That is the actual principle of the American government.

In all countries of the world, struggles take place for human rights.

But in all countries there is a cla.s.s who desire a privilege for themselves adverse to the rights of mankind: they are commonly richer and abler-minded than the majority of men; they can act in concert.

Between them and mankind there is a struggle. The quarrel takes various forms. The contest has been going on for a long time in Europe. There, it is between the aristocracy of birth, and the aristocracy of wealth; for there it is not money, but birth, that makes n.o.ble. In this struggle the aristocracy of birth is gradually giving way to the aristocracy of gold. A long and brilliant rent-roll makes up for a short and obscure pedigree.

In that great movement for human freedom which has lasted a thousand years, the city has generally represented Right in its conflict with Might. So, in the middle ages, the city, the home of the trader, of the mechanic, of the intelligent man, was democratic. There freedom got organized in guilds of craftsmen. But the country was the home of the n.o.ble and his va.s.sals, the haughty, the ignorant, and the servile. Then the country was aristocratic. It was so in the great struggles between the king and the people in England and France, in Italy and Holland.

In America there is no n.o.bility of birth--it was the people that came over, not monarchy, not aristocracy; they did not emigrate. The son of Guy Fawkes and the son of Charlemagne are on the same level. I know in Boston some of the descendants of Henri Quatre, the greatest king of France. I know also descendants of Thomas Wentworth, "the great Earl of Strafford;" and yet they are now obscure and humble men, although of famous birth. I do not say it should not be so; but such is the fact.

Here the controversy is not between distinguished birth and money; it is between money on the one hand, and men on the other; between capital and labor; between usurped privilege and natural right. Here, the cities, as the seat of wealth, are aristocratic; the country, as the seat of labor, is democratic. We may see this in Boston. Almost all the journals in the city are opposed to a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people. Take an example from the free soil movement, which, so far as it goes, is democratic. I am told that of the twenty-one journals in Ma.s.sachusetts that call themselves "democratic," eighteen favor the free soil movement, more or less; and that the three which do not are all in the cities. The country favors the temperance movement, one of the most democratic of all; for rum is to the aristocracy of gold, what the sword once was to the aristocracy of blood; the castles of the baron, and the rum-shops of the capitalist, are alike fortresses adverse to the welfare of mankind. The temperance movement finds little favor in the cities.

In the country he who works with manly hands is held in esteem; in the city, in contempt. Here laboring men have no political influence, and little confidence in themselves. They have been accustomed to do as they were told,--to do as their "masters" bid.

I call a man a Tory who, for himself or for others, seeks a privilege adverse to the rights of mankind; who puts the accidents of men before the substance of manhood. I may safely say the cities, in the main, are Tory towns; that Boston, in this sense, is a Tory town. They are so, just as in the middle ages the cities were on the other side. This is unavoidable in our form of civilization just now. Accordingly, in all the great cities of the North, slavery is in the ascendant: but, as soon as we get off the pavement, we come upon different ideas; freedom culminates and rises to the meridian.

In America the controlling cla.s.s in general are superior to the majority in money, in consequent social standing, in energy, in practical political skill, and in intellectual development; in virtue of these qualities, they are the controlling cla.s.s. But in general they are inferior to the majority of men in justice, in general humanity, and in religion,--in piety and goodness. Respectability is put before Right; Law before Justice; Money before G.o.d. With them religion is compliance with a public hearsay and public custom; it is all of religion, but piety and goodness; its chief sacrament is bodily presence in a meeting-house; its only sacrifice, a pew-tax. I know there are exceptions, and honor them all the more for being so very exceptional: they are only enough to show the rule.

In the main, this controlling cla.s.s governs the land by two instruments: the first is the Public Law; the next is Public Opinion. The law is what was once public opinion, or thought to be; is fixed, written, and supposed to be understood by somebody. Public opinion is not written, and not fixed; but the opinion of the controlling cla.s.s overrides and interprets the law,--bids or forbids its execution. Public opinion can make or unmake a law; interpret as it chooses, and enforce or forbid its execution as it pleases.

