Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Political action against slavery.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 410

[Union Herald, Extra.--Cazenovia, N.Y. Monday, Oct. 22, 1838.]

POLITICAL ACTION AGAINST SLAVERY.

[col. 1]

A LETTER FROM GERRIT SMITH, ESQ.
Peterboro, Oct. 18^th, 1838

To the Editor of the Union Herald:

I herewith send you a copy of Judge Jay's and my letter to Governor Marcy. Letters, precisely like it, save the change of names, were sent to Lieut. Governor Tracy, to Hon. William H. Seward, and to Hon. Luther Bradish. I regret to say, that, as yet, we are without an answer to any of the letters; and that, consequently, the true-hearted and intelligent Abolitionists of this State, are, as yet, without candidates for Governor and Lieut. Governor, for whom they can consistently give their votes. Answers to a part, or all of these letters, may, perhaps, come hereafter; and if they should, they shall be sent to you without delay. It is not entirely too late to hope, that a part, or all, of the gentlemen in nomination for Governor and Lieut. Governor will qualify themselves, by the fact and character of their replies, to receive the votes of Abolitionists. If they shall all do so, Abolitionists will have the privilege of voting with their respective political parties. If but a part of them shall give favorable answers to our interrogatories, Abolitionists will have the opportunity of showing, not only that they are too well principled to give their votes for candidates of their own political party, who are pro-slavery men, but, that, when duty requires them to merge party politics in more important considerations, they are capable of the magnanimity of voting for candidates, whose political sentiments are opposed to their own. If all the candidates should declare their opposition to the holy cause of impartial and universal liberty' or leave us to infer that opposition for their silence under our questions, then Abolitionists will have it in their power to prove, that they can more easily forego the exercise of the right of suffrage, than vote for the enemies of the foundation doctrine of the government of their country - the doctrine, that "all men are created equal."

Abolitionists will "think it not strange as though some strange thing happened unto" them, if they are misrepresented and reproached for their refusal to vote for proslavery candidates. With the whole history of their unwavering fidelity to their precious cause runs the parallel history of the calumnies and outrages, which that fidelity has cost them. As they are only class in community, who plead for the downtrodden and the dumb, and abide by the principles of an uncorrupted republicanism and Christianity, so there is no other class as familiar, as they are, with persecutions at the hands of religious hypocrites.

Abolitionists will be charged, both by Whigs and Administrationists, with unreasonableness and intolerance for refusing to vote for a candidate, simply because he is unwilling to signify his opposition to slavery. But with what an ill grace will such a charge come from such a source! - Will the Administrationists vote for the candidate, who refuses to express his friendship for the sub-treasury system? Consistency forbids it. Will the Whig vote for the candidate, who refuses to manifest his hostility to that system? Consistency forbids it. - Why then does not consistency equally forbid, that the Abolitionist should vote for the candidate, who is unwilling to declare his opposition to slavery? It surely does, unless it be made to appear, that slavery, - that a system, which is crushing millions of our countrymen in its iron folds - is a question of less moment to the Abolitionists than a project for affecting the currency - a mere matter of dollars and cents - is to the politician. It surely is as wrong for the Abolitionist to overlook the sentiments of candidates on the subject of slavery, as it is for the politician to overlook his sentiments on the subject of the sub-treasury scheme, unless it be true, that the question, whether our Government shall receive the payment of its debts in bank notes, or in specie and treasury notes, is of more importance than the question, whether millions of our countrymen shall continue to be denied marriage and the reading of the Bible, and to be marketed as beasts, or shall their inalienable rights conceded to them, and shall be allowed to transmit to their children the blessings and honors of freedom instead of the stripes and chains and degradation of slavery.

On the one hand we are told, that the success of the Administration party, and, on the other, that the success of the Whig party, will prove to be the success of the cause of universal freedom. Let not Abolitionists be deluded by the flattering representations of any political party. Our cause, no more than Christianity itself, should depend for its triumph or advancement on a political party. Whether political parties shall take us by the hand, or trample us under foot, is comparatively immaterial. It is unshrinking and persevering attachment to the principles of our cause, that will, under God, ensure its triumph. And let it not be forgotten, that we shall be indebted to such attachment for whatever aid our cause may possibly derive from the political parties. Such

[col. 2]

attachment will move the fears, and command the respect, of politicians; whilst the base betrayal of our principles at the polls will make us contemptible in the eyes if those, who invite, and profit, by that betrayal. Had the politicians of our State believed, that all the professed Abolitionists in it were real Abolitionists, who would evince at the polls a paramount regard for human rights, they would have felt themselves utterly forbidden by the interests of their respective parties to nominate pro-slavery candidates for Governor and Lieut. Governor. - And our Abolitionists may feel assured, that, if they will show themselves, at the approaching Election, to be menof sincerity and of fidelity to their professions, it is the last Election at which they will be insulted by the presentation for their suffrages of candidates, who deny the first principle in republican politics - the principle, that "all men are created equal."

