Our country versus party spirit : being a rejoinder to the reply of Prof. Morse

0^ '^^^^^ "^^

« o

•; »°-n^

-^^0^

L~ .r

-^ c

• •'•/ "*<i.--^"-\/ \.'^^-/ *^,*-^-'\«*'

L~ .r

OU^ COyi^TRY

VERSUS

PAETY SPIRIT

BEING

A REJOINDER

TO THE

REPLY OF PROF. MORSE.

BY

EDA7AKD K CKOSBY.

f 0 11 g h It e e p s i f :

PLATT & SCHRAM, PKINTEKS, 31U MAIX-STREET.,

1863.

^t.

^V 9 f Sf-

/cr^

PouGHKEEPSiE. April 9tli, 1863.
Peof. S. F. B. Moese:

My D(or Sir : In your printed "Eeph*," dated Marcli 2d,
and which, with your accompanying note of March 20th I did
not receive, owing to absence from home, till March 30th, you
speak of my letter as written "wholly under misconception of
my [your] opinions," &c. This is shown to be but too true, by
the statement of those opinions, both in this Eeply and in your
inaugural s}>eech as President of your Society.

You err, however, in supposing that my impressions of the
character of that Societj^ were formed from the report in the
Evening Post. Tt was not the source of my information, nor
have I yet seen it. The existence and general design of the
Society were subjects of current notoriety : and a wide-spread
patriotic condemnation of that meeting and its objects may
well exist, without being grounded on "the egregiously false
and impudent representations of an unprincipled reporter in
the Evening Post."

I certainly did misconceive your opinions, for, in the exer-
cise of a charity where "the wish w^as father to the thought," 1
supposed yonr unfriendly political action to be governed by
the least objectionable reason — an abhorrence of war and a
yearning desire for peace. But I find that you justify your
actions frcnn positions so extreme that I was unwilling to be-
lieve that yon could occupy them. I ^m not sure now that I
should do you injustice, to deem you an admirer and advocate
of slavery. Allow me to review, seriatim, some of the salient
points of vour reply.

Ml!, field's LETTEB.

Mr. Field's letter needs no vindication a t my hands. It car-
ries its own defence, and, I doubt not, has received the cordial
Jipproval of many whose life-long politics have been antipodal
to his. The two "clippings" you sent me will fail to damage
the effect of the letter with any fair mind that will read them
in connection with the letter itself One of the extracts, of Avhich
I do not recognize the source, is nothing short of scurrilous, the
j:)roduction of a trenchant pen held by a reckless cliaracter.
It speaks of Mr. Field as "believing in the omnipotence of
fanatical falsehood." Would it be right for me to draw the
natural inference from your sending it, that you thereby en-
dorse its language? The other, an extract from the National
Intelligencer, though marked by less of discourtesy, is yet in

4

a spirit of captionsness below the dignity of that journal. The
contradiction it spies out is only apjiarent, and would perplex
no ingenuous person. The vcrv jiai't oI'Mr. Fields letter thus
criticised admits "it may not always he easy to draw the exact
line between jasi ci-iticisni and dangerous ca\il," and li-r tln^
evident reason that the appropriate courses and limits oL';iction
may overlap each other under varying circumstances. A wiser
man than the editor of tlic Intclligercor has said in two con
secutivG sentences, "'Answer not a fool according to his lolly,
and ''Answer a fool according to his folly." thus by their Jux-
taposition braving this very spirit of cavil; and it is only ii
shallow or a malignant mind tliat has e'X'cr taken olfence at tliat
or similar seeming paradoxes.

Ci 1 KISTl AX STAX 1 )1'0 1 XT.

