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

To the New York Tribune : Peterboro, July 17, 1855.

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 496

PETERBORO, July 17, 1855.

To the New York Tribune:

I have just read what you say of me in your yesterday's Number.

The press constantly takes great liberties with my name: - but, I believe, the public will bear me witness, that I am patient with these liberties, and do very rarely complain of them. Even with your frequent and gross and influential misrepresentations of me I have borne uncomplainingly: - but I can be silent under them no longer.

So you have, at last, been compelled to admit, that I "was present in the House of Representatives on the night of the passage of the Nebraska bill, and voted against it". I wish you had made the admission a year ago. Had you done so, I should probably have been saved the necessity of making a thousand oral and written answers to those, who have questioned me, in respect to my vote on that bill. As it was you, who, more than all others, created the well nigh universal belief, that I was not in the House that night, your early correction of your misrepresentations would, pretty certainly, have done more to dispel such belief than could have been done to that end by all others.

Late, however, as your admission has come, I am nevertheless thankful for it. Overburdened as I am with labors, I rejoice in the prospect, that no more of my time will be consumed in giving such answers, as I have referred to. My more joyful prospect doubtless, in the esteem of some, is that I shall now be restored to good standing, as an antislavery man. But let me here say, once for all, that I care not a farthing for their opinion of my antislavery character, who judge of it by my vote against the Nebraska bill. That was the most popular vote I ever gave; and all the Northern Members, who voted against it, afforded about as much proof, in so voting, of self denial; as they would have done, in submitting to the necessity of eating strawberries and cream. I add, that the credit, which the people give them for "backbone", on account of their having voted against the Nebraska bill, shows that the people have not yet imbibed the first true idea of the brave and stupendous and self-sacrificing work of abolishing American slavery. The only Members of Congress, who, by voting against the Nebraska bill, earned the least part of a title o the reputation of having "backbone", were the few intrepid ones of the South. Indeed, I must insist; that the Northern members, who, in voting for the bill, voted against the aroused Northern sentiment, might far rather be credited with "backbone" than we, who voted with that sentiment.

But no more in regard to my vote on the Nebraska bill. What, it seems, the records of Congress could not establish, the Tribune will, I trust, be found to have established. I trust, that, henceforward, all, who have refused to believe it on the authority of the records of Congress, will, on the authority of the Tribune, believe that I did, indeed, vote against the Nebraska bill. I wish the Tribune would, also, authorize the belief, that I made a speech, as well as cast a vote, against that bill. And I wish this so strongly, that I now tell it to draw on me for three hundred dollars ($300) in case it shall consent to put that speech into the hands of its one hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand subscribers. Possibly in this speech - the only one ever made in Congress to prove, that slavery is both a piracy and an outlaw - an abomination, which never has been law, and which never can be law - there may be found some little evidence of that "backbone," which your columns have repeatedly charged me with lacking.

And, now, that you have ceased to misrepresent me on one point, and have confessed, that I really did vote against the Nebraska bill, I hope you will travel on a little further in the way of justice, and not let your relentings cease, until you have confessed your deep wrong against me on another point also.

All others put together have not done so much, as you have done, to give currency to the report, that whilst in Congress, I was guilty, not only of deserting the cause of freedom, but of deserting it for the sake of the petty self-indulgence of saving a few hours of sleep. To the facts in the case.

When the time had arrived for taking the vote on the Nebraska bill, its opponents proposed to combine for the purpose of preventing the taking of it. In other words, they believed, that there was now an occasion, which would justify them in blocking the wheels of government, and in unfurling the flag of revolution, even on the floor of Congress. I dissented from them. Yes, I had even "backbone" enough to stand alone in my dissent. The argument; which I employed with my excellent friends Chase and Sumner and with other Members of Congress to justify this dissent, contained not one word on the subject of my sleep. The substance of it I shortly after gave to my constituents, in a printed letter; and you commented on it. That argument you were bound to receive, as my own justification of my course; and you had no right for the purpose of making me ridiculous, or for any other purpose, to substitute for it the coinage either of your own, or of any other body's, fancy. Here follows a copy of the argument.

