# The Collected Works of Theodore Parker/Volume 04/Discourse 10

X.
Mr. President, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—This is one of the anniversaries which mark four great movements in the progressive development of mankind; whereof each makes an Epoch in the history of the human race.
The first is the Twenty-fifth of December, the date agreed upon as the anniversary of the Birth of Jesus of Nazareth, marking the Epoch of Christianity.
The next is the First of November, the day when, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed the ninety-five theses on the church-door at Wittenberg, the noise of his hammer startling the indolence,- the despotism, and the licentiousness of the Pope, and his concubines, and his court far off at Rome. That denotes the Epoch of Protestantism, the greatest movement of mankind after the teaching of Jesus.
The third is the Twenty-second of December, the day when our Forefathers, in 1620, first set their feet on Plymouth Hock, coming, though unconsciously, to build up a Church without a Bishop, a State without a King, a Community without a Lord, and a Family without a Slave. This begins the Epoch of New England.
The last is the Fourth of July, when our Fathers, in 1776, brought distinctly to national consciousness what I call the American Idea; the Idea, namely, that all men have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all men are equal in their natural rights; that these rights can only be alienated by the possessor thereof; and that it is the undeniable function of government to preserve their rights to each and all. This day ​ marks the Epoch of the United States of America— an Epoch indissolubly connected with the three preceding. The Idea was Christian, was Protestant, was of New Eng- land. Plymouth was becoming national, Protestantism going into politics; and the Sentiments and Ideas of Christianity getting an expression on a national scale. The Declaration of Independence was the American profession of faith in political Christianity.
This day is consecrated to freedom; let us look, therefore, at the Aspect of Freedom just now in America.
In 1776, there were less than three million persons in the United States. Now, more than three million voters. But, alas! there are also more than three million slaves. Seventy-six years ago, slavery existed in all the thirteen colonies; but New England was never quite satisfied with it; only the cupidity of the Puritan assented thereto, not his conscience. Soon it retreated from New England, from all the North, but strengthened itself in the South, and spread Westward and Southward, till now it has crossed the Cordilleras, and the Pacific Ocean is witness to the gigantic wrong of the American People.
But, spite of this growth of slavery, the American Idea has grown in favour with the American people, the North continually becoming more and more democratic in the best sense of the word. True, in aU the great cities of the North, the love of slavery has also grown strong, in none stronger than in Boston. The Mother city of the Puritans is now the metropolis of the Hunkers. Slavery also has entered the churches of the North, and some of them, we see, when called on to choose betwixt Christianity and slavery, openly and boldly decide against the Law of God, and in favour of this great crime against man. But simultaneously with this growth of Hunkerism in the cities and the churches of the North, at the same time with the spread of slavery from the Delaware to the Sacramento, the Spirit of Liberty has also spread, and taken a deep hold on the hearts of the people.
In the material world, nothing is done by leaps, all by gradual advance. The land slopes upward all the way from Abington to the White Mountains. If Mt. Washington rose a mile and a quarter of sheer ascent, with perpendicular sides from the level of the ocean, only the ​
eagle and the lightning could gain its top. Now its easy slope allows the girl to look down from its summit. What is true in the world of matter holds also good in the world of man. There is no leap, a slope always; never a spring. The continuity of historical succession is never broke. Newtons and Shakspeares do not come up among Hottentots and Esquimaux, but among young nations inheriting the old culture. Even the men of genius, who brood like a cloud over the vulgar herd, have their predecessors almost as high, and the continuity of succession holds good in the Archimedes, the Gallileos, the Keplers, the Newtons, and the La Places. Christianity would not have been possible in the time of Moses; nor Protestantism in the days of St. Augustine; nor a New England Plymouth in the days of Luther; nor any national recognition of the American Idea in 1620. That Idea could not become a national Fact in 1776. No, not yet is it a fact.
First comes the Sentiment—the feeling of liberty ; next the Idea—the distinct notion thereof; then the Fact—the thought become a thing. Buds in March, blossoms in May, apples in September—that is the law of historical succession.