You say, •'Onl]il)le truth I am ready to plant every jiosition
I take,"' and "This standponit will have to l)e estal)lishcd im-
pregnably <)n thcBible ere the ])erverted Christian mind ol'thi^
country can 1)0 disabused of the ruinous fallacies which h;t\('
turned aside the incumbents (^f so many pul])its from their Ic
gitimatc duty of allaying the fierce passions of men,"' &e. This
language I would adopt in all its force, luit with the })ri\i]ege
of giving it a dire(;tion exactly opposite to that you intended.
It is theDabneys, the J'almers. the '^riioruwells, and particularly
the Dr. Lords (of Dartmoutli), the Eaphalls and the Van Dykes,
who have lefttheii- ••legitimate duty,"' and, forgetting the spint
of that Gos])el which teaches ''good will to men," the ''loving
our neighbor as ourselves,"' and the •'doing to others as we
would that they should do unto us,"' have proclaimed a Bible
commendation V)l' a system that has nurtured the "fierce pas-
sions" of the southern slaveholders. For every evil passion —
and their name is legion — which is gratified and fostered by
the system of slavediolding, is most fierce when crossed or
even criticised. It is especially these gratuitous apologists ibi'
slavery, whose wi'ong-doing has not the extenuation of self-
interest, winch may be accorded to the slave-holder— these eager
champions of a blighting system, which all civilized nations
are repudiating as a sin and shaking olf as an incubu.s — it is
these "incumbents of the pulpit," whose talents have been used
to "pervert the Christian mind of the countrj^ Avith ruinous falla-
cies," and to "add fuel to the already raging tires of a ferocious
and desolating"' system of slave-holding and slavery propagand-
ism. The (piestion naturally arises here : Did "the harangues'"
<:)f these "p(jlitical orators" excite in you and those with whom
you politically fratei'nize, the same indignation against pulpit
intei'ference in jjolitics? A frank answer to this cpiestion

5

would fitly illustrate the pithy old satire: ''You may preach
orthodoxy, l>iit orthodoxy must he my doxy.'' The Bible
has ever been made a staud[)oint lor the defence of errors of
opposite extremes, for which not the Bible bat its differing in-
terpreters are alone responsible. "The unstable"' may "wrest"
it in the cause of a supposed conservatism to imprison a Galileo,
or in the cause of a ])retentious })rogress, by supplementing the
Decalogue with an absolute prohibition of the use of wine.
Truth is not always literally or immediately conservative. Its
strength is often shown in "the 2^uUtn{/ down of strong-
holds."' Where its power has been felt, it has pulled down
iieathcn suttceism and iiffanticide. It has jadled down the
Inquisition and tiial by torture. It has pulled down the slave
trade, and is now pulling hard, and Avith wide success, at slave-
liolding throughout the world. Truth has shown little con-
servatism towards oppression. It is only remarkable that slave-
holding should have maintained its ground so long after the
prohibition of the slave trade^ — that when the theft of human
beings has been so long under the ban of civilization, the hold-
ing of ■'icrh stolen property should still retain a quasi respect-
al)ility. T'his fact will appear still stranger in the dispassionate
retrospect which a few rolling yeai's will enable us to take.
The experience of the past on this subject might well suggest
a caution to those who assume to hold a Bible standpoint in
favor of slave-holding. Such persons may, with a moderate
lease of life, find ocasion for recantation and self-reproach, as
did those numerous Christians, both lay and clerical, who in
tlie last century advocated the slave trade and denounced Wil-
berforce and Clarkson, and their worth}^ associates, as fanatics.

GOVEliXMKXT AND AD3IINIST11AT10N.

I find two iliults with your treatment of this subject. But,
first, let me disclaim having had any intention to fix upon ytni
the same purpose of "undermining or 2:)aralyzing the govern -
ment," which I believe attaches to your Society, though my
words may admit of that construction. If I had assumed this to
be your motive, I should hardly have asked, "What apj^ears to
you the sufficient reason," &c. '? My language also intimated the
belief that you had required some persuasion to induce you to
become the President of such a Society. My meaning would
have been less liable to misunderstanding if I had said "ally-
ing yourself with others vho liare the extreme and radical
purpose," &c.

