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

Chancellor Walworth : Peterboro, August 25, 1849.

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 462

PETERBORO, August 25, 1849.

Chancellor WALWORTH:

DEAR SIR:

I have read a paper, signed by yourself, as Chairman of a Committee. I found it among the proceedings of a Convention, held in Rome 15th instant. In that paper you claim, that democracy and slavery may be in full fellowship with each other; and that the Southern slaveholder - that is, he, who buys and sells his fellow-men, and compels them to toil without wages, and seals up their minds in darkness, and robs them of every right, and subjects them to every wrong, may be as sound a Democrat, as the Northern freeman, whose whole soul revolts at slavery.

Of this doctrine I complain. I do not complain of it, because I belong to that section of the Democratic party, which is the rival of yours. I belong to neither - though I confess my strong, preference for the one, which has identified itself, so bravely and usefully, with the principle of the non-extension of slavery. May it continue to travel upward, until it reach the summit of truth. I am still connected with the Liberty Party - with that little handful, who are associated upon the principle of "EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL"; and who, amidst the pernicious and horrid counterfeits of civil government, are endeavoring to realize the true and divine idea of it. I can belong to no political party of lower aims than an every way righteous government; to none, which does not consent, that every man has as full and absolute a right to the soil, as to the light and the air; to none, which builds up tariff-barriers across the human brotherhood; to none, which would load one generation with the debts of another; to none, which would consume the earnings of the people upon fortifications and standing armies and navies; to none, which would license, or even permit, that frightful danger to life and property, which springs from the manufacturing of madmen in dram-shops; to none, which tolerates either the extension, or existence, of slavery; to none, in short, which believes, that such a monstrosity as slavery - such a devourer of all rights - such a murderer of the body and the soul - is capable of legalization. You cannot legalize every thing. You cannot legalize robbery and murder. Much less can you legalize slavery - that infernal compound, the numerous horrible elements of which include both robbery and murder.

My complaint of the doctrine of your paper is because it grossly misrepresents democracy. The etymological meaning of the word is its true meaning. Democracy is not, as many suppose it, anarchy. It is government. Nor is it oligarchy or aristocracy, as many suppose it. It is a governing by the people. It is the governing of all by all. That democracy, therefore, which shuts out a part of the people from governing, is an imposture. Emphatically such must be your democracy, which not only denies to a part of the people their right to participate in governing, but which sanctions their enslavement, and the annihilation of all the rights of their manhood.

The immortal paper, whose language is: "all men are created equal; are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", contains, in this language, not only the teachings of democracy, but, also, the definition and meaning of democracy. But, what can be more absurd than to say, that, in the light of this language, he can be a democrat, who, with the besom of slavery, makes sweeping and utter destruction of human rights? No wonder, that a slaveholder pronounced the Declaration of Independence "a fanfaronade of nonsense". Such it must be in the eyes of every person, who is so perverted, as to believe slaveholding to be right, or, in any degree, compatible with sound politics.

I, further, complain of the doctrine of your paper, because that, in grossly misrepresenting democracy, it as grossly misrepresents christianity. I grant, that the doctrine, if uttered by an infidel, would not disparage christianity - for, in that case, no one would hold christianity responsible for it. But, it is uttered by yourself, whose high standing and wide influence in the Church are scarcely surpassed by your high standing and wide influence in the State. With many, therefore, it will pass for a doctrine of christianity: You, of course, put it forth as such. You, of course, regard your politics to be the politics of the Bible. You, of course, are in a political party but for the purpose of carrying out the politics of the Bible. You, of course, have no sympathy with the attempts, which are made to draw a line between a man's politics and his religion. You, of course, make his politics a part, and an especially significant and interpreting part of his religion. You, of course, will not allow, that his religion is any better than his politics, or that he, who is a rogue in his politics, is any better than a rogue in his religion. You, of course, believe, that, though a man traffic in human flesh, he may, nevertheless, be, in God's sight, politically sound; and you, therefore, believe, that, in the Rome Convention, you inculcated but the Bible view of democracy and civil government. You, of course, regard yourself as expounding the Bible, when you take part in the meetings of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, and in the meetings of the American Temperance Union; and you, of course, regard yourself, as having done no less, when you told the people at Rome to make no account of a man's slaveholding in their estimation of his political soundness.

