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

President Green, Whitesboro.

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 457

PETERBORO, April 4th, 1849.

President GREEN, Whitesboro:

MY DEAR SIR, -

I have, carefully, read your letter, in the last Model Worker. I am not sure, that I understand all its parts. No fault of yours, however, if I do not - for you, always, write lucidly. I am not a metaphysician. Hence, it were not strange, if I should not, always, understand one, who is.

Your leading position is, that the injustice of a man goes to work the forfeiture of his right "to be;" and that his right "to be" is diminished in proportion to the extent of his injustice. Should I admit this position, I should, perhaps, be bound to agree with you, that the man, who is so unjust, as to vote fur the unjust, has no right to vote. But I do not admit it. For aught I know, the unjust man has as full a right "to be" - and, that too, both in eternity and in time, as the just man. If I do not know (and I do not,) that a man's justice gives him the right "to be," how can I know, that his injustice takes away such right? For aught I know, God calls us into being, and continues us in being, entirely irrespective of our justice or injustice. Sufficient for me to know on this point is, that, every man, whilst God suffers him "to be," is to be held under obligation to exercise all his rights. One of these rights is to participate in the choice of his civil rulers. Another is to pray. No injustice, no impiety, on his part, shall be allowed to cancel his obligation to exercise these, or any other of his innumerable rights. Does he offer his injustice and his past practice of voting for the unjust, as an excuse for his not voting now? We reply, that he must, nevertheless, vote - and we add, that his obligation to vote right is no less strong than his obligation to vote. When urged to pray, does he decline on the ground, that he is an unbeliever, and that his prayer, therefore, would be cold and worthless? We, Both withstanding insist, that he shall pray; and that no saint is under stronger obligation than he to pray believingly, fervently, and acceptably. Every man-and, this too, simply because he is a man - is good enough to pray, and every man, for the like reason, is good enough to vote: and I would just as soon say, that a man must stay away from the mercy-seat, as from the ballot-box.

I pass to another of your positions. It is, if I understand it, that the man, who is qualified to be a civil ruler, is a civil ruler; and is to discharge the functions of a civil ruler, without waiting to be selected, or invited, by his fellows to do so. But so far am I from falling in with this position, as to maintain, that no roan, however well qualified for civil rule, has, in any conceivable circumstances, the least right to assume it, without the leave of his fellows. He is a usurper - a destroyer of their sacred liberties - if he claims such right, and reduce his claim to practice.

This theory of yours, that the ruler is God-appointed; and that men have but to bow down to him, recognizing him, instead of making choice of him; seems to me not only to stretch the office of God, and contract that of men, but to be incapable of being carried out safely, if, indeed, at all. A just man sees a dozen persons equally fit, in his esteem, to be President - to be Governor; or, as you would have it, bearing equally decisive celestial marks of actually being the President - of actually being the Governor. What shall he do? Must his genuflections be toward them all? Must he conclude, that the Nation has a dozen Presidents? - the State a dozen Governors? Again, another just man sees a dozen Presidents - a dozen Governors; and the dozens he sees are,to no extent, identical with the former dozens. How shall this collision be disposed of? But, is not your theory as perilous, as impracticable? Does not the history of tire world and of the human heart teach us, that this theory of the God-sent ruler, is the very one, that the Devil-sent usurper, always, stands ready to avail himself of? - and that, wherever it prevails, the people are vexed and crushed with tyrants?

You justly charge me with the doctrine, that all persons have the right to vote for their civil rulers; and that they have this right, entirely irrespective of their moral character. They are equal partners in the body politic. When those of them, who vote justly, find the partnership made unendurable by reason of the unjust voting of the remainder, or of any other cause, they may resort to revolution, and seek to break it up. But whilst the partnership continues, all should admit, that the ballot-box be equally accessible to all. I would here remark, that your theory of drawing a line through the crowd at the ballot-box, which shall leave the just on one side of it, and which shall leave, and disfranchise, the unjust on the other, seems to me to be utterly impracticable. What finite mind can unerringly draw this line? What finite arm can effectually enforce the observance of it?