The first exception I take to your comparison of government
and administration, is, that the latter term is so commonly re-
stricted in meaning to the Executive that it does not present a

6

fail' antithesis. You thus virtually exclude Congress, wlio
are suppsed to. represent tlie wishes and opinions of the people.
In this fuller meaning of "the administration," the term "gov-
ernment" is constantly used. In the next place, though you
f4Uote from Webster's Dictionary an excellent definition oJ'
"government," as meaning a constitution, &c., you are not
warranted in calling this "///e ordinary meaning," as implying
that the use is less ordinary in reference to those who at the
time conduct the government. Wc speak constantly of vi;o\ -
ernment action, government diplomacy, applications to govern
ment, and a thousand other expressions, all pointing to persons
administering, not to fundamental rulcB underlying the govern-
ment. In an editorial in your nephew's journal, the New
York Observer of March 26th, I find the following sentiment,
whicli probably none of its many readers considered heresy,
religious or political : "Our government is embodied in the
officers appointed by the people to execute the laws, and re-
sistance against them is resisting the ordinances of God." But
there need have been no ambiguity in this matter, for a little
further on, the same question is repeated in this varied form :
"Should not a Christian conviction of duty to the powers that
are ordained of God prevent any disposition to resist or thwart
the government?" Permit me to say that in neither form do
I consider the cpiestion satisfactorily answered. You limit
your obedience to the constitutional measures of the gov-
ernment. You then pronounce four of the government mea-
sures— the Emancipation proclamation, the suspension of ha-
beas corpus, the confiscation acts, and the summary imprison-
ment of citizens — to be in direct and palpable contravention of
the Constitution." If the United States Supreme Court so
pronounce them, they will of course be void, and have no claim
tt) our obedience. In the meantime, if Congress and a major-
ity of the peo})lc sustain them, are you and others of appa-
rently "slack allegiance" absolved from all obedience to them ?
If these acts of the administration are in any way, as you say,
"undernuning or paralyzing the government," permit me to sug-
gest tliat it is mainly by furnishing a hollow pretext for com-
plaint and opposition with those who have ever been disafl'ect-
ed to the war and bitterly hostile to the party in power. "I
yield to no man in hearty loyalty to the" Constitution, but it
would bo simplicity or aft'ectation to claim for it the perfection
or universality of inspiration. Many of the malcontents who
now parade such an admiration and jealous solicitude for the
letter of the Constitution, with characteristic inconsistency
claim that its text has been much improved by the wisdom of
"our misi-uided brethren." The Constitution iiever contem-

l)lutecl, in reicvencc to our navy, the use of its most vahiablf
sliip for laying an Atlantic telegraph cable between two British
ports. Yet, how would you and the whole eounti-y cliaraeter-
ize such a cavil against the proceeding? You will li;iidl\ suj)-
pose that itsframers had in view and provided for just such a
rebellion as this. If an unprecedented danger threatens the
existence of our nationality, the peo^ile might well mistrust the
tidelity of those in power, if, in the failure of ordinary means,
tliey did not, as the emergency required, resort to some unpre-
eedented and extra constitutional measures. Tlir Gonstitutinv
■wan formed for the Nation, not the A^ation for tic (.hnfitilrUion.
It has become very evid-ent to the public mind that tliis fear
of federal encroachment and government tyranny is in all
oases either grossly exaggerated or wholly insincere and hypo-
critical. It is the straw which a drowning, des]ierate partisan-
ship clutches as its last lio]ic.

CHARACTER OF ABOLITIOX,

Under this head you draw a picture which, to say the least,
is highly colored. The description seems entirely too imagin-
ative and impassioned to be diffused as sound "political know-
ledge." One example will illustrate this: "Breathing Ibrtli
threatenings and slaughter against all those who venture fi dif-
fei'cnce of opinion from them, murderous," &c. Now, there is
little doubt that any member of your Society, with all his
"difference of opinion," would, without any body-guard, not
only be perfectly safe in one of their "dark conclaves" against
both slaughter and murder, but also escape with perhaps less
invective than they have received at your hands. But ex-
travagant as is this description of extreme abolitionists, it is
less surprising than your next step, when yoir pronounce

■•DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS
IMPOSSIBLE."