Respectfully yours,

GERRIT SMITH.

A LETTER TO GOVERNOR MARCY.

October 1, 1838.

SIR: - At a numerous meeting of our fellow citizens at Utica on the 19^th, 20^th, and 21^st days of September last, we were appointed a Committee to present the following interrogatories to the several candidates for the Offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the State, viz:

1^st. Are you in favor of a law granting to persons in this State, claimed as fugitive slaves, a trial by jury.

2^nd. Are you in favor of abolishing all distinctions in the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this State founded solely on complexion?

3^rd. Are you in favor of a repeal of the law, which now authorizes the importation of slaves into this State, and their detention here, as such, for the term of nine months?

It cannot be necessary for us, Sir, to dwell in this communication on the importance, both in principle and practice, of the subjects embraced in these questions, nor on the deep and rapidly increasing interest felt in them by a very large portion of our electors. They are subjects, on which, if elected, you may be called to act officially, and it is therefore natural and proper, that those whose suffrages may be solicited in your behalf, should wish to know your present sentiments respecting them.

To avoid misapprehension, we take the liberty to state explicitly, that we are not instructed, and do not mean, to ask from you any pledge, as to your official conduct, if elected, fully recognizing your right to govern that conduct, at all times, by your own conviction of duty.

It is due to ourselves and those we represent to assure you, that the present inquiry is prompted by no desire to promote or defeat the success of any particular candidate, but is made solely for the purpose of affording the electors information important to their faithful and intelligent exercise of the elective franchise.

The answers, with which we may be favored, will be promptly, and without exception, communicated to the public.

We have the honor, Sir, to be,

Very respectfully,

Your obedient servants

WILLIAM JAY,

GERRIT SMITH.

P.S. We will be obliged to you to direct your reply to us at Peterboro, Madison, County.

TO WILLIAM L. MARCY Esq.

ANOTHER LETTER FROM GERRIT SMITH, ESQ.

Peterboro, Oct. 19, 1838.

To the Editor of the Union Herald:

I sent you yesterday a copy of Judge Jay's and my letter to the candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Our State Election being very near at hand, I did not feel authorized to let my diminishing expectation of receiving answers that letter withold it any longer from the public.

I this hour receive an answer from Mr. Bradish, and I lose not time in sending it to you for publication. Your heart, and so also the heart of every enlightened and true friend of the holy cause of equal rights and universal and impartial liberty, will overflow with joy at the reading of this admirable answer. The public has long regarded Mr. Bradish, as a gentleman of remarkable purity and elevation of character. His letter, which I herewith send you, gives happy proof how justly he has been so regarded.

We often hear it said, that there are many members of the political parties, who will not vote for such of their respective candidates, as avow themselves the friends of equal rights and liberty for all men - for men of every clime and every color. If this be true, there are persons who will make Mr. Bradish's letter the ground of refusing to vote for him. Are there such persons amongst us?

Then are they out of their place. They should leave the land, the foundation doctrine of whose Government is that "all men are created equal," and hasten to lay themselves down fawningly

[col. 3]

at the feet of some despot, and take up their abode in the midst of institutions and usages adjusted to the principle, that one man is born a lord and another a vassal - one a master and another a slave. But, I am yet to believe, that there are many of our citizens, who will be offended at the spirit, which pervades Mr. Bradish's letter, and at its abounding, just and generous sentiments. I am yet to believe, that there are not many thousands of them, who will show themselves eager to cast their votes for him, irrespectively of the claims of political party, unless indeed the highly respectable opposing candidate, Mr. Tracy, shall seasonably inform the electors of the State, that he also stands on truly republican ground, which is so frankly and honorably taken in Mr. Bradish's letter. That he may thus inform them is the sincere desire of

Yours, respectfully,

GERRIT SMITH.

