« PreviousContinue »
Wendell Phillips Garrison.
Born in Cambridgeport, Mass., 1840.
THE MARTYRDOM OF LOVEJOY.
(William Lloyd Garrison : The Story of his Life, told by his Children. 1885–89.] OVEJOY’S fourth press was secretly conveyed into a warehouse,
“guarded by volunteer citizens with their guns.” On the night following (November 7, 1837) the tragedy occurred. No personal incident of the anti-slavery struggle—the fate of John Brown excepted-made so profound an impression on the North as the murder of Lovejoy. We call it a murder, although the primary object of the riot was not his destruction, but that of his press; just as we call him a martyr, though we are accustomed to associate more or less of passivity with martyrdom, and he fell while aggressively repelling with arms an armed mob. In both cases the terms are correctly used, as the circumstances conclusively show. Three presses had already been destroyed on the same spot by the same community; a fourth had been procured, whose destruction meant silence—the opposition, grown more desperate, having already almost compassed the editor's assassination. He might have removed the “Observer” to Quincy or to Springfield, but there was no assurance that the liberty of the press would be vindicated in either place. The violence at Alton was, indeed, actually preceded and begotten by violence at St. Louis, but the mob-spirit was everywhere endemic at the North. With unsurpassable courage, Lovejoy accepted the decision of his friends that the stand should be made then and there, not as for an anti-slavery publication merely or mainly, but for the right under the Constitution and upon American soil to utter and print freely, subject only to the restraints and penalties of the law. To maintain this right against local public sentiment, the impotence of the city authorities compelled the friends of law and order to enroll themselves in a military organization (having the mayor's approval), whose first duty it was to prevent an anti-slavery convention from being broken up, and next to guard the newly-arrived press from being thrown into the Mississippi like its predecessors. Among them, not more in defence of himself or of his property than of the principle at stake, Lovejoy took his place; formed one of the little band of twenty who held the warehouse on the night of the fatal attack; volunteered, with a rash and magnanimous heroism, among the first who left the burning building to face the infuriated and drunken mob; was ambushed and fell, the only victim of the defence.
The greatest feeling produced by this atrocity was in the city the most remote from the scene-in Boston, where, by a rich compensation, it overcame the timidity of Channing, revealed the oratory and fixed the destiny of Wendell Phillips, and with him drew Edmund Quincy into the forefront of the ranks of the despised abolitionists. The aldermen, who at first refused the use of Faneuil Hall for an indignation meeting, and Attorney-General Austin, who desecrated the hall afresh by declaring that Lovejoy had died as the fool dieth, were surprised by the demonstration of a new Boston upon which they had not counted. The Boston which had come near having its Lovejoy in the person of Mr. Garrison, in October, 1835, had undergone a revolution in two years-a revolution perhaps to be defined as the weakening of Southern ascendency. The response of Faneuil Hall to the Alton riot was Northern resentment against a pro-slavery invasion, as it seemed.
With more exactness, however, it may be said that Lovejoy was sacrificed on Southern soil. All the towns along the Mississippi were frequented by Southerners, often largely settled by them. Little more than a dozen years had elapsed since the strenuous exertions of Governor Edward Coles had barely defeated the attempt of the Southern element in Illinois to legalize slavery by amending the constitution. Alton, situated in the southern half of the State, opposite the slave-cursed shore of Missouri and not far from St. Louis, in intimate commercial relations with the cotton-growing districts, was, though owing its prosperity, and even a certain reputation for philanthropy, to Eastern settlers, predominantly Southern in tone. Southern divines helped to harden public sentiment against the further countenance or toleration of Lovejoy ; Southern doctors took an active part in the mob, and one of them perhaps fired the murderous shot. So, the year before, Cincinnati, tumbling Birney's press into the Ohio, was truly a Southern city; so, the year after, Philadelphia, burning Pennsylvania Hall to the ground. In fact, the least Southern and most surprising of all the mobs of that epoch was precisely the Boston mob against the editor of the “ Liberator."
Of this mob every citizen of Boston and its vicinity must have been reminded when the news came-not as now by telegraph-of Lovejoy's fate.
“ PEACEABLE SEPARATION” MOOTED BY THE ABOLITIONISTS OF 1845.
[From the Same.]
THE levers of disunion ready to the hands of the Massachusetts abolition
ists were the recent expulsions of the State's delegates from South Carolina and Louisiana, and the impending annexation of Texas. At the annual meeting, Wendell Phillips reported resolves that the Governor should demand of the Federal Executive an enforcement of the Constitution, and the maintenance of Mr. Hoar's right to reside in Charleston ; in default of which the Legislature should authorize the Governor to proclaim the Union at an end, recall the Congressional delegation, and provide for the State's foreign relations. This was the logic of the situation. So far as Massachusetts (or any free State) was concerned, South Carolina had dissolved the Union : Federal rights were disregarded in her borders, the Federal laws were subordinate or inoperative, Federal protection could have been exercised only by force and at the cost of a civil war. There could be no better occasion for weighing the value of the Union, or for taking the initiative in peaceable separation as advocated by the abolitionists. But no other class or party in the State was equal to this simple and manly procedure. Governor Briggs's messages in regard to Messrs. Hoar and Hubbard were unexceptionable in tone and temper, rhetorically considered ; but they meant nothing and could effect nothing, since disunion was the only remedy. The Legislature did, indeed, pass the equally unexceptionable joint resolves prepared by Charles Francis Adams, suggesting retaliation with reference to South Carolina ; but no enactment followed, nor, notoriously, could any such have been sustained in the Federal courts.
