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

Gerrit Smith to his constituents.

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 606

GERRIT SMITH TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.

[col. 1]

Washington, August 7, 1854.

TO MY CONSTITUENTS:

To the end, that you might have ample time to look around you for my successor, I apprised you, some weeks ago, of my intention to resign my seat in Congress, at the close of the present session. I now inform you, that I have fulfilled this intention. The session ended, to-day; and, to-day, I have sent to the Secretary of State, at Albany, the necessary evidence of my actual resignation.

I take this occasion for saying, that I am happy to learn of your favorable regard for my general course in Congress; and that I am sorry, though not surprised, to learn, that there are some things in it, with which a few - perhaps, more than a few - of you are dissatisfied.

And, now, since I have adverted to this dissatisfaction, it seems proper to say more. How much more? Shall I but add the simple declaration, that, concerning the things with which you are dissatisfied, I did what I thought to be right? To stop there would not be sufficiently respectful to you. You are entitled to my reasons - to, at least, the principal of them - for this part of my official conduct: and, I add, that I am not to be impatient with you, if they shall fail to satisfy you. Nay, I am not to be so vain, as to suppose, that it is possible to render sound and satisfying reasons for all the numerous things, which I have said and done,

[p. 1, col. 2]

in Congress. That a life, always so full of errors, before my coming to Congress, was to be entirely empty of them, whilst in Congress, was not to be expected, either by my constituents, or by myself.

I have, always, suffered, very greatly and very unjustly, in the world's esteem, because the world has, always, persisted in judging me, by the light of its own, instead of my own, creeds and practices. To try a man's consistency, he must be tried by himself; and to try his integrity even, he must, to no small extent, be tried by himself - by his own belief's and deeds - by his own life, both speculative and practical.

I noticed strictures upon almost the very first sentence of my very first speech in Congress, which taught me, that my official, no more than my private, life, was to be exempt from the injustice to which I have, here, alluded. It so happened, that I began that speech with expressions of civility toward those around me, and with kind and charitable interpretations of the differences between them and myself. No sooner was the speech in print than many abolitionists complained of my courtesy to slaveholders; and insisted, that I had been guilty of making light of the radical differences between slavery and abolition - between slaveholders and abolitionists. Assuming, as they did, that I was but "a one-idea abolitionist," they further, and very naturally, assumed, that, I stood up to make that speech,

2

[col. 1]

with nothing, but slavery and slaveholders, in my eye. Two things, which they should have remembered, they seemed entirely to forgotten. One of these is, that I entered Congress with such peculiar theories of civil government - matured and cherished, however visionary and false - as, I foresaw, must be, continually, bringing out differences between my associates and myself, not on the question of slavery only, but on innumerable other questions also. The other is, that, among these theories, is the duty, resting imperatively on the inmates of a legislative hall, to know nothing, whilst in such hall, of each other's private character and private relations; and to recognise (sic), and treat, each other as gentlemen. This much, at least then, can be said in vindication of the opening of the speech in question - that, however little it corresponded with the views of others, it faithfully reflected my own: and that, so far; as it is the duty of every man to be, in all circumstances himself, and the duty of all others to judge him by himself, I was not obnoxious to criticism.

The first complaint of my conduct in Congress, save that, which I have, just now, incidentally referred to, was, that I voted against the "Homestead Bill'' - and, that, too, after having, made a speech in its favor. This apparent inconsistency is disposed of by the single remark, that it was not, until after the speech, that the bill was so amended, as to confine its benefits to white persons. But to relieve myself of this apparent inconsistency falls very far short of setting me wholly right, in the eyes of my critics. None the less will they continue to say, that, notwithstanding the amendment debarred me from doing justice to the blacks, I should still have been ready to do justice to the whites, and, therefore, to vote for the bill. But what if they should come to believe, as, I hold, all persons should believe, that it is not the Government, but the people - and the people equally - that own the land? - then, they would promptly acquit me of all blame in the case. If; for the sake of illustration, the light-eyed man and the dark-eyed man do each really own eighty acres of the public land ; then, beyond all doubt, it is not justice, which is done to the light-eyed man, in voting him one-hundred and sixty acres, and in leaving none for the dark-eyed man