It is a familiar lact, if several persons combine to shout very
earnestly that a dog is mad, his life would be as hopeless
as if he had communicated hydrophobia to a whole neighbor
hood. This has been with party leaders considei'cd their
shrewdest and most successful method for traducing the prin-
ciples and party now in power. I did sincerely hope to find
you less closely afdliated with such. Without taking the space
to repeat and answer them separatel}', to each question you ask
under this head, commencing with, "Did not the Republican
party," &c. ? I return a respectful V)ut emphatic "NO !" Did
space allow, I would substantiate that negative in each instance.
As the best general reply to your un wan-anted confusion of the

whole Republican party with the extreniest radicals that may
mix among ^liem, I quote your own language further on:
"Every one of any experience in political movements, is aware
that on both sides, in party excitements, there is every possible
variety of character associated together. * * * It is not safe,
therefore, to characterize a cause by the character of some few
who may be loud and forward in advocating it. Bad men may
promote a good cause for bad ends.'' As confirmatory of your
general views you ask me "to look at the state of the country." I
do look at it most intently, as I have for years past, and I will toll
you what I have seen : I have seen in the slave-holding states
a race of men — ("among whom 1 recognize many excellent,
intelligent, conscientious men"— the exceptions) — who Hao
chiefly in the atmosphere of politics, who, from the habit of
dominating all their life-time an oi)pressed people, have be-
come im})e]-ious and arrogant, and manifest these feelings to-
wards us in many ways, speaking in contempt of all our indus-
trious classes as the "greasy mechanics," "filthy operatives."
and "mudsills of the north" — a race of men Avho, from the
prevalent excessive use of stimulants and the common prac-
tice of gambling, duelling and street brawls, have become
impatient and revengeful, — I have seen these men following
out the false ideas of manhood thus fostered, and envious at
the superior prosperity and progress of their neighbors in the
free states, at one time resort to lillibustering raids upon the
neighboring territories of friendly nations, at another time
making an armed incursion into a part of our national territory
to preoccupy and control a new state. Failing in these and
many other efforts to retain apolitical power beyond their due,
they finally settled upon the principle of "Rule or ruin." The
wicked strife begun at Fort Sumter was its natural fruit.

But you may ask, has not the north been in any way
i-esponsible for this state of things ? I confess with
shame they have. There has been for long years a party
here, who have, for selfish political ends, sympathized with
their discontent and co-operated in their schemes. To-
gether they elected Polk, pledged to consummate the
Texas iniquity for southern aggrandizement, at the expense of
our weak neighbor Mexico. Together they elected the pliant
Pierce, who eagerly recognized the pseudo-government of Fil-
libuster Walker in Central- America. Together they clectetl
the more abject Buchanan, who had recently proved his quali
ty and established his claim to their united favor, by Aithei'ing
the infamous Ostend Manifesto — tlie blackest blot, by far, on
our whole diplomatic histor}^ It is su|)ernuous to speak of the
consequences of this com-se of unmanly, unpatriotic subservi-

9

ency. Tlie_y are now upon us, and it is Heaven's mercy iithe}-
do not crush us. IMiis is a burned glance, and jfeaves out of
yiew many important facts belonging to the true history of tliis
epoch. As your remarks have, by seeking to criminate the
wliole Eepublican party, given to this discussion the direction
of old i>arty politics, which I could wish were hushed to silence
through this sad crisis, I could not say less than I have with
any proper regard to sound political knowledge. It is a high
satislaction, that of those who thus, as a party, heedlessly — in
many cases ignorantly — nourished the germ of this very rebel-
lion ; thousands upon thousands, probably an immense majori-
ty, have nobly "come out from among them,'' and cleared their
skirts of all complicity with it as a develophd fact, though still
cherishing their old name of Democrats. I^he remainder still
cringe to the slave power and obsefpiionsly crave a hearing in
favor of further concessions to it. Spurned away in that
quarter, they confer clandestinely and traitorously w^itli a
foreign Minister as to the way in which Biitish interests and
their own, can be best advanced at thc^ ox]^ense of their ruined
country and degraded citizenshi}\

