of these high and formidable a.s.sociations, the most extravagant of which were concocted in caucus, and forced upon the public, by those very men who will generally be found in the Abolition ranks.

We think it a great mistake, in the administration of the social state, and highly injurious to it, that this t.i.tle to interfere in the affairs of our neighbors, has been so widely sanctioned. It is bad in itself; and bad in all its results. Once give sanction to this principle by public authority, and there is no end to the modes and forms of its application, in private life or public affairs, in the religious or political world; and there is scarcely any thing more fruitful of strife, or more mischievous in its workings. The reformer a.s.sumes, that he has a right, and is bound, to seek the good of his neighbour--_in his own way_, of course--and there is the mistake. And if he can get the sanction of the public, on a large scale, as to the use of his _particular_ modes, he is then backed by authority, and is confident. He will then march directly into society, and rebuke and denounce opposition with little ceremony. We are doubtless understood by these allusions. The rule laid down becomes a bed of Procustes: If any one's legs happen to be too long, they must be cut off; or if too short, they must be stretched out by force. And so it goes. There is no such thing as private judgment, private conscience, or independence of character; but a man's soul, and body, and every thing must yield to authority; or, he will have the mark set upon his forehead, and be denounced, as the enemy of society, because he does not agree in opinion with these men, as to the best modes of promoting its interests.

Great and lamentable as the evil of Abolitionism is in our country, and inauspicious in its aspects, we confess, we are not sorry, since it has come to this, that these violent reformers have now got into a position, in which they must encounter an authority that will be likely to rebuke their _meddling interference_, in terms and in a manner which they have not heretofore experienced. Having taken political ground, in violation of the laws of the country, they must henceforth look "the powers that be" in the face, and render an account for their temerity.

CHAPTER XII.

PERFECTIONISM.

This is a theological term, and announces the doctrine, as we understand it, that it is possible for man to be perfect in this life, and perfect at once. It is a species of _immediatism_; indeed, it is the essence of it, its origin, and foundation; and out of this abstract, theological, and visionary scheme grew the practical and momentous doctrine of _immediate_ abolition. This is the application of _perfectionism_ to politics, which was originally a religious notion. At all points we see, therefore, that Abolitionism has to do with religion, and religion with it. Whether such an interference of religion with politics, will be agreeable to the people of this country, remains to be seen.

_Perfectionism_ is an old doctrine in the religious world, but has recently been revived in this country, and extensively adopted in the ranks of these violent reformers, whose impatience would not allow them to wait for the action and effect of the ordinary and generally approved means of improving society. With the abstract notion in their heads, that all sin ought to be left off _now_--from which, and so far, we have no inclination to dissent--they have jumped to the conclusion, that it can, must, and shall be; and accordingly have adopted a system of action which a.s.sumes, that all departments of society, social, moral, religious, and political, can be managed on this principle.

It will be seen, that the principles of the New England Nonresistance Society, which have been set forth in a former chapter, are the legitimate result of this doctrine. They have stepped at once on the ground of universal anarchy, by renouncing allegiance to all human government, because they say it is badly const.i.tuted, and ought to be broken up _instantly_. Nothing wrong in society, they being judges, is to be tolerated for a moment. The entire fabric of society, therefore, being wrong, requires to be dissolved at once. It is fortunate for the public, that in the case of the New England Nonresistance Society, we have a fair exemplification of these principles. _It is perfectionism carried out._ We need go no farther to see what this doctrine, reduced to practice, will lead to.

It may be seen, therefore, _whence_ the doctrine of _immediate_ Abolition has come, and how it proposes to sweep every thing before it that stands in its way. Like the members of the Nonresistance Society, the Abolitionists are fighting characters. The former declare, "We propose to a.s.sail iniquity in _high_ places and in low; to apply our principles to _all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical inst.i.tutions_." The Abolitionists differ from this scheme by taking one thing at a time; in that, they are doubtless more wise. But it is precisely the same principle applied in this particular direction.

It will be seen, therefore, that the peace of this country has been disturbed, and the integrity of our political fabric menaced, by a visionary, and we may add, fanatical religious notion. In violation of the Const.i.tutional law of the land, so far as respects the nature of the Abolition organization, as shown in the second chapter and onward, and also in violation of a distinct, established, and well known principle of our Government, to wit, that religion shall not enter into the State, the Abolitionists, as a religious _sect_--for it cannot be denied that such is their character--have marched directly into the political field, with this anarchical principle in hand, and under a vast and powerful political machinery, have a.s.sailed the Government of the country, and directly interfered with the Const.i.tutional prerogatives of foreign States. They have solemnly declared, in their highest and most authoritative State paper, the Annual Report of the Society, as before seen, that these Const.i.tutional regulations, defining the prerogatives of the slave States, are null and void, and no longer binding. Of course, it is not to be supposed they will respect them. And will the people of this country allow a _religious_ faction to take possession of the Government, and dictate to Sovereign States, with which we are in solemn covenant to protect and defend them in these matters, what they shall do--to _enforce_ their principle of _perfectionism_ on the political structure of our society, to dissolve and overthrow it?