Such being the case, and such being the chief transient national desire just now, the controlling cla.s.s consider the State as a machine to help them make money. A great politician, it is said, once laid down this rule,--"Take care of the rich, and the rich will take care of the poor." Perhaps he did not say that, though he did say that "The great object of government is the protection of property at home, and respect and renown abroad." Such being the case, laws are made accordingly, and inst.i.tutions are modified accordingly. Let me give an example. In all the towns of New England, town-money is raised by taxes on all the people, and on all the property. The rich man is taxed according to his riches, and the poor man according to his poverty. But the national money is raised by taxation not in proportion to a man's wealth. A bachelor in New England, with a million dollars, pays a much smaller national tax than a carpenter who has no money at all, but only ten children, the poor man's blessing. The mechanic, with a family of twelve, pays more taxes than the Southern planter owning a tract of land as wide as the town of Worcester, with fifteen hundred slaves to till it. This, I say, is not an accident. It is the work of politicians, who know what they are about, and think a blunder is worse than a sin; and, sin as they may, they do not commit such blunders as that.

This controlling cla.s.s, with their dependents, their va.s.sals, lay and clerical--and they have lay as well as clerical va.s.sals, and more numerous, if less subservient--keep up the inst.i.tution of slavery. Two hundred years ago, that was the worst inst.i.tution of Europe. Our fathers, breaking with feudal inst.i.tutions in general, did not break with this: they brought it over here. But when the nation, aroused for its hour of trial, rose up to its great Act of Prayer, and prayed the Declaration of Independence, all the nation said "Amen" to the great American idea therein set forth. Every Northern State reaffirms the doctrine that "All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But in spite of this, and of the consciousness that it is true, while the Northern States have cast out this inst.i.tution, the Southern States have kept it. The nation has adopted, extended, and fostered it. This has been done, notwithstanding the expectation of the people in 1787 that it would soon end. It has been done against the design of the Const.i.tution, which was "to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty;" against the idea of America, that "All men have an equal and unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;"

against all religion, all humanity, all right, ay, and against the conscience of a majority of the people.

Well, a law was pa.s.sed last September, that would have been atrocious two hundred years ago: you all know it. I have no words to describe it by. For the last two hundred years, the English race has not invented an adjective adequate to describe it. The English language is used up and broken down by any attempt to describe it. That law was not the desire of the people; and, could the nation have been polled North and South, three fourths would have said "No!" to the pa.s.sage of that law.

It was not pa.s.sed to obtain the value of the slaves escaped, for in seven months twenty slaves have not been returned! It was not a measure looking to legal results, but it was a political measure, looking to political results: what those results will be we shall see in due time.

In America the controlling cla.s.s is divided into two great parties: one is the Slave Power in the States of the South; the other is the Money Power in the cities of the North. There are exceptional men in both divisions--men that own slaves, and yet love freedom and hate slavery.

There are rich men in Northern cities who do the same; all honor to them. But in general it is not so; nay, it is quite otherwise. They are hostile to the great idea of America. Let me speak with the nicety of theological speech. These two divisions are two "Persons" in one "Power;" there is only one "Nature" in both, one "Will." If not the same nature, it is a like nature: h.o.m.oi-ousia, if not h.o.m.o-ousia! The Fugitive Slave Law was the act of the two "Persons," representing the same "Nature," and the same "Will." It was the result of a union of the Slave Power of the South with the Money Power of the North: the Philistines and the Hebrews ploughed with the same heifer.

There is sometimes an excuse or a palliation for a wicked deed. There was something like one for the "Gag Law," the "Alien and Sedition Law,"

although there is no valid excuse for either of these laws, none to screen their author from deserved reproach. There is no excuse for the Fugitive Slave Law; there was no occasion for it.

You all know how it was brought about; you remember the speech of Mr.

Webster on the 7th of March, 1850, a day set apart for the blessed Martyrs, Saints Perpetua and Felicitas. We all know who was the author of that law. It is Mr. Webster's Fugitive Slave Law! It was his "thunder," unquestioned and unquestionable. You know what a rapid change was wrought in the public opinion of the controlling cla.s.ses, soon after its pa.s.sage. First the leading whigs went over. I will not say they changed their principles, G.o.d knows, not I, what principles they have, I will only say they altered their "resolutions," and ate their own words.