[p. 2, col. 2]

That cannot be justice, which is made up, so essentially, of injustice. That cannot be justice, which robs one man to add the spoils of robbery to the already- full share of another. It is true, that this, is only a supposed case, which I have, here, presented. But, manifestly, the principle, in the actual case before us, is the same as in the supposed case. Manifestly, the argument could, in no wise, be affected by substituting a light-skinned man for the light-eyed one, and a dark-skinned man for the dark-eyed one. Manifestly, the rights of men can no more turn on the color of the skin than on the color of the eye.

I trust, that nothing I have here said will be construed into an impeachment of the integrity of those, who voted for the "Homestead Bill." Among them are some, whom I know to be good, as well as wise, men. They surveyed the subject in the light of their own philosophy, and not in the light of mine: and, hence, they saw not, that their vote went to involve both themselves and the recipients of the land in thee guilt of robbery.

The, next complaint, which came to my ears, was, that 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 prin-

3

[col. 1]

ciple. 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 parpose 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.

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 in 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 everywhere 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 (sic), 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

[p. 3, col. 2]

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 anti-slavery 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 lat-

4

[col. 1]

ter, 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.

Let it not be thought, that I call in question either the wisdom or integrity of the members of Congress, who went into this combination. Wiser and better men than myself went into it. Nevertheless, they could not have gone into it, had they entertained my views, be those views sound or false, of the rights of the majority.

Ere leaving the Nebraska bill, I will briefly refer to the censures, which have been cast on one of my private letters. The whole, or none, of that letter should have been printed. I was sorry to see disjointed parts of it in print.The letter is not before me. But, I remember, that I spoke in it against night-sessions of Congress, and declared, that, had the hour of three in the morning been appointed for taking the vote on the Nebraska bill, I should not have been present. This declaration has been seized on, to show my low estimate of the value of the anti-slavery cause. Now, I have not one word to offer, in proof; that I do, really and greatly, love this cause. If proof to this end is still lacking, even after more than a quarter of a century's profession of such love, then, most certainly, no proof can be found, that can supply the lack.

It is contended, that I would have been as much bound, in the supposed case, to have been present, at the taking of the vote, as the editor of a daily newspaper is to be often at his desk, until a late hour of the night; and (it might have been added, with as much propriety) as the physician is, to pass the whole night often, at the bedside of his patient. Now, not to say, that this night-labor, on the part of the editor and physician, is a foreseen and voluntarily incurred one, and is, therefore, in this respect, most widely distinsuishable from the three o'clock appointment; it is enough.to say, that this might-labor is a necessity, and that this three o'clock appointment is not.; and that, hence, it is absurd to refer to the labor to justify the appointment. Had I taken the ground not to

[p. 4, col. 2]

obey any summons to appear in Congress, at three o'clock in the morning - not even that, which was prompted by the sudden landingof a mighty enemy, or by any other necessity - then, I confess, it would have been proper to rebuke me for resisting a necessity; and proper to put me to shame by pointing me to the faithful editor and physician, who yield a prompt obedience to the necessities, which come upon them.

I denied, that the three o'clock appointment would have been a necessity. This denial is abundantly justified by the fact, that there is nothing in the Nebraska bill to make the taking of the vote on it necessary, at any time; and by the further fact, that if there is, there, nevertheless, remained months before the close of the session, and abundant opportunity for the transaction of all the possible business of Congress by daylight.