It is true, too, that I hold, that man is invested by his: Maker with a perfect freedom of choice between good and evil, blessing and cursing, life and death, Heaven and Hell. It is only because I regard him, as this free agent, that I regard him as a responsible agent. Deprived of this freedom of choice, his goodness would have no more merit, and his evil no more demerit, than can be affirmed of a mere machine. You make my claimed freedom of choice to go to Hell all one with the claim of the right to go to Hell. But I see not, that you are at liberty to identify the one with the other. My saying, that the way in that bad direction is as open and free to me, as the opposite one, is, surely, not the same thing as saying, that I have the right to travel it.

I much regret, that we should disagree so greatly on the subject of "Land Reform" also. If I mistake not, you allow a very wide latitude to land-monopoly. On the contrary, I deny, that land-monopoly is any more rightful, than monopoly of the light, or the air. Would you (I think you would not,) suffer one man to buy up the soil of all Ireland, if, to use your words, he would but "diligently and faithfully cultivate" it? He might mate the purchase with even benevolent motives. The effect of the purchase, nevertheless, would be to multiply the victims of the murderous land-monopoly, which, now, reigns in Ireland, and to increase, beyond measure, the number of her wretched children, who are denied a home and a standing place upon the earth: Justice will never be done to the people of Ireland, until her land is divided equally among them. Moreover, this will be a disordered and wretched world, until its inhabitants are admitted to have as equal a right to the soil, as to the other two elements of human subsistence, which I have just referred to. The world over, labor is oppressed. It can hardly be oppressed, however, when, once, the land is made free. The philanthropist should strive for "Land Reform," as the great basis reform. This reform accomplished, other reforms will follow, and adjust themselves to it. If "Land Reform" succeed, it will be found to be, not only the seminal principle of other reforms, but their controller, regulator, harmonizer. "Land Reform" successful - and, not only, would innumer able forms of evil be, thereby, driven from the world, but innumerable forms of good in it would, thereby, be made better. Christianity itself is a far better and more beautiful thing - nay, a radically different thing - among a people, enjoying the security, comfort, intelligence, manliness, which spring from the possession of homes, than it is among a homeless, and, consequently, dependent, oppressed, ignorant, and intellectually dwarfed and shrivelled people.

You revolt at the idea, "that the lazy, shiftless, gluttonous, knave is entitled to a homestead." Now, I feel, that such a one is quite as much entitled to it, as the most virtuous. His need of it is itself a title to it. He needs it, that an improvement in his character may, thereby, become more probable - may, I had almost said, thereby, become possible. Above all, he needs it, because he has a God-given right to it. I confess to you, my dear Sir, that your doctrine, that the question of rights turns wholly upon character - and the character, moreover, to be judged of by fallible men - would alarm me, did I believe, that it can become prevalent among us. Wise and good, as you are, I should; nevertheless, tremble for my nation, were you, still holding this doctrine, to be invested with absolute power over it. I should tremble too, not for others only, but for myself also. For my character is very poor in my own eyes. It might become still poorer in yours: - and you, not being the man to sacrifice a cherished doctrine upon the altar of a friendship, even though it be as old and as warm, as that, which binds our hearts together, would carry it out, to the extent, perhaps, of denying me every right, and of knocking me in the head, and throwing my carcass to the dogs.

I have, more than once, seen you sway your audience by your ingenious and eloquent inculcation of the doctrine, that, when men become "foxy," "snaky," "hoggish," they become, indeed, "foxes," "snakes," "hogs"; and lose all the rights of men, for the simple reason, that they have ceased to be men. Pardon me for saying, that, instead of yielding to the doctrine on such occasions, I have consoled myself with the reflection, that it is quite too destitute of philosophical truth and accuracy ever to become a practical doctrine.