True, the whigs have not all gone over. There are a few who still cling to the old Whig-tree, after it has been shaken and shaken, and thrashed and thrashed, and brushed and brushed, by politicians, as apple-trees in autumn. There are still a few little apples left, small and withered no doubt, and not daring to show their dishonored heads just now, but still containing some precious seeds that may do service by and by. Whig journal after journal went over; politician after politician "caved in"

and collapsed. At the sounding of the rams' horns of slavery, how quick the Whig Jericho went down! Its fortresses of paper resolutions rolled up and blew away. Of course, men changed only after "logical conviction." Of course, n.o.body expected a "reward" for the change, at least only in the world to come. Were they not all Christians? True, on the 17th of June last, seventy-five years after the battle of Bunker Hill, Mr. Webster said in the Senate, that if the North should vote for the Fugitive Slave Bill, a Tariff was expected. But that was of no moment, no more than worldly riches to "the elect." Of course, a man has a right to change his opinions every ten minutes, if he has a good and sufficient reason. Of course, these men expected no offices under this or any future President! But presently the Fugitive Slave Law became a Whig doctrine, a test of party fidelity and fitness for office!

You all remember the "Union" meeting in Boston. On that occasion, democrats "of the worst kind" suddenly became "respectable." The very democratic prince of devils was thought to be as good a "gentleman" as any in the city.

It was curious to see the effect of the Fugitive Slave Law on the democratic party. Democrat after democrat "caved in;" journal after journal went over; horse, foot, and dragoons, they went over. The Democratic party North, and American Slavery South, have long been accustomed to accommodate themselves with the same nag after the old fashion of "ride and tye." In the cities, democrats went over in tribes; entire Democratic Zabulons and Nephthalims, whole Galilees of Democratic Gentiles, all at once saw great Whig light; and to them that sat in the shadow of Freedom, Slavery sprung up.

That portion of the Whig party which did not submit, became as meek, ay, became meeker even than the beast which the old prophet in the fable is alleged to have ridden; for, though beaten again and again,--because alarmed at seeing the angel of Freedom that bars the way before the great Whig Balaam, who has been bidden by his master to go forth and curse the people of the Lord,--it dares not open its mouth and say, "What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"

But when such a law is hostile to the feelings of a majority of the people, to their conscience and their religion, how shall we get the law executed? That is a hard matter. In Russia and in Austria it would be very easy. Russia has an army five hundred or eight hundred thousand strong; and that army is ready. But here there is no such army. True, the President asked Congress to give him greater power, and the answer came from the Slave party South, not from the Money party North, "No!

you have more now than you know how to use." Failing in this attempt, what was to be done that the law might be executed? Two things must be done: A false idea must persuade the people to allow it to be done; Base men must be found to do it. A word upon each point.

I. The false idea is set on foot, that the people are morally bound to obey any law which is made until it is repealed. General Haynau wrote a letter, not long ago, to the subalterns in the Austrian army, and thus quoth he: "You are bound to obey the law. It is none of your business whether the law is const.i.tutional or not; that is our affair." So went it with our officers here. We are told that there is "no such thing as a higher law," "no rule of conduct better than that enacted by the law of the land." Conscience is only to tell you to keep the statutes. Religion consists in "fearing G.o.d and serving the king." You are told that religion bids you to "fear G.o.d and keep the commandments," no matter what these commandments may be. No matter whether it be King Ahab, or King Peter the Cruel: you are told,--"Mr. Republican, what right have you to question the const.i.tutionality or justice of any thing? Your business is to keep the law." Religion is a very excellent thing, quotes Mr. Webster, except when it interferes in politics; then it makes men mad.

It is instructive to see the different relations which religion has sustained to law, at different periods of the world's history. At some other time I may dwell more at length upon this; now I will say but one word. At the beginning, religion takes precedence of law. Before there is any human government, man bows himself to the Source of law, and accepts his rule of conduct from his G.o.d. By and by, some more definite rule is needed, and wise men make human laws; but they pretend to derive these from a divine source. All the primitive lawgivers, Moses, Minos, Zaleucus, Numa, and the rest, speak in the name of G.o.d. For a long time, law comes up to religion for aid and counsel. At length law and religion, both imperfect, are well established in society, religion being the elder sister; both act as guardians of mankind. Inst.i.tution after inst.i.tution rises up, all of them baptized by religion and confirmed by law, taking the sacrament from the hands of each. At length it comes to pa.s.s that law seeks to turn religion out of doors.

Politicians, intoxicated with ambition, giddy with power, and sometimes also drunk with strong drink, make a statute which outrages all the dictates of humanity, and then insist that it is the duty of sober men to renounce religion for the sake of keeping the wicked statute of the politicians. All tyrants have done so!