I am clearly right, then, in saying, that your doctrine of democracy is put forth as a doctrine of christianity. But am I clearly right, in saying, that it misrepresents christianity?

Democracy is, indeed, a doctrine of christianity. But is it your democracy? Christianity is thoroughly imbued with the democratic spirit. But is it with your democratic spirit? Your democracy ascribes a vile nature to man - for it holds him to be fit for the yoke of slavery and for a state of mere chattelship. Your democracy makes the widest inequality among glen-taking all power from one, and giving all power to another. Not so, however, with the democracy of christianity. That claims a high dignity for man, and tells us, that he was made but "a little lower than the angels, and crowned with glory and honor". That contends for the equality of men; and says, that "God is no respecter of persons", and that "he hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth"; and that the provisions of grace are equally for all men; and that Christ came into the world to "taste death for every man."

Such is the democracy of christianity! How grossly, then, is she misrepresented, and how deeply wronged, when she is claimed to be the justifier and author of your spurious democracy - a democracy, which is as ready to go for slavery, as against slavery as ready to be in full fellowship with the friends and upholders, as with the foes and opponents, of slavery!

I will not doubt, that you believe your proslavery democracy to be the truth. Nevertheless, it is a falsehood, and as impudent and pernicious a falsehood, as was ever setup. A DEMOCRACY, WITHOUT ANTISLAVERY IN IT, IS AS ABSURD AND IMPOSSIBLE, AS A CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT CHRIST IN IT. To this falsehood, that democracy may be proslavery, our guilty and infatuated nation still clings: and whilst it does, it will, of course, refuse to deliver the slave. Here is one of the evils, which our country surfers from this falsehood, to which your and other influential names give currency.

One falsehood creates necessity for another: and, hence is it, that our antislavery Constitution, which contains not one line for slavery, is claimed to be proslavery, and to forbid the abolition of slavery by any branch of the Federal Government. This is claimed, notwithstanding, that one of its avowed objects is to "secure the blessings of liberty"; and, notwithstanding, that it provides, that the "people be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures"; and that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". How different was Patrick Henry's interpretation of the Constitution, given in the Virginia Convention in 1788, from the present interpretation of it! Said this great man: "Have they (Congress) not power to provide for the general defence and Welfare? May they not think, that this calls for the abolition of slavery? May they pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? There is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper (the Constitution) speaks to the point: They have the power in clear, unequivocal terms; and will clearly and certainly exercise it."

It is often said, that the Federal Constitution contains a provision for the surrender of fugitive slaves; and that it, therefore, forbids the abolition of slavery by any of the powers of the Federal Government. But where is such provision? I see in the Constitution a provision for the surrender of apprentices and minor children; - but that provision no more refers to a slave than to a stone, The Southern slave-code defines the slave to be "a chattel to all intents, purposes and constructions whatever"; and, hence,

[2]

from a slave, no more than from a stone, can anything be"due". But, even were it true, that the Federal Constitution requires us, whilst slavery continues, to surrender fugitive slaves, what should be the effect of such requirement but to hasten us to use the powers, which we Constitutionally possess, for abolishing every part and parcel of American slavery?

I have referred to one of the evils resulting to our country from the falsehood, that democracy may stand by slavery. I, now, add, that the pernicious effects of your proslavery democracy are not confined to this land. Its blight upon human liberty and human hopes is felt in other lands also. By reason of her political theories, her Declaration of Independence and her Constitutions, our country has, long been, the political light-house of the world. The lovers of liberty among all the oppressed and benighted nations have rejoiced in its cheering and guiding beams. But, they can hardly descry it, any longer - so dense are the clouds, which our inconsistencies and hypocrisies, the variance between our lives and our lips, our practices and our professions, have gathered around it. Ah, how much harder blows would our example inspire the oppressed Hungarian and Italian to strike, were our deeds in harmony with our words, and were we honestly and gloriously fulfilling the expectations excited by those brilliant services in the cause of liberty, with which we signalized the beginning of our national existence! Feeble, too, would be the resistance offered by tyrants to the uprisings of their outraged subjects, were it not for the betrayal of liberty by us her chosen guardians, and for the mach, which we have done to disparage her claims to the homage of the world.