A LETTER FROM HON. LUTHER BRADISH.

Moira, Franklin Co. Oct. 13, 1838.

Gentelmen:

I am honored with your letter of the 1^st, postmarked Peterboro the 3^rd instant, informing me that "at a numerous meeting of our fellow citizens at Utica on the 19^th, 20^th, and 21^st days of September last, you were appointed a Committee to present the following interrogatories to the several candidates for the Offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor of this State, viz:

"1^st. Are you in favor of a law granting to persons in this State, claimed as fugitive slaves, a trial by jury."

"2^nd. Are you in favor of abolishing all distinctions in the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this State founded solely on complexion?"

"3^rd. Are you in favor of a repeal of the law, which now authorises the importation of slaves into this State, and their detention here, as such, for the term of nine months?"

I acknowledge this right of the elector, at all times, to be informed of the opinions of the candidates for public office, upon all subjects of public interest. I very cheerfully, therefore, proceed to answer your interrogatories, in the order in which you have presented them. And

1^st. The trial by Jury has long been justly deemed one of the most precious right of the citizen. This, in all cases, in which it had been heretofore used, is inviolably secured generally by the Constitution of the State; and I can see no sufficient reason for making the case in question an exception to its enjoyment. If it be wise, and essential to the security of individual rights, to extend this inestimable privilege to the decision of a question of property, even of trifling amount, how much more so is it in a case involving a question of personal liberty? The one may be limited to a matter of a few cents; while the other to the party claimed, involves all that gives value to his life, all that is necessary to the attainment of its highest object, the intellectual and moral perfection of his being.

It is true, that the Constitution of the United States inhibits any State from Passing any law or regulation discharging from service of labor any person, held to such service or labor, in any other State; and requires that such person, on fleeing into any State, shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due.

The two principle requirements of this clause of the Constitution of the United States are clear and explicit; and we permit the party claiming, on his mere exparte testimony, to arrest the alleged fugitive, and put him upon the trial of the fact, whether he be the fugitive slave of the party claiming him. If it be a sound principle of law, that 'Every one is to be presumed innocent, until he is proven guilty,' in the State of New York at least, it is a principal of both liberty and law, that EVERY ONE IS TO BE PRESUMED FREE UNTIL HE IS PROVEN OTHERWISE. But, it is on the trial of this very fact, and until it is decided, that the party wants all the benefits of a Jury. It would seem, in a case so interesting to the party, involving, as it does, all that is most dear to him, that the principles of humanity, the spirit of our Constitution and laws, the character of our State and what she owes to the protection of her own citizens, as well as the dictates of justice itself, would require that we should extend to the party claimed in this case, all the advantages of trial, which are secured to all others.

I am, therefore, without adverting to the question of jurisdiction, lately raised between this State and the United States, in favor of granting to persons in this State, claimed as fugitive slaves, a trial by Jury.

Your second interrogatory embraces a question, which was much agitated at the formation of the present Constitution of the State. In the full discussion, which it underwent in the Convention, which framed that Constitution, many of the most distinguished members of that Body, are found on the affirmative side of this question. I may be permitted here to allude particularly to

[col. 4]

one, whose has been, through a long life, only another name for whatever is cultivated and clear in intellect, ardent and enlightened in philanthropy, elevated and pure in purpose, entire and preserving in devotion to the good of his fellow men. He is the worthy brother of one of you.

The right of suffrage is, under every free representative Government, one of the most important rights of the citizen. It is in the use of this right, mainly, that the people exercise their power of sovereignty. It is all important, therefore, both to the security of individual rights, and the general welfare, that the basis of the right of suffrage should be wisely chosen, clearly defined, and well established. Under the Constitution of 1777, age, residence, property and the payment of taxes, were made the bases of this important right. Under the present Constitution, except in the case of colored man, citizenship, residence, age military service, or labor on the highways, or an equivalent therefor, were constituted the bases of this right. To all these, in the case of the colored man, were added extended citizenship and a freehold estate to the value of two hundred and fifty dollars, over and above all debts and incumbrances charged thereon.

Experience and the progress of time, with the more liberal views on this subject, which these brought along with them, soon led to a change in the Constitution, which fixed this right upon its present bases of citizenship, age and residence; amounting almost to universal suffrage. But this spirit of mehoration did not reach the colored man. Neither an increasing sense of equal justice, nor the progress of liberal ideas brought any favorable change to him. He remains as to the right of suffrage, where the Constitution of 1821 left him; subject to onerous conditions, from which the white citizen is exempt.

