The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-08-24
THE VOICE OF FREED

ed 10 establish the slave system. And this with
the express avowal of southern statesmen, that the
continuance of that system tended ultimately to
destroy the liberty of the freemen of the North.
The freedom of the northern man was thus identi-
fed with the freedom of the southern slave. 1t
might here be proper to read the declarations of
Jefferson, of Washington, and of Wythe.
Once more, till slavery was abolished, State
or nation was in effect without penal code, so
far as regards the restraining of one class of ct
zens from outrage upon another. Till then one
portion of the community was made the prey Of
the other. Till then one-half of the community
is released from the force of penal law. All char
acteristcs which distinguished the American slave
system were acts which by the laws of other ma
tons were declared to be crimes punishable by
law-so that in fact the law of slavery repealed
the penal code--it exhibited the anomaly of ma
ton repeating its own code of penal law
This led him to a still farther view of the sub
icct If the ground last alluded to was sound, the
people of no State had a right to maintain a civil
government which toeraes the slave system.
For what purpose was civil government establish
ed, if not to repress crime for what was all the
cumbrous machinery of law, if not to restrain ag-
erosion? But when nation established the svs-
tenn of slavery by law as we had done in the Dis
uct of Columbia, it placed itself in position an
tagonist to the very purposes of law Nothing
could be drawn either from morals or eXpediency,
in favor of the existence of law, unless were for
the preservation of those very things which slave
nv allowed. Let us in our own persons be expos
ed to sale like beasts, driven to labor by the lash,
and denied almost all social and family privileges.
Should we not think that the very design of civil
government must be to deliver US from such a
condition A government which protected one
class but not all classes vacated its charter in the
fitness of things, so far as it prolessed to be NOR
al institute, and sustained by the divine law.
Again, abotonists were bound to resort to po-
ltcal action, because they could not innocently
neglect it. Our rulers were the men of our
choice, and in an important sense our servants
this they themselves admitted; they called them
selves the servants of the people, and professed
it their duty to do the peoples bidding; they
were therefore to make laws with the will Of the
people Clearly then it was the peoples duty to
make that will known at the ballot-boxes. This
was the way to teach their rulers that they were
indeed their servants, and whatever might be the
high powers they had received from God, through
the people, and whatever might be the authority
they exercised, their crimes were our Crimes UNI
less we rebul1ed them at the ballot-box. So then,
if Congress were criminal in the matter of slave
consideration brought every man down to his own
individual responsibility. The danger was, that
men would cast away this private and personal
responsibility. We were all in the habit of cast
ing it on ecclesiastical or legislative bodies, and Of
practically forgetting that we were ourselves inte-
grail parts Of the sovereign people. If the clouds
of Divine vengeance lowered on our country, we
were individually held responsible. In view of
the past history of the world, especially as con-
tanned in the Bible, we ought TO remember what
we were all so apt to forget, that God went upon
the great principle of holding men individually
responsible for national acts. Nations, as such,
had their existence only in this world, and there
fore they were called to account here and not
hereafter. When God overthrow Pharaoh for his
inquiry did Pharaoh perish alone? When the
scathing blast of his judgments were let loose a.
gaist the oppreSsor of Hebrew bondmen, although
all they suffered was light as a feather in COM
parison with what is endured by our vctims,) he
smotc the first born throughout the land of Egypt.
Pharaoh persisted not alone. Were the people of
Egypt protested republicans Had they publish
ed Bill of rights Were they free electors p
Did they profess religion full of meekness and
good will? So far were they from all this that
they were cropping in moral and political dark
ness, and were themselves the slaves of Pharaoh.
w Nv lIISlt IIcdu HUH TeSIjOuSlDllilE
if not the subjects of despotic prince, who ruled
by force ? Yet God did not hold them guiltless-
how much less would he hold US so, who were
the citizens of free State, holding the legislative
power in our own hands, but neglecting the dis
charge of our duty in controlling it! He might
pile examples as high as the heavens. Men talk
ed about other interests Of the government-so
might Pharaoh in Egypt, for the Hebrews were
employed in great works Of internal improvement,
and the public interests in Egypt were far greater
in importance Than all our miserable disputes a.
bout sub-treosuries and national banks-yet God
did not hold the Governor of Egypt justifable on
these accounts, for keeping the Hebrews in bond
age, neither would he hold abolitionists guiltess
ifthey neglected to exert their political power for
the removal of what they protested to believe to
be the crying iniquitv of our land.
Mr. Cummings, Of Mass. moved to amend the
by striking out the words " we earnest
y entreat" and inserting in lieu thereof it is the
imperious duty off,
Mr.. - proposed to modify the amendment
by adding, and when they go 10 the polls that
they do not neglect to carry their principles with
them"
Mr.. Cummings said he had three reasons to
give why the amendment ought TO be adopted
The first was because it was the duty of all abo-
itonists TO vote if thew desired TO have n GOOD