I might dwell on many objections to giving my countenance to this three o'clock appointment. I will detain you with only a few of them; and with but glances at these. 1st. Some members of Congress are, either from age or other causes, too feeble to be compelled, unless in a case of absolute necessity, to leave their beds, at such an unusual hour for leaving them. 2d. At this sleepy hour, few persons are in a state for the wise and safe transaction of important business. 3d. As the friend of temperance, both my lips and example shall ever testify against any night-session of Congress, that is not called for by the clearest necessity. What if the majority had appointed the taking of the vote on the Nebraska question, in a dramshop? Would you have had me present? I trust not. But are you, yet, to learn, that the scenes of a night-session of Congress do not, always, differ, in all respects, from the scenes of a dramshop? I was present, a part of the night-session, in which the final vote on the Nebraska bill was taken; and I was well convinced, that Congress should avoid all unnecessary night-sessions, until Congress loves temperance more, and rum less. Never did I witness more gross drunkenness, than I witnessed on that occasion. I had to remain unti (sic) eleven o'clock - for I had to remain, unti (sic) I could record my vote against the pro-slavery bill. After that, I hurried away, ful (sic) of shame and sorrow.

5

[col. 1]

It so happened, that Lord Elgin, the Governor of Canada, sat by my side, for an hour or more, during that evening of sad recollections. The drunkenness was perceived by him, as well as by myself. I might rather say, it glared upon his observation, as well as upon my own. It was, certainly, very polite and kind in him to tell me, as he did, in the course of our conversation respecting this disgraceful scene, that he had witnessed shameful disorder in the British Parliament. Nevertheless, his politeness and kindness did not relieve me of my deep mortification.

But, I shall, perhaps, be told, that were it, once, understood, that the friends of temperance, and decency, and good hours, refuse to appear in Congress, the latter part of the night; advantage would be taken of the refusal, and that part of the night would be chosen for mischievous and wicked legislation. This supposes two things, however, neither of which, I trust, is supposable. It supposes, 1st, that a majority of the members of Congress would be guilty of such an outrage; and, 2d, that the people would be patient under it. Had the Nebraska bill been passed by calling us from our beds at three o'clock, the people would have seen, in this disgraceful fact, another and a strong reason for condemning this bill and its supporters.

I proceed to notice another, and, so far as I know, the only other, passage in my Congressional histoty, that has provoked the public censure. I spoke in favor of annexing Cuba to the United States: - and this, too, even though the slavery of that island were not previously abolished. For having so spoken, I have seen myself held up in the newspapers as a filibuster. But I had supposed the filibuster to be one, who would get Cuba either by violence or by money: and, in the speech referred to, I expressly discarded both these means. The union between Cuba and the United States, which I approved, is peaceful, and without purchase. It is to take place, on the sole condition of the choice of the two parties - the people of Cuba and the people of the United States. Their choice of the union authorizes the union: and, that too, even though all other peoples, Spain herself included, forbid it. Indeed, it was only to illustrate the leading doctrine of that part of my speech - the doctrine, that peoples may

[p. 5, col. 2]

unite and divide, as themselves, not as others, please - that I made my reference to Cuba.

But whom do I mean by the people of Cuba? The public suppose, that I of course, mean little else than the handful of slaveholders, aristocrats, and tyrants, upon that island. But, I do not consent to be concluded by their supposition. I do not consent to wear their spectacles, nor to be measured by their measuring-line, nor to be interpreted by their laws of interpretation.

It is now more than a dozen years, since I stood up to read, in a very large assernbly, my "Address to the Slaves of the United States." This Address acknowledges slaves to be of the people, and of equal rights with any other portion of the people; and, I add, that it, therefore, made me more enemies than any other paper I had ever written. I stop not now to justify anything in that paper. All my reason for referring to it is, to say, that, whether its doctrines are true or false, they should, at least, serve to shield me from the imputation of ignoring slaves, when I speak of the people. Whomsoever others mean, when they speak of the people of Cuba, I mean, when I speak of them, the black, as well as the white - the bond, as well as the free. If the poor, outraged slaves of that island prefer to be identified with the institutions, fortunes, and prospects, of our country, such preference should be allowed to weigh as much, as the like preference of any other equal portion of her people. To say, that their "poor, poor, dumb mouths" are to be unheeded, and that they are to be denied annexation to the people of the United States, unle (sic) their slavery is previously abolished, is as unreasonable, as to say, that the Canadians shall not be annexed to us, until the land-monopoly, which oppresses so many of them, is abolished. The calamities of neither the one, nor the other, are to be allowed to work a forfeiture of their rights.