In excluding property from the bases of the right of suffrage under the Constitution of 1821, the people established a new and important democratic principle; a principle, which, in its operation, effected a great change in the character of the representative feature of the government. From being a combined representation of person and property, as under the old Constitution, it became, under this new principle, almost exclusively, a representation of persons. - The provisio, therefore, in the new Constitution in relation to the colored citizen, is an anomaly, entirely at war with the above democratic principle, as it is with the general spirit of the Constitution.

But, with a view to get over this difficultly, it may be said, as it has been said, that the freehold of $250, required to be possessed by the colored man, is not intended as, in itself, a qualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage; but, only as evidence of that intelligence, industry, and good conduct, which qualify the possessor for a safe and salutary exercise of this important right. But where, in what part of the existing Constitution of the State, is either the evidence of the existence, or the existence itself, in the white citizen, of these qualifications, however desirable, made an indispensable condition to the exercise of this right? Nowhere. It is, in relation to the colored citizen, an exclusive distinction. And it is an odious one.

But there is another objection to this discriminating and unequal provision of the Constitution; it limits the right of suffrage to the possession of the freehold of the value of $250. No amount of personal property, however great, can be offered as a substitute. Now if it be true, that his freehold is not to be considered in itself so much a qualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage, as evidence of that intelligence, industry, and good conduct, which are such qualifications, it is not readily perceived why ten thousand dollars in personal property would not furnish such evidence in a much greater degree, although the latter should be invested in merchandise and the former in real estate. This principle, therefore, in its operation even among the colored citizens themselves, is partial and unjust. But the general principle is in itself wrong. It is inconsistent with the pervading spirit of the Constitution; creates an odious and unneccessary distinction; and violates the principles of equal and eternal justice. I respect the intelligence, the patriotism and virtue of that majority of the framers of the Constitution, by whose votes this provision was inserted. - They doubtless thought it wise and necessary. But they lived in other and different times than the present. If there were then reasons for this provision, those reasons have been gradually disappearing before the advance of education, of general light, and of the gradual improvement of that class of our citizens, to whom it applies. I believe it no longer necessary - that to abolish it would not only be safe, but would remove a fruitful source of heart-burning and disaffection, would elevate the condition and character of an important portion of our population, and render them more safe and wholesome citizens. Every consideration

[col. 5]

of sound policy, therefore, would seem to demand this. It is due to consistency and the spirit of the Constitution. The light and the spirit of the age demand it. A just regard to our character, as a free State, demands it. But, above all, the immutable principles of equal and external justice demand it.

I am, therefore, in favor of abolishing all distinctions in the constitutional rights of the citizens of this State founded solely on complexion.

3^rd. The State of New York, by its repeated legislative acts, has already pronounced her judgement, and declared her own policy, on the subject of slavery, - Within her own borders, she has already proclaimed universal emancipation; and has ranged herself among the free States. But, she has still, upon her Statue Book, Acts, which recognise the relation of master and slave, and which lend their sanction to protect the rights of the former, and enforce the obedience of the latter. These Acts have been liable to great abuse, and are justly subjects of great complaint.

The obligations of New York, in this matter, to her sister slaveholding States, are clearly defined in that clause of the Constitution of the United States, above referred to, and are limited to two points, viz: 1^st, To abstain from the passing of any law or regulation, discharging from service or labor any person held to such service or labor in an other State; And, 2^nd, To deliver up such person, fleeing into this State, on the claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due. Here the duty of New York ends; and that of a free State, should perhaps be limited.

But, either from courtesy, liberality or whatever else it may be, she has gone much beyond this, & provided for several other cases.

In the 3^rd Section of the 7^th Title of the 20^th Chapter of the 1^st Part of the Revised Statues, it is provided that any inhabitant of any other State emigrating into this State with intent to reside permanently therein, may bring with him his slaves; and, certain conditions, hold the same to service for a certain period.

Thus to authorise the bringing into our State elements or subjects, upon which our laws of emancipation are to operate, would seem to be consistent, neither with the spirit and object of those laws, nor with the general policy of the State.