I tremble for the fate of liberty. Despotism, both civil and ecclesiastical, is marshalling its mighty hosts against her; and such a sham democracy, as you and our other leaders in Church and State are preaching, makes those hosts far mightier, and their opponents far weaker. Liberty may fall - but she would not - oh no, she could not - if, at this crisis, our country should strike the chains from her slaves. In that act of justice and mercy, we should be publishing a true democracy - a true gospel of human rights - whose power would stir the lowest depths of every soul, and double the vigor of every arts enlisted on the side of liberty.

I said, "that I will not doubt, that you believe your proslavery democracy to be truth. Nor will I doubt, that you believe the religion, which justifies this democracy, to be the true religion. Nevertheless, may God deliver the world from such a religion. The civil governments of the world are, even the best of them, but conspiracies. They deserve not to be called civil governments. They are, whilst they exist, insuperable obstacles in the way of the enlightenment, blessedness, salvation, of the world - for they all practice some forms or other of grinding and wasting oppression, and rob the masses of rights vital to their well being. These obstacles must be removed - these conspiracies must be displaced by true civil governments; such, as shall protect their subjects in their right to liberty, and in their right to land, and in all their other cardinal rights, ere the truth can have "free course and be glorified"; ere this world will be brought under saving influences, and become a redeemed world. The religion, which chimes in with, and justifies these conspiracies - these spurious civil governments - is, of course, not the religion to thrust them aside, and get better in their places. Satan will not cast out Satan. The religion of those, who vote for anti-abolitionist, and land-monopolists, and rum-sellers, and rum-drinkers (, and such is the religion of nearly every one of the Churches, and of quite every one of the Missionary and Bible Societies, of the nation,) will not fail to be on good terms with the civil governments, which, the world over, are plundering, and outraging, and crushing, humanity.

There is a religion - blessed be God, that there is! - which is able to overturn all these lying and murderous counterfeits of civil government; and which is able to rectify all the disorders of this sin-crazed world. It is the religion, which Jesus Christ brought into it. Its worst enemies have stolen its name; - but they have given abundant evidence, that its spirit and power do not always accompany its name. A great part of the world is filled with one conventional christianity or another, whilst the true christianity, like its author, has scarcely "where to lay its head". For the spread and triumph of this true christianity, many a slave in his chains is praying; and, so also, many an outcast, who is robbed of his home by legalized land-monopoly; and, so also, many a victim of governmental taxes, or some other form of governmental oppression. Their prayers will, yet, be answered. Christianity will yet be in the ascendant: - and whew that day shall come, its professed disciples will not say, that, in respect to the soundness of his political faith, it is all one, whether a man be a deliverer of the poor, or a buyer and seller, and whipper, and murderer, of the poor. In that day, professed disciples of christianity will be so enlightened, as to know, when reading in their Bible: " He that ruleth over men must be just" - " The ruler is the minister of God " - that their votes must be for the "just" only, and for such, as will administer their office righteously. How much better is such a political faith than that, which you commend! - than that, which allows its possessor as much liberty to vote for a slaveholder, as for a just man - as much liberty to vote for a servant or minister of the devil, as for a servant or "minister of God!"

Pardon me, dear Sir, the freedom of this letter. We have often taken counsel together on the subject of temperance. Why may we not on the subject of politics also! Very probably, this communication will appear to you to be "a setter forth of strange" doctrines. I wish you knew more of them. You will know more of them, if you will read that valuable newspaper published at Syracuse under the, name of "Liberty Party Paper." John Thomas is its worthy and able editor.

Respectfully, your friend,

GERRIT SMITH.