[2]

I wish not to express myself too positively, in respect to your novel views. It would be unseemly in me to do so. I, very Seldom, venture (and, never, but when drawn by another,) into the regions of speculation and metaphysics; and, whenever, I do, I trust it is not with the overweening confidence, that I, always, put my foot down in the right place. But, if your views are right, ought you not, nevertheless, to be patient with my dullness? - especially, since the new, startling, astonishing things, to which you demand my assent, are contrary to my whole education, and, indeed, to the education of the whole world? If I mistake not, there is a tone of impatience in your letter.

Permit me, in closing my letter, to allude to what I regard, as the chief cause of our wide differences on a particular class of subjects: You have none, whilst I have the utmost confidence, in the capabilities of the masses to take care of themselves. Hence, these wide differences. When Carlyle makes the masses cry out: "Govern us"- "Govern us": this cry, which is so humiliating and disgusting in my ears, is delightful music in yours. When Dr. Francis, the famous tyrant of Paraguay, seizes upon a poor belt-maker, and compels him to walk, in horror, beneath the gallows - and all this for no other offence than that he had executed his work imperfectly - such tyranny, for which it is scarcely too much to say the Doctor should himself have swung on that gallows, I have known you chuckle over, as a proper and praiseworthy exercise of the powers of Civil Government. You would have Government see to it, that the Church - desk and the School House - desk are well supplied. On the contrary, I protest against its interference with either Schools or Churches. You, even go so far as to maintain, that Government may direct the farmer in the cultivation of his farm. You would, in short, have Government present and officious in all the departments of industry, and in all the relations of life - a presence and officiousness, which would be, well nigh, as irksome and intolerable to me, as were to the Egyptians the frogs, which came tip into their "house, and bed-chamber, bed, and ovens, and kneading troughs."

To protect is the only duty and province of Government; - and happy for its subjects, were it to protect them, and to have nothing more to do with them. Let Government but cease to oppress its subjects, and let it, not only shelter them from foreign aggression (a thing to be done by justice, and not by war,) but let it, also, prevent them from jostling against each other in the race of life, and they will not fail to pursue their interests and happiness, successfully. But Government will not afford this protection, which it owes, until it nullifies all slave laws; until it repeals its land-monopoly laws - those laws, which invade the natural right to an equal portion of the soil; until it repeals its tariff laws, which invade the natural right to buy and sell, freely in every market; until it ceases to legalize the rum-traffic, that matchless destroyer of property, body and soul; until it ceases to enforce against its subjects the debts of their ancestors; and until it ceases to plunge them into the wars of its ambition and injustice, and to impose upon them the crushing burdens of standing armies and navies. Let Government carry its protection up to such limits, and its subjects will show, that they are capable of taking care of themselves - even of educating their own children, and of building their own roads and canals. "The destruction of the poor, "says Solomon, "is their poverty." It is the poverty of the masses, which works in them such self-degradation, and makes them willing to stand, like a group of mendicants, around their government, and to have petty privileges doled out to them, in exchange for the vital rights, of which Government has robbed them. Alas, that they can be bribed into an acquiescence in the loss of their rights! But, this deep and wide-spread poverty is not a necessary evil. The reduction to practice of the land reform doctrines would be the first step toward breaking it up. It would be much more than that. It would be a step, which would call effectually for every other step in the process of banishing poverty. It would result in the distribution of wealth, intelligence, and happiness throughout all classes: - and, what is far better, in the fusing of all classes into one class.

Sad delusion is it, that the masses must, of necessity, be poor; and most, therefore, be hangers-on upon Government, and, be looking up to it, in the language of the Psalmist, "as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress." Whilst this delusion continues, men will, of course, be shaping their political and religious views to this fancied necessity; and they will be reconciled to have the Government own the people, as is the case in Europe, instead of the people the Government. Quickly, however, would the prevalence of sound views of Christianity and of Civil Government scatter this delusion, and make it manifest, that nothing but a false Christianity and a false Civil Government stand effectually in the way of universal abundance, universal independence, and universal happiness.

With great regard, your friend and brother,

GERRIT SMITH.