But you may ask, "Have the extremists of the Garrison stum})
had nothing to do with all this ?"' I admit they have said and done
many intemperate, and some very wicked, things. But putting-
it altogether, it has been as "the dust of the balance" in the
great results we see before us. Moreover, every censurable
word and act of theirs has been far outdone by their antago-
nists, the ultra exponents of slavery. And yet these two
classes of extremists have not been treated with an equal share
of obloquy by those who assume to "disabuse a perverted pub-
lic sentiment of ruinous fallacies.'' The pet phrase applied (and
justly too) to one class is "fanatics." Webster defines fanaticism
to be an "excessive enthusiasm.'' Now, if the alternative
were unavoidable that we must choose the side of one of these
extremes, far better would it be for our whole nation, and for
humanity at large, that we should feel the fixnaticism df anti-
slavery, than that our souls should be darkened and our coun-
try doomed by the dreadful fanaticism of pro-slavery. Hap-
pily, no such choice of extremes is necessary. There is, on
the contrary, a temperate, intelligent, yet deep-seated and earn-
est feeling of opposition to slavery — and that as much in be-
half of the dominant as of the servile race — the nature and
extent of which, I have sanguine hopes you will live long enough
to find you have greatly underrated. This opposition to sktA'c-
ry does not merit the odium of an ofiicious and meddlesome
fanaticism. For as long as the institution existed in the Dis-
trict of Columbia and the govei-nment dockvards — prevented

10

the recognition of Hayti antl Lil)eria, our own fbster-cliild —
claimed the sanctity of a state right, and yet the pati-onage of
the Federal government and the privilege of the public domain
— tind imposed the abhorrent duty of slave-catching on twenty
million of freemen, — it was certainly a matter of national con-
cern. Clay, and even Calhoun, testified to this opinion of it,
and they are not commonly accused of "abolitionism." The
former said, ''With my consent, slavery sliall never occupy an-
other foot of the national territory now free." And Calhoun,
long years ago, tooh the lead in measures, instituted but never
completed, for removing slavery from the District of Columbia.
Although the cry of "abolition" has been long, and, in a party
sense, successfully used as a bugbear, the agitation of the times
has thrown a searching light upon the phantom, that has strip-
ped it of its terrors. xVny further use of it for party purposes
north of Mason & Dixon's line, however effectively Beauregai'd
may employ it further south, will prove a vain effort to keej)
alive a public sentiment that is fast becoming obsolete and fos-
silized. I hesitate not to characterize the hatred of aholitiou
per se as unreflecting and prejudiced where it is sincere, and
in all other cases pei*verse and unscrupulous. I would, with
all respect, ask. Have you felt none of its warping influence,
when you are led in your inaugural to speak of the Declaration
of Independence as "a mixture of truths, qualified truths, and
''fallacious maximsV This calls to mind that Eufus Choate
damaged not a little his great reputation by the use of a much
more moderate expression, in calling it "a collection of glitter
ing generalities." This unreasoning and unreasonable hostility
(with perhaps an admixture of "the cohesive attraction of
spoils" in prospect) has, at a time when patriotism is fearfully
tasked lor the salvation of the country, made friends of such
men as Fernando Wood and James Brooks, recalling, thougli
reverenth', a time when Pilate and Herod were made friends.

TITE president's PROCLAMATION AND THE CORNER STONE.

The only quality of this Proclamation that my remarks de-
fended, was its legality. I held that it was right and justifiable,
as between our government and the rebels, and that this was
made the more evident by an avowal of their own. I said
notliing on the question of its expediency, although, as a mili-
tary measure, I have always inclined in its favor ; the more so
since it was adopted in some sense — especially in view of our
precarious foreign relations — as a last resort, after twenty
months of unsuccessful use of other means, and even then with
one hundred days of grace to the parties most directly aggriev-
ed. Its final results will be a more satisfactory comment on