In the North, the majority of men think that the law of man is subordinate to religion--the statutes of man beneath the law of G.o.d; that as ethics, personal morals, are amenable to conscience, so politics, national morals, are amenable to the same conscience; and that religion has much to do with national as with individual life. Depend upon it, that idea is the safeguard of the State and of the law. It will preserve it, purify it, and keep it; but it will scourge every wicked law out of the temple of justice with iron whips, if need be. Depend upon it, when we lose our hold of that idea, all hope of order is gone.

But there is no danger; we are pretty well persuaded, that the law of G.o.d is a little greater than the statute of an accidental president unintentionally chosen for four years. When we think otherwise, we may count our case hopeless, and give up all.

But with the controlling cla.s.s of men it is not so. They tell us that we must keep any law, const.i.tutional or not, legal or not, just or unjust: first, that we must submit pa.s.sively, and let the government execute it; next, we must actively obey it, and with alacrity when called upon to execute it ourselves. This doctrine is the theory advanced in most of the newspapers of Boston. It is preached in some of the pulpits, though, thank G.o.d! not in all.

This doctrine appears in the charge of the Judge of the Circuit Court to the grand jury.[27] I believe that judge to be a good and excellent and honorable man; I never heard a word to the contrary, and I am glad to think that it is so.[28] I have to deal only with his opinions; not with his theoretic doctrines of law, of which latter I profess to know nothing; but with the theoretic doctrines of morality he lays down. Of morality I do profess to know something.

He says some excellent things in his charge, which I am glad were said.

He is modest in some places, and moderate in others. He does not think that a dozen black men taking a fugitive out of court are guilty of "levying war," and therefore should be hanged, drawn, and quartered, if you can catch them. All honor to his justice. He does not say, as the Secretary of State, that we must suppress discussion and stop agitation.

He says we may agitate as much as we have a mind to; may not only speak against a law, but may declaim against it, which is to speak strongly. I thank the judge for this respect for the Const.i.tution. But with regard to the higher and lower law, he has some peculiar opinions. He supposes a case: that the people ask him, "Which shall we obey, the law of man or the law of G.o.d?" He says, "I answer, obey both. The incompatibility which the question a.s.sumes does not exist."

So, then, here is a great general rule, that between the "law of man"

and the "will of G.o.d" there is no incompatibility, and we must "obey both." Now let us see how this rule will work.

If I am rightly informed, King Ahab made a law that all the Hebrews should serve Baal, and it was the will of G.o.d that they should serve the Lord.--According to this rule of the judge, they must "obey both." But if they served Baal, they could not serve the Lord. In such a case, "what is to be done?"--We are told that Elijah gathered the prophets together; "and he came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye?

If the Lord be G.o.d, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." Our modern prophet says, "Obey both. The incompatibility which the question a.s.sumes does not exist." Such is the difference between Judge Elijah and Judge Peleg.

Let us see how this rule will work in other cases; how you can make a compromise between two opposite doctrines. The king of Egypt commanded the Hebrew nurses, "When you do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, if it be a son ye shall kill him." I suppose it is plain to the Judge of the Circuit Court that this kind of murder, killing the new-born infants, is against "the will of G.o.d;" but it is a matter of record that it was according to "the law of man." Suppose the Hebrew nurses had come to ask Judge Sprague for his advice. He must have said, "Obey both!" His rule is a universal one.

Another decree was once made as it is said, in the Old Testament, that no man should ask any pet.i.tion of any G.o.d for thirty days, save of the king, on penalty of being cast into the den of lions. Suppose Daniel--I mean the old Daniel, the prophet--should have asked him, What is to be done? Should he pray to Darius or pray to G.o.d? "Obey both!" would be the answer. But he cannot, for he is forbid to pray to G.o.d. We know what Daniel did do.

The elders and scribes of Jerusalem commanded the Christians not to speak or to teach at all in the name of Jesus; but Peter and John asked those functionaries, "Whether it be right in the sight of G.o.d to hearken unto you more than unto G.o.d, judge ye." Our judge must have said, There is no "incompatibility;" "obey both!" What "a comfortable Scripture"