Now, are the people of Cuba, in my sense of the word people, in favor of uniting Cuba with our nation? If they are, then, and only then, so far as Cuba is concerned, am I in favor of it. Are the people of the United States in favor of it? I can answer for but one of them: and my answer is, that I am. Why am I? I need

6

[col.1]

not explain why, aside from the existence of slavery in Cuba, I am in favor of the union - for, aside from that, who are not in favor of it? It is from my conclusion, that the people of the United States should be willing to unite with the people of Cuba, even though Cuban slavery be not previously abolished, that so many dissent.

It is not because geographical, and commercial, and various kindred considerations do so loudly call for the blending of Cuba with our country, that, in spite of my being an abolitionist, I go for it. It is because I am an abolitionist, more than because I am anything else, that I desire this blending.

With the slaves of no part of the world have I sympathized more deeply than with the slaves of Cuba - for theirs is the cruellest and most brutifying of all the types of bondage. Practically, American slavery is not so bad as Spanish; though, in theory, it is more absolute and abominable than any other. Happily for its victims, American slavery encounters, and is modified by, a higher civilization than that, which pervades the dominions of Spain, and rejoices in bull-fights. As an abolitionist then, and as one, who feels pity for every slave, I should be glad to see the condition of the slaves of Cuba bettered by the substitution of American usages and American influences for Spanish usages and Spanish influences. And who knows but American laws, in regard to slavery, will, ere long. be "rightly interpreted?" The hope, (though not strong,) that they may be, and the fact, that thereby Ainrerican slavery would be "short-lived," did somewhat encourage me, as the reader of the speech in question has seen, " to risk the subjection of Cuban slavery to a common fate with our own."

Again, as art abolitionist, I desire the annexation of Cuba to our country, because that would end the connection of Cuba with the African slave trade; and would, also, go far to end that trade, everywhere. I do not forget the charge, that American slaveholders are in favor of re-opening that trade with this country. But, I know, that the charge is nonsensical. Not only does their interest forbid it: but I do them no more than justice when I say, that their civilization forbids it. They have outgrown the barbarism of the African slave trade. May they speed-

[p6, col. 2]

ily outgrow other barbarisms, which fall but short of it!

I say, that., for having made the speech referred to - I mean my speech on the Mexican Treaty - the newspapers have called me a " filibuster." They have called me " pro slavery " also. But if to be in favor of annexing Cuba to our nation, makes me "pro-slavery," then I have been "pro-slavery" for years, as those of you know, who, for years, have heard me speak in favor of it. I readily admit, that if I stood on the platform, occupied by many anti-slavery men, and had a creed made up of nothing else than "no more slave territory," I should deserve to be stigmatized as "pro-slavery " for consenting to have Cuba come with her slavery into our nation - for then, according to my own creed, I should be " pro-slavery." But, I thank God, that he has not left me to take my stand on that narrow platform, nor on any other like it. My anti-slavery creed recognises (sic) no law, anywhere, for the highest possible crime against the interests, and rights, and nature of man. In other words, I know no law for the slavery, which exists in any of the present, or which shall exist, in any of the future, territory of this nation - no law for the enslavement of any one, either in Cuba or America. I care not what Statute books, or even Constitutions, may say to the contrary. To every man, who has, a soul in him - to every man, that is a man - truth and honesty are infinitely more authoritative than Statute books and Constitutions: - and, by all, that is precious in truth and honesty, I will never enforce as law, nor even know as law, against another, that which, if applied to myself, all, that is within me, would scorn and scout as law.