The Puritans enslaved the Indians. In 1675, the Indian apostle petitioned the "Honourable Grovernor and Council sitting at Boston, this 13th of the 6th, '75," that they would not allow Indians to be sold into slavery. But John Eliot stood well-nigh alone in that matter. For three months later, I find the Governor, Leveret, gives a bill of sale of seven Indians, "to be sold for slaves," and affixes thereto the "Publique Scale of the Colony."
Well, there has been a great progress from that day to the 12th of April, 1851, when the merchants of Boston had to break the laws of Massachusetts, and put the court house in chains, and get the chains over the neck of the Chief Justice, and call out the Sims brigade, before they could kidnap and enslave a single fugitive from Georgia.
But it would not be historical to expect a nation to realize its own Idea at once, and allow all men to be "equal" in the enjoyment of their "natural and unalienable rights." Still, there has been a great progress ​
towards that in the last seventy-six years, spite of the steps taken backward in some parts of the land. It is not a hundred and ten years since slaves were advertised for sale in Boston, as now in Norfolk ; not eighty years since they were property in Massachusetts, and appraised in the inventories of deceased "Republicans." So then the cause of African freedom has a more auspicious look on the 4th of July, 1852, than it had on the 4th of July, 1776. We do not always think so, because we look at the present evil, not at the greater evils of the past. So much for the general aspect of this matter.
Look now at the present position of the Political Parties. There are two great parties in America—only two. I. One is the Pro-Slavery Party. This has not yet attained a distinct consciousness of its idea and consequent function; so there is contradiction in its opinions, vacillation in its conduct, and heterogeneous elements in its ranks. This has two divisions, namely: the Whigs and the Democrats. The two are one great national party—they are one in slavery, as all sects are "one in Christ." Yet they still keep up their distinctive banners, and shout their hostile war-cry; but when they come to action, they both form column under the same leader, and fight for the same end—the promotion, the extension, and the perpetuation of slavery.
Once the Whig Party wanted a Bank. Democracy trod it to the earth. Then the Whigs clamoured for a protective Tariff. That also seems now an obsolete idea, and a revenue tariff is a fact accomplished. The old issues between Whig and Democrat are out of date. Shall it be said the Whigs want a strong central government, and the Democrats are still anti-federal, and opposed to the centralization of power? It is not so. I can see no difference in the two parties in this matter; both are ready to sacrifice the individual conscience to the brute power of arbitrary law; each to crush the individual rights of the separate States before the central power of the federal government. In passing the Fugitive Slave Bill, which aims at both these enormities, the Democrats outvied the Whigs; in executing it, the Whigs outdo the Democrats, and kidnap with a more malignant relish. I believe the ​ official kidnappers are all Whigs, in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Buffalo.
Both parties have now laid down their Platforms, and nominated their candidates for the Presidency, and hoisted them thereon. Their platforms are erected on slave soil, and made of slave timber. Both express the same devotion to slavery, the same acquiescence in the Fugitive Slave Bill. The Whig Party says, we "will discountenance all efforts at the renewal or continuance of such agitation [on the subject of slavery] in Congress or out of it—whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be made." The Democrats say they "will resist all attempts at reviving, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or colour the attempt may be made." There is the difference; one will discountenance, and the other resist all agitation of the question which concerns the freedom of three million American citizens. Slavery is their point of agreement.
Both have nominated their champions—each a "General." They have passed by the eminent politicians, and selected men whose political experience is insignificant. The Democratic champion from New Hampshire jumps upon one platform, the Whig champion from New Jersey jumps upon the other, and each seems to like that "bad eminence" very well. But I believe that at what old politicians have left of a heart, both dislike slavery — perhaps about equally. General Pierce, in a public meeting, I am told, declared that the Fugitive Slave Bill was against the principles of the common law, and against natural moral right. General Scott, I am told, in a private conversation, observed, that if he were elected President, he would never appoint a slave-holder as Judge in any territory of the United States. Their letters accepting the nomination show the value of such public or private ejaculations.
It is a little remarkable that War and Slavery should be the sine qua non in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, and of no other country. A woman may be Queen of England, and rule one hundred millions of men, and yet not favour the selling of Christians. A man may be "Prince President" of the mock republic of France, and hate slavery; he may be Emperor of Austria, or Autocrat ​of all the Russias, and think kidnapping is a sin; yes, he may be Sultan of Turkey, and believe it self-evident that all men are created equal, with a natural, inherent, and unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! But, to be President of the United States, a man must be devoted to slavery, and believe in the "finality of the compromise measures," and promise to discountenance or to resist all agitation of the subject of slavery, whenever, wherever, or however! Truly, "it is a great country."