"I refused to become a party to the plan for preventing the taking of the vote on the Nebraska bill. This refusal was a great grief to the abolitionists in both Houses of Congress: and I scarcely need say, that I love them too well not to grieve in their grief. Nevertheless, I had to persist in the refusal, and in standing alone. The wisest of men and the best of men, entreated me, over and over again, by my regard for my reputation, and by all, that is precious in the cause of freedom, not to persevere in this singularity. Nevertheless - and, that, too, notwithstanding obstinacy had never been imputed to me - I was immovable. How could I be moved, when it was my convictions, that fastened me to my position? Years before, in the calm studies of my secluded home, I had adopted the democratic theory - not nominally and coldly and partially - but really and earnestly and fully: and the conclusions, which I had arrived at, in circumstances so favorable for arriving at just conclusions, I was entirely unwilling to repeal, in a season of excitement and temptation. I spoke of the democratic theory. But the soul of that theory is the majority principle. Hence, to violate this principle is to abandon that theory. I was, frequently, told, that those rules of the House, in the expert use of which the taking of the vote on the Nebraska bill could be staved off indefinitely, were made for the very purpose of enabling the minority to hold the majority at bay, whenever it might please to do so. But this did not influence me. For, in the first place, I could not believe, that they were made for so wrongful - for so anti-democratic - a purpose: and, in the second place, even had I thus believed, I, nevertheless, could not have consented to use them for that purpose. There is no rule - nay, there is no enactment, however solemn or commanding, that I can consent to wield against the all-vital and sacred majority principle; or, in other words, against democracy itself.

[2]

When I complained, that the plan in question was revolution, I was charged with inconsistency; - inconsistency with my well known readiness to rescue a fugitive slave. It is true, that I would rescue a fugitive slave. Nevertheless, I felt not the pertinence of the charge of inconsistency. In rescuing him, I take my stand outside of the Government, and am a confessed revolutionist. Let it be remembered, that it is only, whilst and where, I am inside of the Government, that I acknowledge myself bound to bow to the will of the majority. I bow to it in the legislative hall and in the court room; and every where and always do I bow to it; until the purposed execution of the decree, that is intolerable. Then I rebel. They are guilty of anticipating the only proper time for rebellion, who resort to it, during the process of legislation. I sit in the House of Representatives, and hear my fellow members discuss, and see them vote upon, a bill, which wrongs me greatly. Argument and persuasion and my vote are all, that I can, legitimately, oppose to its passage. If it pass, and its enforcement be contemplated, it will be, then, for me to decide whether to rebel against the Government, and to resist the enforcement.

I need say no more, in explanation, or defence, of my grounds for refusing to go into the scheme to prevent the majority from bringing the House to a vote on the Nebraska bill. I will, however, before leaving this subject, advert to the fact, that for refusing to go into this scheme - into this physical struggle, which continued through thirty-five successive hours - into this strife to see which party could go the longer, without sleeping, and eating, and, I would that I could add, without drinking also - my reputation for fidelity to the antislavery cause has suffered not a little, in some quarters. Moreover, it is not only in this wise, that I suffered loss by refusing to follow the multitude on that occasion. My reputation for a sound understanding, poor as it was before - and poor as that of every radical and earnest abolitionist must continue to be, until abolition shall be in the ascendant - is far poorer now. It is, I suppose, for my singularity on that memorable occasion, that a very distinguished and much esteemed editor tells the world, that I am 'deficient in common sense.' I am happy to believe, however, that this editor will readily admit, that it is far better to be 'deficient in common sense' than in common honesty: and that, when he shall have read this letter, he will clearly see, that, with my views of the comprehensive and sacred claims of the majority principle, I could not have gone into the combination in question, and yet have retained common honesty. I was a fool in this editor's esteem not to go into it. But he will, now, perceive, that I would have been a rogue, had I gone into it. He will, now, be glad, that I did not go into it. For much as he values knowledge, he values integrity more. And were he, now, to meet me, he would press my hand, and thank me, that I played the fool, in preference to playing the rogue.