The 6^th Section of the same Title provides, that "Any person, not being an inhabitant of this State, who shall be travelling to or from, or passing through, this State, may bring with him any person lawfully held by him in slavery, and may take such person with him from this State; but, the person so held in slavery shall not reside or continue in this State more than nine months, and if such residence be continued beyond that time, such person shall be free."

From this provision have flowed many gross abuses, and it is a subject of just complaint. But the 7^th Section, of the same Title, would seem to be liable to still greater abuse and objection. It provides that "Any person who, or whose family, shall reside part of the year in this State, and part of the year in any other State, may remove and bring with him or them, from time to time, any person lawfully held by him in slavery, into this State, and may carry such person with him or them out of the State.

Thus a person or family residing in New York, say eleven months, and in another State one month, would come within the provisions of this Section, and might thus perpetuate the servitude of his slaves almost exclusively within this State. It must be a mistaken courtesy and a misplaced liberality, that permit so great a violation of the spirit of our own laws, and authorise so great a departure from the settled and declared policy of the State. Towards a sister State I would exercise every act of liberality and courtesy, that did not involve a sacrifice of principle, or some important public interest. Above

[col. 6]

all, I would abide by the compromises of the Constitution. - But I would not extend them. If something be due to others, much is also due to ourselves, to our own principles, and our own institutions. So utterly am I opposed to slavery, in all its forms - so great an evil, both moral and political, do I consider its existence in our country - that I would not, beyond the clear requirements of the federal Constitution, either directly or indirectly, nearly or remotely, lend to it the sanction of our State legislation. Nor can I view the existence of this great moral and political evil, as is sometimes pretended, as the exclusive affair of the States, where it exists. It touches too vitally the national interests and national character, not to be a subject of deep and legitimate interests to every citizen, who loves his county and its honor. But while I would leave to the States, where this evil exists, the exclusive duty, as it is their exclusive right, to act in this matter. I would reserve to all, and, beyond a peradventure or a doubt, the right of its free discussion. And although in the "consummation most devoutly to be wished," I rely under a controlling Providence, mainly upon the ultimate, just views, generous impulses, and high moral sentiment of the slaveholder himself, yet to induce him to early action, I would not cease to address him as brother to brother, every consideration, that a burning patriotism could suggest, every inducement that an enlightened philanthropy could inspire, every argument and sanction, that an elevated morality and holy religion could supply. Nor do I longer fear, in this matter, the counteraction of individuals, however distinguished, who would, upon this greatest subject, forever shut the door in the very face of hope. He must heed very little the admonitions of the age, be little observant of all that is passing in the old world and the new, who can doubt the future progress of events, and certain consummation on this subject. As well might our lungs remain untact from the air we breathe, as opinions not receive their "form and pressure" from the moral atmosphere of the world and age, in which we live. - And the time is not distant, when our own slaveholding States, moved by their own generous impulses, and the allpervading spirit of the age, will themselves accomplish upon this subject, all that the most enlightened philanthropy, and most ardent patriotism, could desire; and our whole country, in all its length and breath, become in fact, what it is already in name, the freest on earth.

From the foregoing, you will readily infer an affirmative answer to the 3^rd interrogatory.

I have thus answered, with great frankness, & with such minuteness, as time would permit, your several interrogatories.

I have only to add an assurance of the great consideration and respect,

With which I have the honor to be,

Gentelmen, your friend,

And servant,

L. Bradish

Hon. WILLIAM JAY &

GERRIT SMITH ESQ.

Committee.

Should replies be received in season, they will be published and spread before the electors for their consideration and action.

ASA RAYMOND,

President, Mad. Co. A. S. S.

Fordyce Rice, Sec.

INTERROGATORIES.

To the candidates for Congress -

1. Ought not Congress to respect the right of petition in all persons; as well as in the persons of those who plead for impartial and universal liberty, as in other persons; and do you not think that Congress, in refusing to read and refer the petitions of hundreds of thousands of their constituents, have been guilty of a flagrant violation of a plain provision of the constitution of our country?

2. Do you think it would be right to increase the number of slave states in this Union?

3. Ought not Congress, at their very next session, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia?

To the candidates for the Senate and Assembly -

1. Do you not think that the right of a jury trial should be granted to every person within the limits of this State, when claimed as a slave?

2. Do you think those laws are just which grant or withhold rights and privileges, according to the color of men's skins?

3. Do you not think, that the law of this State, which authorizes the holding of men in slavery within its limits should be promptly repealed?