That is the aspect of the great Pro-Slavery Party of America. But I must say a word of the late Whig convention. It resulted in one of the most signal defeats that ever happened to an American statesman. Even Aaron Burr did not fall so suddenly and deep into the ground, at his first downfall, as Daniel Webster.
If I am rightly informed, Mr. Mason, in 1850, brought forward the Fugitive Slave Bill, with no expectation that it would pass; perhaps with no desire that it should pass. If it were rejected, then there was what seemed a tangible grievance, which the disunionists would lay hold of, as they cried for "secession." I do not know that it was so; I am told so. He introduced the Bill. Mr. Webster seized it, made it his "thunder" on the 7th of March, 1850. It seemed a tangible thing for him to hold on by, while he pushed from under him his old platform of liberty, made of such timbers as his orations at Plymouth, at Bunker Hill, at Faneuil Hall—his speech for the Greeks, and his speech against General Taylor. He held on to it for two years, and three months, and fourteen days;—a long time for him. He took hold on the 7th of March, 1850; and on the 21st of June, 1852, his hands slipped off, and the Fugitive Slave Bill took flight towards the Presidency, without Daniel Webster, but with General Pierce at one end of it, and General Scott at the other.
"The fiery pomp ascending left the view;
The prophet gazed—and wished to follow too."
The downfall of Daniel Webster is terrible:—it was sudden, complete, and final. He has fallen "like Lucifer—never to hope again."
His giant strength was never so severely tasked as in ​
the support of slavery. What pains he took—up early and down late! What speeches he made,—at Boston, New York, Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, at Philadelphia, and I know not at how many other places! What letters he wrote! And it was all to end in this! What a fee for what a pleading! He was never so paid before.
The pride of Boston—its Hunkerism—ten hundred strong, went to Baltimore to see him rise. They came back amazed at the totality of his downfall!
I think this was at first the plan of some of the most skilful of the Northern leaders of the Whigs, to nominate General Scott without a platform—not committed to slavery or to freedom; then to represent him as opposed to slavery, and so on that ground to commend him to the North, and carry the election; for any day when the North rallies, it can outvote the South. But some violent pro-slavery men framed the present platform, and brought it forward. The policy of Mr. Webster's friends would have been to say—"We need no platform for Mr. Webster. The speech of March 7th is his platform. Mr. Fillmore needs none. General Scott needs a platform, for you don't know his opinions." But, "it is enough for the servant that he be as his master." As Mr. Webster had caught at Mason's Bill, so the "Retainers" caught at the Northern platform, and one who has a great genius for oratory enlarged on its excellence, and whitewashed it all over with his peculiar rhetoric. The platform was set up by the Convention, to the great joy of the "Retainers" from New England; when all at once, the image of General Scott appeared upon it ! He as well as Fillmore or Webster can stand there. This was the weight that pulled them down; for after Scott had signified his willingness to accept the platform, the great objection to him on the part of the South was destroyed.
The defeat of Mr. Webster is complete and awful. In fifty-three ballotings, he never went beyond 32 votes out of 293. Fifty-three times was the vote taken, and fifty-three times the whole South voted against him. When it became apparent that the vote would fall to General Scott, Mr. Webster's friends went and begged the Southerners to give him a few votes, which could then do Mr. Fillmore ​
no good; but the South answered—not a vote! They went with tears in their eyes; still the South answered—not a vote! That is a remarkable "chapter in History!"
If General Scott is President, I take it we shall have a moderate pro-slavery administration, fussy and feathery; that we shall take a large slice from Mexico during the next four years. Greneral Scott is a military man, of an unblemished character, I believe—that is, with no unpopular vices—but with the prejudices of a military man. He proposes to confer citizenship on any foreigner who has served a year in the army or navy of the United States, and seems to think a year of work at fighting is as good a qualification for American citizenship as five years industrious life on a farm, or in a shop. This is a little too military for the American taste, but wiU suit the military gentlemen who like to magnify their calling.