We do not mean to say, or to intimate, that Abolitionists are all _perfectionists_ in the religious sense of this term, and in regard to _all_ modes of improving society. That is not true. But we do mean to say, that Abolitionism emanates from this source, and that, like the gradual progress of all error, it is only a stage to the admission of the full sweep of the doctrine. It is a notable fact, however, that the religious perfectionists of the country, who are numerous, are almost to a man Abolitionists, and the most violent of the sect.

It is not necessary to suppose, that perfectionism in the community should have pervaded the entire ma.s.s before it can do mischief; or that it cannot have a surrept.i.tious influence on individuals, in regard to particular subjects and in particular applications, while they disclaim the doctrine, and that very sincerely. In this way a man may be an Abolitionist, yet not a perfectionist in general.

The doctrine of perfectionism may be much safer as a theological than as a political notion, for individuals than for society; inasmuch as the religious perfectionist keeps two separate moral reckonings: one for his virtues, the other for his faults. When he happens to be guilty of a fault, he is in a state of _lapse_; at other times in a state of _perfectionism_. We hope his faults are rare; but when he happens to get into them unavoidably, society holds him up. But alas!

when society _lapses_, who and what will hold that up? This single question brings the whole subject before the mind's eye, in its political bearings, and suggests the folly and madness of that doctrine, which attempts to introduce perfectionism into the social system.

As the religionist professes respect for the Bible, and for Divine authority, it may be well to refer him to these examples on this particular point. We say, then, that, although G.o.d is an _immediatist_ in the authoritative force of his law over the conscience of individuals, he is not an immediatist as the Governor of the world.

Clearly, it cannot be denied, that G.o.d could have made human society perfect _at once_; but for some good reason he has not done so. If it should be replied: "It is because men do not _obey_"--Very well. We speak of a _great fact_, under G.o.d's administration of the world.

Moreover, if the _Divine_ legation of Moses be allowed, we have the authority of the Saviour, that he enacted a certain law of divorcement "for the hardness of their hearts;" that is, as we suppose, on account of the bad state of society, and not because it was right: "for it was not so from the beginning."[8] For the same reason, as _we_ hold, though we have not the same authority for saying it, Moses _legalized_ slavery. If it was _not_ for that reason, then the slave holders have the highest authority for the inst.i.tution. It is impossible to get off from this dilemma by the plea of _different forms_, while the _principle_ stares us in the face. Forms of society are _accidental_, and never agree exactly, and often differ widely, under the same name, in different ages and countries.

[Footnote 8: Matth. 19: 8. Mark 10: 5.]

John the Baptist was a Divinely commissioned teacher. "And the _soldiers_ likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall _we_ do?"

Though not a member of the New England Nonresistance Society, we are a little bit of a Quaker, and hold that the principles of Christianity are at _war_ with war. Consequently, if _immediatism_ is to be forced upon society, according to _our_ notions, John should have replied: "The first thing, my friends, is to lay down your arms." But, "he said unto them, Do violence to no man; neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your _wages_."

We believe it true to say, that no Divinely commissioned teacher ever attempted to introduce _immediatism_ as an element of the social fabric; or ever protested against the action of society for want of it, so long as we understand immediatism to be an attempt to sweep away, by one stroke, every fault, or defect, or imperfection of society. Such was not the example of _Christ_; and such was not the example of the Apostle Paul, in application to slavery itself, as will appear in his courteous treatment of Philemon, a slave-holder. So also in this Apostle's doctrine, and in the doctrine of the Apostle Peter.[9] History proves, that the persons called "servants" in these pa.s.sages, were slaves, or the property of their masters. Yet the Apostles never felt authorized, or saw fit, to disturb this state of society, bad as it was in this particular, and many others; but they availed themselves of the facilities afforded them by the existence of political society to apply _immediatism_ to the consciences of individuals, in regard to the state of their hearts, and to their personal conduct.

[Footnote 9: I Cor. 7: 20, 21. I Tim. 6: 1, 2. Eph. 6: 5, 9. t.i.tus 2: 9, 10. Coloss. 3: 22, and 4: 1. I Pet. 2: 18, 20.]

If, indeed, the Abolitionists will produce a _Divine_ commission, sustained by miracles, ent.i.tling them to go _one step_ farther than any other Divinely commissioned teachers have ever gone, by investing them with authority to _remodel_ political society, we will respect their claim, and advise the public to do so. But till that time, we think it fair to say, that the _preaching_ of such doctrines as they choose to maintain, moral, social, religious, or political, _independent of any political organization_, such as they _now_ have, to sustain them, is all they are ent.i.tled to by the Const.i.tution and laws of this land. By _preaching_, we mean, of course, to comprehend all the _prescribed_ Const.i.tutional modes of political action, so long as they choose to meddle with politics. Preaching to _private_ conscience, is one thing; and that is the office of Christianity, within the range of its own precepts. But the political const.i.tution and administration of society, is another thing; and this, in _our_ opinion, Christianity never presumes to meddle with.