11

its ■influence than any speculation we may now induloe in. And
now, as to your treatment of "the corner stone,"' I cannot
avoid the c:onviction that you have somewhat damaged the
cause you intended to serve. Whether or not our government
will accomplish the removal of the corner stone, yon certainly
have succeeded in turning that stone around so as to expose
its hardest side to the gaze of the public. For if your labor-
ed analysis discovers any distinction, it is of this purport — that
the corner stone of the so-called Confederacy is shown by one
of its principal founders to rest, not on slavery incidentally, as
a pre-existing, inherited and de facto institution, but on the
desiraliility, the excellency, the very necessity of slavery, as
the chief good. Now, if this is an escape for Mr. Stephens
and his defenders from the shame and odium of making slavery
the corner-stone, it is very like that other escape with which
our minds have been familiarized from childhood — the escape
"out of the frying-pan into the fire.'' It is not strange that "a
great multitude both in Em'ope and America entertain" the
opinion that the cause is so bad, when its most strenuous apol-
ogists make it out EVEN WOKSE. A ]nind that not only fails
to see any distinction bctweeji the most radical and infidel ab-
olitionists and the great Kepublican party, but is so sure of the
negative as to pronounce any such distinction impossible, and
yet can discover such a redeeming difference between Mr. Ste-
j)hens' real sentiments and those generally ascribed to him,
such a mind must have reasoning and perceptive faculties with
which few other men are favored. I wonder not that opinions
so much at variance with tlie humane spirit of the Gospel, as
those of Mr. Stephens, should be accompanied by such irrever-
ence to its Divine Author as he betrays in course of the same
speech, when he blasphemously applies to hnman slaver}^ the
language first used in regard to the Son of God — " This stone,
which was rejected of the [first] builders, is become the head-
stone of the corner.'' But you not only interpret Mr. Stephens'
language ; 3- ou also defend his ai'guments. You say "the error
on one side which he combats, is the assumed equality of the
races.''' This, too, is perhaps the principal of those "fallacious
maxims'' which you discover in the Declaration of Independ-
ence. Now, is this not a "man of straw," only set up for a
valiant display of wasted argument ? Does any one suppose
that the Fathers of the Eepublic declared that men of all races
were equal in physical and mental endowments? As well
make them declare that all men are equal in stature, weight
and color. Who does not well know that they are only declared
to be equal in the rights then enunciated — such as life, libert}-
and the pursuit of happiness ? Let us now look at Mr. Ste-

12

phens" Hr.uiiiiiLMit. I lis prcjiuse is: The two races are vinec|nal.
From tins iirciiti-r Kc and vourself eoiiie to the conrldsin)}
that this inequality detenniiies the status of the iiii'erior raee
to be slavery. It has seldom been my h)t t(; iind a mc)re ])crfeet
noii sequUur, or a more "fallacious maxim' tlian this. How is
it falsified in every coitntry, community and family, where sim-
ilar inequality may be found, and still no slavery is "the neces-
sary resultant liict."" And yet it is this condasion — not the
fact bat the groundless inference — that is to support the corner-
stone of the would-be Confederacy. Not. however, fully ccni-
iiding in the stability of your vonrjiisinii you go back to the
premise, or fact, and say : "'Tht plvijslcal iimjuaUly of tht rao-^
then is this corner-stone." You then, a little further on, change
again and directly imply that ycnir conclaaioa (the '•necessary re-
sultant," davcrij) is the corner-stone. For you say that slave-
ry in America can be removed only by a separation of the
races, and then inquire, "Is it worth while to attempt to remove
a corner-stone which God has planted ?" Now, this logic is a
strange confusion of j^ostulates and predicates ; but it is sur-
jiassed l^y the stranger confusion of moral principles it evinces.
It is a very thin an<l ineffectual disguise of that maxim, which
is the essence of all tyranny and oppression, that ^^Mt'rjhi makes
riyhty It surely is, or ought to be, superfluous to argue
against such a dogma at the present day. Your opposition even to
the beneficent plan of colonization, as evidenced iu your re-
marks last quoted above, shows how strongly your feelings
must be wedded to the S3-stem of slave-holding. It might
serve to abate, in your mind, some of this opposition to coloni-
zation, to reflect that it is cordially shared by the radicals of
"the Garrison stamp."' But here again extremes meet, as they
do in the hatred of e\'erything that favors the idea of aboli-
tion, while men of moderation from North and South, like Pre-
sident Lincoln and Henry Clay, can together take their "stand
on this great acknowledged fact, that the African and the
white races are physically difierent," and "follow out this truth
to its logical result,"' that colonization of the negroes is the best
plan for both races. Let me notice, in 2)assing, another of
your remarks, which, though true of the individual, is not al-
together so of the race. You quote from Scripture, "the Ethi-
opian cannot change his skin," and then you add, "nor can
any earthly })ower do it for him." If your additional remark
were every way true, then would one erying curse of slavery
be removed. But in the negro churches of Richmond, Savan-
nah, and other centres of southern civilization, I have seen a
gradation of color, from the pure African to the almost per-
fectly white Caucasian, which suggested most painful reflec-

