State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1831-1836, 1836-05-10
liy
JAMES G.. BIRNEY
ABOLITIONISTS AND THE FED
ERAL COMPACT.

The most substantial charge brought
against the aboltioniss, is that they are
violating the federal compact. This charge
is reiterated by all the open opponents of
anti-slavery movements at the north, and
is subject of much discussion among
abolitionists themselves. We are happy in
presenting the views of Mr. Birney on this
subject. We make the extract from a
series of letters which MIR b. is publishing
in the Phianthropist, addressed TO the Hon.
John c. Wright.
To JoHN c. WRIGET,-
1t is reasonable to suppose, that one, like
you, gifted naturally with strong powers of
mind, and having them practised TO accu-
racy by long professional training, would
have been careful to impress its character
istics on any production intended to achieve
for its author, high distinction. You had
advantages, too, of no mean value, over
those who had preceded you in assailing,
by means of popular meetings and resolu-
tons, the liberties of the free states, and of
demonstrating an overgrown regard for
shareholders, and the peculiar institution to
which our opponents seemed prepared TO
make one final holocaust of every thing
that has been deemed essential to freedom.
I heir errors and absurdities had been poin-
ted out and exposed. In this last and
GROWING oblaton to propitiate the bloody
god of slavery, you ought not again to
have repeated them. Especially, too, when
it is remembered, you had all the benefit
TO be derived from such calm and inteli-
gent coadjuto as Gen. Lyle and Col. Hale,
il leaves you, sir, without excuse for having
committed the same blunders that have
rendered not only ridiculous, but despca-
BILE, the "Preamble and resolution" efforts
of your pro-slavery forerunners.
| will consider some of them as they are
expressed in these words:-
"ReSoLved, That the nature and tendency
of abolition societies, and the conduct of
certain persons connected with them, are
at variance with the federal compact, and
the mutual obligations of the states united
thereby; and if not reasonable are highly
revolutionary in their tendencies, aud
ought to he discountenanced by all good
and patriotic citizens" &c.
Now what you mean by the "nature and
tendency of abolition societies." is not at
all explained. Were | to delineate the T.
"nature"--or at least, so much of il as con-
stilutes peculiarity-I would say, it was
an intelligent love of liberty us it was in
Nhdui W w ny NlI
AIRY ancestors, and as it is embodied in the
Declaration of Independence, which pro-
claims that, sail men are created equal, and
have rights that are inalienable to life, lib
erty, and the pursuit of happiness" Their
"tendency" j should say, was 10 Danish ev-
cry practice Inconsistent with this procla-
nation of political righteousness, and to fix
forever this UNION on the broad and i'm
movable basis of eternal justice. If This
be n correct delineaton of the "nature and
tendency of abolition societies." there can
he nothing in them to which republican
ought to object. Even you, sir, will not
say, that when practices, hostile to the prin-
ciples of liberty, spring up among US
when they openly menace those principles,
declaring that their ol0n life is to be made
secure, only by their utter overthrow-even
you, | say, cannot he so blinded by your
regard for slavery as, formally and explicit
Iy to declare, that the practices shall live
though every principle Of liberty should per-
i,h.
What do you mean when you resolve
"that the nature and tendency of abolition
societies, and the conduct OF certain per-
sons connected with them, are al variance