The same paralysis befell the political opposition to the annexation of Texas. Governor and Legislature pledged Massachusetts anew to the position that annexation would have no binding force on her. But how would it have no binding force ? Texas once in the Union, would laws passed by the aid of her representatives be resisted ? No one not an abolitionist ever advocated any measure of irreconcilability—so to call it-except Henry Wilson in the Massachusetts Senate. His proposal, to“ provide by law that the moment a man held as a slave in Texas stepped upon the soil of Massachusetts, his liberty should be as sacred as his life,” and to“ make it a high crime to molest him,"fell dead, and was, in fact, though well meant, absurd, either as a practicable mode of opposition or as a quid pro quo, even supposing the whole North to have taken this stand along with Massachusetts. The truth was, slavery was dragging the country down an inclined plane, and there was no escape but by cutting the rope that bound the North to the South. The impracticable politicians of all parties, therefore, who struggled against the inevitable, while refusing to look facts in the face, filled the year at which we have now arrived with the emptiest of empty words.
Months passed, during which inaction on the part of the North paved the way to the catastrophe, and sapped the courage of the resistants—the political and “practical” resistants. William H. Seward, in a public letter to Salmon P. Chase, submitted in advance to the inevitable annexation of Texas, repudiating disunion. His counter measure was to enlarge the area of freedom-as if the South did not provide for that by coupling the admission of a slave State with that of a free State. Already, in February, Florida had been thus admitted into the Union, paired with Iowa, in spite of the intense Northern feeling against more slave States aroused in the case of Texas ; in spite, too, of the Florida Constitution making slavery perpetual, and authorizing the Legislature to forbid the landing of any colored seaman--the toleration of which by Congress was a virtual approval of the action of South Carolina towards Mr. Hoar. Yet still Mr. Seward contended—“ We must resist unceasingly the admission of slave States, and demand the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia”; and he even dreamed, when one independent Congress had been elected, that the internal slave-trade will be subjected to inquiry. Amendments to the Constitution will be initiated.” Robert C. Winthrop made his surrender on the Fourth of July, and in Faneuil Hall, toasting, in famous words, “ Our country
however bounded ;
to be cherished in all our hearts, to be defended by all our hands -an abasement which accepted war with Mexico, along with that spread of slave territory which he had hitherto strenuously opposed. In the same hall of heroic memories the Whig State Convention in October withdrew from the opposition, and left the Constitutional question to the Supreme Court of the United States ! Governor Slade of Vermont could no longer urge his State to take, unsupported, an unrelenting attitude, and sought comfort in the illusion that the entrance of Texas into the Union would make slavery a national institution as never before, and expose it to attack as such. Webster, accusing the Liberty Party (by its defeat of Clay) of having procured annexation, hoped, or professed to hope, the consummation might yet be averted; as Charles Francis Adams, seeing nothing further left, and disregarding the example of Florida, vainly looked for some modification of the pro-slavery Constitution of Texas. Abbott Lawrence and Nathan Appleton, ex-members of Congress, not only desisted from opposition to a deed actually accomplished, but rebuked those of their colleagues whose conscience and zeal outran their discretion as “practical men.”
GE cannot wither her whom not gray hairs
Nor furrowed cheeks have made the thrall of Time;
And violets know the victory is theirs.
Proud Nilus shelters with engulfing slime;
Volley of pent-up fires at last prepares.
With sense of duty done without complaint!
O venerable crown!- living green,
Thy bleaching locks, thy wrinkles, have but been
Fresh beads upon the rosary of a saint!
William Graham Sumner.
BORN in Paterson, N. J., 1840.
EXAMINATION OF A CARDINAL PROTECTIONIST THEORY.
[Protectionism. 1885.] THE protectionist says that he is going to create an industry. Let us ex
amine this notion also from his standpoint, assuming the truth of his doctrine, and see if we can find anything to deserve confidence. A protective tax, according to the protectionist's definition, "has for its object to effect the diversion of a part of the labor and capital of the people
into channels favored or created by law.” If we follow out this proposal, we shall see what those channels are, and shall see whether they are such as to make us believe that protective taxes can increase wealth.
What is an industry? Some people will answer : It is an enterprise which gives employment. Protectionists seem to hold this view, and they claim that they "give work” to laborers when they make an industry. On that notion we live to work; we do not work to live. But we do not want work. We have too much work. We want a living; and work is the inevitable but disagreeable price we must pay. Hence we want as much living at as little price as possible. We shall see that the protectionist does “make work” in the sense of lessening the living and increasing the price. But if we want a living we want capital. If an industry is to pay wages, it must be backed up by capital. Therefore protective taxes, if they were to increase the means of living, would need to increase capital. How can taxes increase capital ? Protective taxes only take from A to give to B. Therefore, if B by this arrangement can extend his industry and give more employment,” A's power to do the same is diminished in at least an equal degree. Therefore, even on that erroneous definition of an industry, there is no hope for the protectionist.
An industry is an organization of labor and capital for satisfying some need of the community. It is not an end in itself. It is not a good thing to have in itself. It is not a toy or an ornament. If we could satisfy our needs without it, we should be better off, not worse off. How then can we create industries ?
If any one will find, in the soil of a district, some new power to supply human needs, he can endow that district with a new industry. If he will invent a mode of treating some natural deposit, ore or clay for instance, so as to provide a tool or utensil which is cheaper and more convenient than what is in use, he can create an industry. If he will find out some new and better way to raise cattle or vegetables, which is, perhaps, favored by the climate, he can do the same. If he invents some new treatment of wool, or cotton, or silk, or leather, or makes a new combination which produces a more convenient or attractive fabric, he may do the same. The telephone is a new industry. What measures the gain of it? Is it the “employment” of certain persons in and about telephone offices ? The gain is in the satisfaction of the