The apprehension, that American slavery would be made strong and enduring by the accession of Cuban slavery, is not well founded. Such a new element in our slavery might, for various reasons, contribute very effectively to work the ruin of the whole. But, however this may be, who, that desires the overthrow of American slavery, does not rejoice, that France and England and other nations have, in our day, rid themselves of slavery, and arrayed their influence, if not designedly, nevertheless none the less efectually, against American slavery? And who of

7

[col. 1]

them should not rejoice to see Spain also quit the pro-slavery party - the party of pro-slavery nations - to join the anti-slavery party, and the party of anti-slavery nations? But to rid her of Cuba is thus to change her relations and influence. Let all the other nations of the earth shake themselves of slavery - even though it be into the lap of America. For were the whole of the foul thing gathered there, no sympathy with it could be found elsewhere; and, hence, its years would be few.

I trust, that, in the light of what I have said, the injustice of calling me "pro-slavery" will be apparent. Whilst he is " pro-slavery," who would extend slavery over lands, where it does not exist, it does not follow, that he is "pro-slavery," either in the aims, or in the effect, of his policy, who would collect more of existing slavery under the same Government. The wish of Caligula, that all the necks of the Romans were brought into one neck, that so he might have the pleasure of decapitating his subjects at a single blow, was certainly not a very amiable wish. But we would all excuse the wish to have all the necks of slavery brought into one neck, if that would facilitate the killing of the monster.

With this question of the annexation of Cuba our patriotisrn has much to do, and both directions. Under its promptings, there are many, who would add to the honor of our country, by adding to her territory; and, under its promptings, there are quite as many, who are unwilling to add to her dishonor, by adding to her slavery. But neither in the one case, nor in the other, are the promptings of patriotism to be trusted. For patriotism is not a virtue, but a vice. Least of all, is it a christian grace. In all that compound of affections and interests, called patriotism, there is not one element, which finds sanction in the lips or life of Jesus Christ. Admit, if you please, that patriotism does not exhibit the most revolting forms of selfishness. Nevertheless, it is nothing, even in its most attractive phases, but modifications of selfishness. Philanthropy; and not patriotism, should be permitted to decide the question, whether we are at liberty to receive Cuba. No pride of country, and no shame, that stands in connec-

[p. 7, col. 2]

tion with such pride, should be allowed any part, or influence, in the decision. Our equal love to our brother, whoever he may be, and wherever he may be; whatever his complexion or condition; and whether his home be on this side, or on that, of whatever national boundary; it is this fraternal love, ever indissoluble connected with true filial love toward his and our Common Father, which should, alone, be allowed to decide the question whether, if Cuba wishes to come to us, we will open our arms to receive her.

I close my letter with saying, that, it is not the great amount of slavery, that should most concern us. It is rather the weakness of the force, arrayed against it. Did the anti-slavery men of our country occupy the only true ground - the ground, that there cannot, possibly, be any Constitutional, or other legal, shelter for slavery - the ground, that the piratical system, which robs its victims of every right, and exposes them to every wrong, is, necessarily, an outlaw - it would be comparatively unimportant, whether they had much, or little, slavery to contend with. They would, surely and speedily, triumph, in either case. However small the amount of slavery, it will last forever, so far as anti-slavery men are concerned, provided they continue to acknowledge its legality, and to busy themselves in the folly of setting limits to this rampant, vaulting, matchless crime. On the other hand, however large the amount of slavery, it would quickly disappear before the influences, which the anti-slavery men would muster against it, were they to take the position, that, within no limits, not even the narrowest, has slavery any rights, or can it have any; and that within no limits, not even the narrowest, does it deserve anything better than the sentence of outlawry and death, at the hands of all mankind.

Let the anti-slavery men of our country take this position, and they will be no more afraid, than I am, to have Cuban slavery come to us. Nay, they will then bid it come: for they will then know, that if it do come, it will come, not to be wedded to our slavery, but to die with it: that it will come, not to a bridal, but a burial.

Very respectfully, yours,
GERRIT SMITH.