If General Pierce is chosen, I take it we shall have a strong pro-slavery administration; shall get the slice of Mexico, and Cuba besides, in the next four years. "Manifest destiny" will probably point that way.
I do not know that it will not be better for the cause of freedom that Pierce should succeed. Perhaps the sooner this whole matter is brought to a crisis, the better. In each party there is a large body of Hunkers,—men who care little or nothing for the natural rights of man; mean, selfish men, who seek only their own gratification, and care not at what cost to mankind this is procured. If the Whig Party is defeated, I take it the majority of these Hunkers will gradually fall in with the Democrats; that the Whig Party will not rally again under its old name; that the party of Hunkers will hoist the flag of slavery, and the whole hosts of noble, honest, and religious men in both parties will flee out from under that flag, and go over to the Party of Freedom. Now the sooner this separation of the elements takes place, the better. Then we shall know who are our friends, who our foes. Men will have the real issue set before them. But, until the separation is effected, many good men will cling to their old party organization, with the delusive hope of opposing slavery thereby. Thus we see two such valuable newspapers as the New York Evening Post and the Tribune, with strong anti-slavery feelings, at work for the Democrats or the Whigs. I think this is the last Presidential election in which such journals will defend such a platform. ​
II. Look at the Anti-Slavery Party. Here also are two great divisions: one is political, the other moral. A word of each — of the political party first.
This is formed of three sections. One is the Free Soil party, which has come mainly from the Whigs; the next is the Free Democracy, the Barnburners, who have come mainly from the Democrats. Each of these has the prejudices of its own historical tradition—Whig prejudices or Democratic prejudices; it has also the excellences of its primal source. I include the Liberty party in this Free Soil, Free Democratic division. They differ from the other in this—a denial that the Constitution of the United States authorizes or allows slavery; a denial that slavery is constitutional in the nation, or even legal in any State.
But all these agree in a strong feeling against slavery. They are one in freedom, as the Whigs and Democrats are one in slavery. Part of this feeling they have translated into an Idea. To express it in their most general terms— Slavery is sectional, not national; belongs to the State, and not the Federal Government. Hence they aim to cut the nation free from slavery altogether, but will leave it to the individual States.
This political Anti-Slavery party is a very strong party. It is considerable by its numbers—powerful enough to hold the balance of power in several of the States. Four years ago, it cast three hundred thousand votes. This year I think it will go up to four hundred thousand.
But it is stronger in the talent and character of its eminent men, than in the force of its numbers. You know those men. I need not speak of Chase and Hale, of Giddings and of Mann, with their coadjutors in Congress and out of it. Look at names not so well known as yet in our national debates. Here is a noble speech from Mr. Townshend, one new ally in the field from the good State of Ohio. This is the first speech of his that I have ever read; it is full of promise. There is conscience in this man; there is power of work in him.
Mr. Rantoul has done honourably—done nobly, indeed. What he will say to-day, I shall not pretend to calculate. He is a politician, like others, and in a very dangerous position; but I have much faith in him; and, at any rate, ​ I thank God for what he has done already. He is a man of a good deal of ability, and may be trusted yet to do us good service, not in your way or my way, but in his own way.
I ought to say a word of Mr. Sumner. I know that he has disappointed the expectations of his best friends by keeping silent so long. But Mr. Sumner's whole life shows him to be an honest man, not a selfish man at all—a man eminently sincere, and eminently trustworthy, eminently just. He has a right to choose his own time to speak. I wish he had spoken long ago, and I doubt if this long delay is wholly wise for him. But it is for him to decide, not for us. "A fool's bolt is soon shot," while a wise man often reserves his fire. He should not be taunted with his remarks made when he had no thought of an election to the Senate. A man often thinks a thing easy, which he finds difficult when he comes up to the spot. But this winter past, Mr. Sumner has not been idle. I have a letter from an eminent gentleman at Washington—a man bred in kings' courts abroad—who assures me that Sumner has carried the ideas of freedom where they have never been carried before, and when he speaks, will be listened to with much more interest than if he had uttered his speech at his first entrance to Congress. Depend upon it, we shall hear the right word from Charles Sumner yet. I do not believe that he has waited to make it easy for him to speak, but that it may be better for his Idea, and the cause of Freedom he was sent there to represent.