this would have been to poor John Bunyan! What a great ethical doctrine to St. Paul! He did not know such Christianity as that. Before this time a certain man had said, "No man can serve two masters." But there was one person who made the attempt, and he also is eminent in history. Here was "the will of G.o.d," to do to others as you would have others do to you: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Here is the record of "the law of man:" "Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he [Jesus] were, he should show it that they might take him." Judas, it seems, determined to "obey both,"--"the law of man" and "the will of G.o.d."--So he sat with Jesus at the Last Supper, dipped his hand in the same dish, and took a morsel from the hand of Christ, given him in token of love. All this he did to obey "the will of G.o.d." Then he went and informed the Commissioner or Marshal where Jesus was. This he did to obey "the law of man." Then he came back, and found Christ,--the agony all over, the b.l.o.o.d.y sweat wiped off from his brow, presently to bleed again,--the Angel of Strength there with him to comfort him. He was arousing his sleeping disciples for the last time, and was telling them, "Pray, lest ye enter into temptation."--Judas came and gave him a kiss. To the eleven it seemed the friendly kiss, obeying "the will of G.o.d." To the Marshal it also seemed a friendly kiss,--obeying "the law of man." So, in the same act, he obeys "the law of G.o.d" and "the will of man," and there is no "incompatibility!"

Of old it was said, "Thou canst not serve G.o.d and mammon." He that said it, has been thought to know something of morals,--something of religion.

Till the fugitive slave law was pa.s.sed, we did not know what a great saint Iscariot was. I think there ought to be a chapel for him, and a day set apart in the calendar. Let him have his chapel in the navy-yard at Washington. He has got a priest there already. And for a day in the calendar--set apart for all time the seventh of March!

Let us look at some other things in that Judge's address to the grand jury. "Unjust and oppressive laws may indeed be pa.s.sed by human government. But if infinite and inscrutable Wisdom permits political society ... to establish such laws, may not the same Wisdom permit and require individuals ... to obey them?" Ask the prophets in such a case, if they would have felt themselves permitted and required to obey them!

Ask the men who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection; who had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment; who were stoned and sawn asunder; who were slain with the sword; who wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins, dest.i.tute, afflicted, and tormented, of whom the world was not worthy! Ask the apostles, who thanked G.o.d they were counted worthy to suffer shame in the name of Christ! Ask Paul, who was eight times publicly beaten, thrice shipwrecked; and in perils of waters, of robbers, of the heathen, of false brethren--that worst of all peril! Nay, ask Christ; let the Crucified reply,--whether, when a wicked law is made, and we are commanded to keep it, G.o.d means we should! Ask the men who, with their ocean-wearied feet, consecrated the rock of Plymouth forever! Ask the patriots of the Revolution! What do they say? I will not give the answer. Even the martyred Jesuits say No.

Who is it that says Yes? Judas and the Judge. Let them go--each "to his own place." Let me say no more of them.

This attempt to keep the people down by false doctrine, is no new thing.

But to say that there is no law higher than what the State can make, is practical atheism. It is not a denial of G.o.d in his person; that is only speculative atheism. It is a denial of the functions and attributes of G.o.d; that is real atheism. If there is no G.o.d to make a law for me, then there is no G.o.d for me.

The law of the land is so sacred, it must override the law of G.o.d, must it? Let us see if all the laws of the United States are kept everywhere.

Let a black man go to South Carolina in a ship, and we shall see. Let the British minister complain that South Carolina puts British subjects in jail, for the color of their skin. Mr. Secretary Clayton tells him, We cannot execute the laws of the United States in South Carolina. Why not? Because the people of South Carolina will not allow it!

Are the laws of Ma.s.sachusetts kept in Boston, then? The usury law says, Thou shalt not take more than six per cent. on thy money. Is that kept?

There are thirty-four millions of banking capital in Ma.s.sachusetts, and I think that every dollar of this capital has broken this law within the past twelve months; and yet no complaint has been made. There are three or four hundred brothels in this city of Boston, and ten or twelve hundred shops for the sale of rum. All of them are illegal: some are as well known to the police as is this house; indeed, a great deal more frequented by some of them, than any house of G.o.d. Does anybody disturb them? No! I have a letter from an alderman who furnishes me with facts of this nature, who says, that "Some of the low places are prosecuted, some broken up." Last Sat.u.r.day night, the very men who guarded Mr. Sims, I am told, were playing cards in his prison-house, contrary to the laws of Ma.s.sachusetts. In Court Square, in front of the court-house, is a rum-shop, one of the most frequented in the city, open at all hours of the day, and, for aught I know, of the night too. I never pa.s.sed when its "fire was quenched," and its "worm" dead. Is its owner prosecuted?