By the way, will not this editor allow me to remind him, that when, a little more than three short years ago, I went into different parts of our State to speak against certain Senators for their daring to prevent the necessary majority of the Senate from passing the Canal bill, he had no censures, but rather praises, to bestow on me? It is true, that he and I both desired the success of the Canal bill; and that we both desired the defeat of the Nebraska bill. And it is true, therefore, that, whilst my principles worked for his and my interests and wishes in the former case, they worked, (at least, as some thought,) against them, in the latter. Was this, however, a good reason why I should not allow them to work in the latter, as well as in the former case? I ask this editor - I ask the world - how it was possible for me to fall in with this policy of preventing the vote on the Nebraska bill, unless I was also prepared to revoke my condemnation of the like policy on the part of the Senators, to whom I have referred."

Now, I do not say, that this argument, which I have here copied, was sound. I leave it for you to say it: - and you will say it, on the very first occasion you shall have for saying it. It is not improbable, that, within a few years, the opponents of slavery will be in the majority in both Houses of Congress. Then they will undertake to repeal so much of the Nebraska bill, as repeals the compromise line; and they will, also, undertake to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. But the advocates of slavery, pleading for their precedent the revolutionary movement for preventing the vote on the Nebraska bill, will resort to a similar movement. The Tribune will, of course, denounce the factious, rebellious, anarchical conduct - and, in denouncing it, will fulfil my prediction, and virtually indorse my argument. In vain, however, will it be for the Tribune to denounce that in its foes, which it justified in its friends. Then, too, many a one, who was in Congress with me, and who, in his zeal against the Nebraska bill, forgot what was due to the great democratic majority principle and to the dignity of a legislature, will clamor against others for doing the very thing, which they had themselves done - for playing a game, which one has as good right as another to play.These gentlemen will, however, avail nothing by their clamor but to be laughed at for their impudent inconsistency. In that day, mine will be the only rebuking and healthful example - unless, indeed, as I, this moment, think was the fact, there were two or three democratic members, who, though voting against the bill, did not go into the combination to prevent the taking of the vote upon it.

But what as to the foundation for all the fun - and some of it very ill-natured, not to say malignant fun - which you and others have made of my going to bed at 9 o'clock? It is true, that it is my habit to go to bed at that early hour, and it is also true, that I do not admit that I am at all the worse for the habit, physically, intellectually, or morally. But when, or where, have I plead this habit, as an excuse for any part of my conduct on the Nebraska bill? Never - no where. It is true that I have occasionally said, that the physical struggle, which the Members went into, could, no more than does a duel, decide which party is with the right. It is true, that I have occasionally said, that if questions in Congress are to be decided by such a struggle, men of the physical qualities and habits for such a struggle, however weak or wicked they may be, are the proper men to send to Congress. It is true, that I have occasionally said, that, such being the mode for disposing of questions in Congress, I, who get sleepy at 9 o'clock, and who have conscience against keeping myself awake by drinking a glass of rum every hour, am the last man to send to Congress. It is true too, that I said much against night sessions of Congress; and that I sat very uneasy in the midst of the gross drunkenness, which abounded in the Hall, the night of the voting on the Nebraska bill. But I put it to your discrimination and conscience, whether, in saying all this, I said, that I valued my sleep more than I did the cause of freedom, and that sooner than not be in bed at 9 o'clock, I would fail to record my vote against the Nebraska bill. Is it not a very glaring perversion of my words, of which you have been guilty?