Then there is another man of great mark on the same side. I mean Mr. Seward. He is nominally with the Whigs, but he is really of the political Anti- Slavery Party, the chief man in it. Just now he has more influence than any man in the Northern States, and is the only prominent Whig politician of whom we might wisely predict a brilliant future. General Scott, I take it, owes his nomination to Senator Seward. In the Convention, he seems to have wished for three things:—1. To defeat Mr. Webster at all events. 2. To defeat Mr. Fillmore, if possible. 3. To have the nomination of General Scott, without a platform, if possible, but if not, with a platform, even with the present platform. Had General Scott been nominated without a slavery platform, I think Mr. Seward, and many ​ other leading Free Soilers, would have stood by to help his election—would have taken office had he succeeded, and I think his chance of success would not have been a bad one then. But now Mr. Seward stands out for a more distant day. He will not accept office under General Scott. He sees that Scott is a compromise candidate, conceded by the fears of the South; that his administration must be a compromise administration, and he that succeeds on that basis now is sure to be overtaken by political ruin at no distant day. He reserves his fire till he is nearer the mark! I think we may yet see him the candidate of a great Northern Party for the Presidency : see him elected.
Such is the aspect of the Political Anti-Slavery Party. It defeated the strongest pro-slavery section of the Whigs in their convention, defeated them of their candidate, sent the one thousand Hunkers of Boston home from Baltimore, in a rather melancholy state of mind. We shall soon see what it will do in its national convention at Pittsburgh, on the 11th of August.
Now a word on the Moral division of the Anti-Slavery Party. I use the word Moral merely as opposed to Political. It is a party not organized to get votes,, but to kindle a Sentiment and diffuse an Idea. Its Sentiment is that of Universal Philanthropy, specially directed towards the African race in America. Its Idea is the American Idea, of which it has a quite distinct consciousness—the Idea of the Declaration of Independence. It does not limit itself by constitutional, but only by moral restrictions.
The function of this party is to kindle the Sentiment and diffuse the Idea of Universal Freedom. It is about this work to-day. These four thousand faces before me at this moment are lit with this Idea; the other thousands beyond the reach of my voice are not without it. It will not be satisfied till there is not a slave in America—not a slave in the world.
This party is powerful by it» Sentiments, its Ideas, and its Eminent Men; not yet by its numbers. Here is one indication of its power — the absolute hatred in which it is held by all the Hunkers of the land. How Mr. Webster ​
speaks of this party; with the intense malignity of affected scorn. Men do not thus hate a mouse in the wall. Then the abuse which we receive from all the gnats and mosquitoes of the political penny press is a sign also of our power. There are Hunkers who know that our Ideas are just—that they will be triumphant; hence their hate of our Ideas, and their hate of us.
Well, gentlemen, the cause of freedom looks very auspicious to-day: it never looked better. Every apparent national triumph of slavery is only a step to its defeat. The annexation of Texas, the Fugitive Slave Bill, are measures that ultimately will help the cause of freedom. At first, if a man is threatened with a fever, the doctor tries to "throw it off." If that is impossible, he has—tens the crisis—knowing that the sooner that comes, the sooner will the man be well again. I think General Pierce will hasten the crisis, when a Northern party shall get founded, with the American Idea for its motto. The recent action of Congress, the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, the recent action of the Executive, have de facto established this: that Slavery in the States is subject to the control of the Federal Government. True, they apply this only to the Northern States ; but if the Federal Government can interfere with Slavery in Massachusetts, to the extent of kidnapping a man in Boston, and keeping him in duresse by force of armed soldiers, then the principle is established, that the Federal Government may interfere with Slavery in South Carolina; and when we get the spirit of the North aroused, and the numbers of the North on the side of freedom, it will take but a whiff of breath to annihilate human bondage from the Delaware to the Sacramento.
Even the course of Politics is in our favour. The spirit of this Teutonic family of men is hostile to Slavery. We alone preserve slavery which all the other tribes have cast off. We cannot keep it long. The Ideas of America, the Ideas of Christianity, are against it. The spirit of the age is hostile—ay, the spirit of mankind and the Nature of the Infinite God!