This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.
This digitized edition is part of Syracuse University Library's Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection. It has been OCRed using OmniPage Pro, version 11 by Scansoft® and proofed using WordPerfect version 9. The following layout changes have been made:
- Page breaks are indicated by a full-width horizontal rule
- Column breaks are noted in brackets, e.g. [p. 2, col. 2]
- Indentation in lines has not been preserved
- Changes in font size have not been not been preserved
- Hyphenated words occuring in line breaks have been joined
- Original grammar and spelling has been preserved
- Text unreadable in the original document is noted in brackets as [unreadable]
- Running titles have been preserved
- Strikethrough's within the text of the original document are included and any handwritten changes are noted in brackets
- Handwitten comments or other notations found in the margins or on title pages are not included
Peter D. Verheyen, Project Manager
Debra G. Olson, Digital Project Assistant
Special Collections Research Center
Syracuse University Library
© 2003 This work is the property of the Syracuse University Library. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.
PETERBORO, March 18th, 1857.
HON. D. C. LITTLEJOHN, Speaker of the Assembly:
MY DEAR SIR,
I see that your Republican Legislature is beginning to move against the Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case. But I cannot see why it should. It strikes me that it would be more consistent for it to honor that Court with a vote of thanks. For what, under the worst construction of it, does this Decision declare? Nothing more than that, instead of being a citizen of the United States, the black man may, in the eye of the Federal Constitution, be, in every part of the nation, mere property. But is not this a logical deduction from the Republican doctrine, that, in some parts of the nation, he may be more property? The Supreme Court has gone nothing like as far as this Republican doctrine would warrant. Had it gone to the extent of declaring that the black man is - not may be - but is property every where, it would not have exceeded the scope of this doctrine. For if he is property any where, then is he property every where. The celebrated assertion of Henry Clay, that what the laws make property is property, is no, better than nonsense. The nature of a thing, and that only, determines whether it is, or is not, property. Hence, since the Republican party admits, that the black man is property in Virginia, it is logically bound to admit that he is property in New York also. For as it can be only in the light of his nature that he is property in Virginia, so too, in the light of the same nature, is he property in New York. That it is nature, and not an enactment, which makes property, would be quickly and indignantly felt by us all, were Virginia to enact, that barley and cheese are not property, and that the New York farmer, who brings them to her markets, shall be entitled to no rights of property in them. Holding a Republican to the legitimate consequences of his admission of property in man, he would have no more right to complain of this invasion of the rights of property by Virginia, than a Virginian would have to complain that he is not allowed to hold slaves in New York. The simple truth is that as long as the Republican party admits that the Constitution ordains, or permits, property in man any where, it is estopped from complaining of a Decision, that he may be, or even a Decision that he is, property every where. Republicans, to be consistent, should have nothing to do with the Lemmon Case, save to admit that the slaves were slaves in New York, as well as in Virginia.
The Democratic and American parties are, of course, past all hope in the matter of slavery. The Republican party abounds in sympathy with freedom and in hatred of slavery. Nevertheless, the nation is perishing because of the folly of this party. How great the folly, which persists in the proslavery interpretation of a Constitution, that, by all just interpretation, contains not, from beginning to end, one proslavery line! And may I not add, how great too the dishonesty of those, who will recognize a law for the enslavement of their brother; but who, if made slaves themselves, would be set free at the expense of trampling under foot whatever Constitutions, or statutes, or decrees for slavery - ay, and at the expense too of whatever amount of the blood of their oppressors !
Nothing is law, which cannot be honestly administered as law: - and hence slavery is not law. The Judge on the Bench, who administers slavery as law, may not be entirely conscious of his knavery. Nevertheless he is a knave - for he is doing unto others, as he would not have others do unto him.
I hear it said, that you are to pass a "Personal Liberty Bill". Most sincerely do I hope, that it will not be such a one, as Massachusetts, or Wisconsin, has passed. A Bill, which recognizes the lawfulness of slavery in any conceivable case - the reduction to chattelhood in any conceivable case of a being made in the image of God - is a Bill for slavery and atheism. If you would pass a "Personal Liberty Bill" that would bless yourselves and bless the world, it must visit with heavy penalties the crime of claiming any man as a slave.
Great and frequent events are crowding the Republican party to choose its future. Will it remain upon its present low and false ground, and perish speedily and disgracefully ? - or will it rise into an Abolition party; expel slavery from the land; and live forever in the grateful hearts of the wise and good ?
Why has slavery made unceasing progress for sixty years, and come at last to be installed as the law of the land? Because it is a great positive power, which, having nothing more formidable to face than restrictions, negations, and deprecations, has easily fought its way to victory. The greater positive power of liberty has not yet been wielded against slavery. Unprincipled policy - political expediency - answers the demand of slavery by getting down upon its knees; yielding up one half, and praying to be left the other. But whenever Liberty shall be brought forth to answer such demand, she will answer it with a counter demand. In reply to the call of slavery for more, she will call for the death of slavery. Liberty knows but one remedy for the wrongs of slavery - and that is the abolition of slavery. Will the Republican party apply this remedy? Will the Republican party honor Liberty ?
The question is often put to me, whether I would let the Dred Scott Decision arouse the people to rebel against the Supreme Court. It is a foolish question: - for that Court is itself the rebel - the rebel against all law and all government. When a Court or a Legislature goes out of its province, and entertains absurd questions, and attempts naked impossibilities, and utters blasphemies - the rebel is to be found in the party, that does all this, and not in the people, who trample all this under foot. Surely no people would respect as law the statute or decree, which declares stone wood, or wood stone. Why then should any people respect as law the statute or decree, which declares the infinitely greater and blasphemous absurdity, that man is merchandize? Had we a Government worthy of the name of Government, it would much sooner think of hanging Chief Justice Taney and his associates than of hanging those, who refuse to submit to their devilisms.
With great regard, your friend,
GERRIT SMITH.
|
|
|