13

tions upon tlic dangers and al)as(js ol irresponsible power, as
also upon the utter moral degradation wliieli will allow men
to rear theii* own oft'spring to be used as tlicir menials and
slaves — aye, and to sell tliem as such.

The experiment you have tried with the sentiments of the
elder Adams, and those of Alex. II. Stephens, is eertainly a
bringing together of two opposite poles, and with considenible
shock to the nerves of your readers. If an old superstition
were truth, I should expect a loud rattling of the bones in
Adams' grave.

Let me now advert, for a moment, to the shelter you have,
at several points, sought for slavery and slave-holdei's, in the
plea that the institution — or the necessity for it, if you so'jjre-
fer — is providential. Tliere is something positively fearful in
thus virtually making God himself accountable for the mis-
doings of man's selfishness and dejDravity. I know you can-
]iot hold any such opinion. And yet, such is the tenor of an
important part of your argument, and the impression it is cal-
culated to convey to your readers. Whereas, the truth is, that
umnixod selfishness— often the most hard-hearted — is the cor-
ner-stone of slavery, as it was still more conspicuously of the
slave trade. The exceptions are exceedingly rare, where a
slave is held as such mainly for his own good, and with a view
to emancipation as soon as he can be fitted for freedom. And
state enactments have raised every barrier to this occasional
generous impulse. We are to look at slavery as it is, and
judge of it by its fruits. Speciilation upon it, as some Uto-
pian ideal of paternal rule, fostering only reciprocal virtues
and benefits, will never bring a practical wisdom to bear upon
the subject. Slavery, in America, can never plead the Provi-
dence of God as exculpatory of its guilt, nor can any man
wisely venture such a plea in its behalf (See James I. 13 to
16.) From His exalted throne, God certainly overrules all
events by His good providence ; what He does not ordain He
permits fof wise purposes and with wise limitations — causing
even the wa-atli of man to praise Him, while the remainder of
wrath he restrains. But does all or any of the wrong-doing
which His long-suffering bears with and His wisdom makes
subservient, enjoy on that account immunity from His displea-
sure, (Eccles. Vill. 11.) much more, the smiles of His ap-
proval ? The signs of the times certainly do not seem to indi-
cate any marked providential favor to slavery.

Passing over other points in your Reply, which merit atten-
tion, but which might give undue length to these remarks, let
me, before closing, respectfully but earnestly plead with you
to reconsider the political course you and your advocates are

14

taking. It is on other grounds, than anything I have been
able to say, that I cling to the hope that yon will yet withdraw
the influence of a name, so honored hitherto, from men and
measures, which, if they escape oblivion altogether, will re-
ceive no flattering verdict from future history. Excuse the
freedom with which I have expressed myself, and to wliich I
consider that your Eeply invited me, and receive what I have
said as coming from

Your sincere I'ricnd and neighbor,

EDWAKD N. CEOSBY.

W60

,0^

^f^*/ "o^V^-/ \^^^\/ "o^'-.^*/