CHAPTER XIII.

LIBERTY AND EQUALITY.

Aware, that we are constantly liable to perversion as to the intent of our remarks in these pages, it is proper for us to say, that we have not taken up this topic in order to bring our interpretation of it to bear against the right of slaves to their freedom. That is a question which we do not a.s.sume to discuss, though we have signified our opinion, and are ready freely and frankly so to do on all proper occasions. But our object at this time is to correct the vague, poetic, and romantic notions which are commonly attached to these terms. In this country, their origin may fairly be ascribed to a notable declaration, so often quoted from our national bill of rights: "that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Now, what is the meaning of this? The history of those times, and of the occasions which produced it, will answer this question.

First, as to the term _Liberty_. The British Government refused the Colonies a representation in the law-making power of the empire, and this was the ground of the quarrel, the cause of the Revolution. We have, then, in this great historical fact, a fair and clear interpretation of the meaning of the term "liberty" in the declaration of Rights, viz. the right to a representation of the people in the law-making authority. So much and no more, we conceive, is the meaning of this term in this place; and that is enough for the free and full action of "the principles of our republican form of Government." In connexion with the provisions of our National and State Const.i.tutions, the people are thus const.i.tuted the law-making power. That is, they are ent.i.tled to _govern_ themselves. But the very idea of Government is _subjection_ to law, not a _liberty_ for every man to do as he pleases. This last meaning is the _vague_, _poetic_, and _romantic_ notion commonly attached to this term--to do as one pleases; whereas, the Const.i.tutional and proper meaning is the _right_ to a voice in the making of law. In the strict sense of the term, therefore, it is not liberty, but a right. The moment a man enters into society, he resigns his liberty, and consents to be _subjected_ to the regulations of the community, of which he is a member. There is no liberty, except in the simple state of nature, where man is isolated from man, and becomes a solitary savage.

Having alluded to _the state of nature_, it may be proper in this place to observe, that the same poetic fancies are constantly played off on "natural rights," as on liberty and equality; whereas, the slightest reflection ought to teach us, that all society is artificial and conventional, and that no man who enters into society can any farther lay claim to "natural rights" than the law allows. Every regulation of society is so far an infringement on natural rights, if, indeed, we have any correct notion of the meaning of these terms. It is difficult, indeed, to define natural rights. We have never yet seen it done, and confess our own inability for the task. What is the use, then, in talking about that for which we cannot find even a definition? We have a right, however, since it is used for practical purposes, to make it mean something. Say, then, that it means such rights as a savage would be ent.i.tled to, when alone in the desert, to do what he is inclined, as in such circ.u.mstances he would not interfere with any social right. But in society men give up their natural rights, if the above is a fair statement of what they are; and the law becomes the rule of right. The whole system of society is artificial, and at war with natural rights; and he who claims the privilege of natural right, in opposition to the established code of society, a.s.serts the right of rebellion. We have no objection, however, that any body should give us a definition of natural rights, that would lead to a different conclusion, if it can be done; but till that time, we are compelled to say, that this talk about natural rights, for any practical purpose in society, is something we do not understand, unless, for example, it be the right to live and to breathe; and even that may be forfeited to the law. Suppose the murderer sentenced to be hung, should claim the privilege of natural rights--would he be heard? Natural rights, as we understand them, are not available in society, when they interfere with law. That is to say, the law is always above them, and must be, so long as it is judged best to maintain the social state. There is not a single natural right that can be named, which may not, in given cases, be abridged, or controlled, or superseded, or entirely suppressed, by the artificial organisation of society. To talk of natural right, therefore, as being paramount to law, simply because it _is_ natural right, is arrant nonsense--mere declamation, at best.

But, to return to "liberty." We have seen, that the Const.i.tutional meaning of this term in our Charter or Bill of rights is limited to the single and simple claim to a voice by representation in the power of making law, and that laws are made for our _subjection_. All the rest beyond this is _duty_, _obedience_, _not_ liberty. Law limits and circ.u.mscribes us at all points, in the house and out of it, every where, in relation to every body, and to every body's rights. All the rights of our fellow beings, as secured by law, are an abridgment of our liberty. The higher the degrees of civilization, which add to the multiplication of laws, so much greater is the abridgment of liberty.

That is, the more perfect society is made, so much less of liberty do we have; and, as good citizens, we are not only contented with it, but we prefer it. For the advantages of society, we enter into terms of mutual concession; and every degree of concession cuts us off from liberty.