I am amazed, that you can find it in your heart to persevere in these utterly groundless and wicked misrepresentations of me. You are not a stranger to my services for the slave; and you know how base and absurd is the charge, that I, who, for his sake, have, in every hour of the night, faced the howling tempest, and have, also, for his sake, repeatedly faced the howling mob, should, at last, be found making more account of a few hours sleep than of my solemn duties to the cause of liberty. And, yet, you continue to tell the world not only, that I am guilty of this entirely incomprehensible and exceedingly criminal inconsistency, but that I confess, that I am. Whatever may be your opinion of my argument for declining to be a party to the device for staving off the vote on the Nebraska bill, I am sure, that you believe in your heart, that there was no man, either in or out of Congress, who would have made greater sacrifices than I to defeat the bill.

Since I see you are determined to keep afloat the slander, that I was not willing, ay, and that I did myself declare that I was not willing, to sit up after 9 o'clock, even for the high duty of standing sentinel for freedom, I do not a little wonder, that you should admit, that I voted on the passage of the Nebraska bill. For, in order to vote on it, I had to be in the Capi-

[3]

tol, until between 11 and 12 o'clock at night - perhaps quite 12. Yes, to be certain of not failing to vote on it, I had to be in my seat not only all day, but until about the hour of midnight.

I said, that I was amazed at your continuing to wrong me. I admit, that you are tempted to it: and I am willing, in making up my estimate of your guilt, to make all just allowance for the force of the temptation. I know, that you are tempted to hope, that, by showing my type of antislavery to be unreliable and worthless, you will succeed in destroying public confidence in the whole class of technical and radical abolitionists, and in winning favor for your own sort of antislavery that half and half, now here and now there sort, which will, one month, study its interests by swelling out into big words against slaveholders, and which will study them, the next month, in being as busy as a bee to seduce the dupes of those big words to vote for Henry Clay, or some other slaveholder. In the light of what I have here said, your abuse of me, whilst I was in Congress, and your abuse of me ever since; is no mystery. And yet, after mitigating your offence by every proper allowance for your temptation to the offence, I am constrained to say, that, had there been magnanimity, though ever so little, among the elements of your character, it would have sufficed to overcome the temptation to fall upon a man like myself - yes, even a much stronger temptation than that to which you have yielded. For I am a man, who has no hold on the public favor; and who is, always and every where, spoken against, ridiculed, reviled. I have no party, no press, no means for defending myself. The meanest Whig, or Democrat, or Sectarian, from the fact, that he has a party and a press to help him, can succeed in starting any, even the most extravagant, lie respecting me. Ay, the very abolitionists will believe it: - for the poor credulous, simple souls have not yet faith enough in each other to shut their ears to lies about each other. The New York Tribune, with its imposing pretensions to candor, can gull them to any extent it pleases. To gain an unjust victory over an isolated, helpless man like myself is indeed very easy, very temptingly easy: - but is it not as ungenerous and mean, as it is easy?

I notice with what contempt you speak in your yesterday's editorial of my brief Congressional life. All I have to reply is, that I did what I could, whilst in Congress, by my lips and my life, to serve the interests of freedom, and temperance, and peace, and humanity, and religion; and that for having done so, I should, however small my intellect or influence, have been respected, and not despised, by you - commended, and not calumniated.

I would send this manuscript to you, were it not, that you have, within the last week, refused to print some twenty or thirty lines, which I sent you, in reply to an attack upon me in your columns. Since you refused to print those few lines, you would, of course, refuse to print these many lines. Should you, however, consent to reprint this letter, I will cheerfully pay your charge for doing so: - and none the less cheerfully, because of any ill-natured comments, with which you may see fit to accompany it. No comments in the case can change the facts in the case. The facts, unchanged and unchangeable, will live, to break through and scatter all the clouds, which you have succeeded, in collecting upon my reputation, and to work out, in the end; my perfect and triumphant vindication. They will live too, to stamp broader and broader, deeper and deeper, disgrace upon you, until you shall have completed the retractions, which you have, at last, found yourself compelled to begin, and until you shall have confessed your sorrow and shame for having yielded to the temptation to slander one, who, not only has no advantages for defending himself, but who has shown himself to be both patient under wrongs, and unwilling to inflict them.

GERRIT SMITH.