The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-08-31

y as TO his duty but by declaring what he believe
J. his duty TO be :! and this was all the conventio
l. proposed in this resolution to do. 1t had bee
. shown to him that certain Shareholders professe
j. it to be according 10 their conscience to hol
y slaves. Mr.. l.. had himself heard them so de
d cIare-but in this the gentleman didn't believ
e them. According to his representation slavehold
: ers had no conscience but non-resistants were al
conscience. Mr. l.. could not understand such reas
oning as this 1t seemed to him to be all on one side
I Another Rev. gentleman (Mr. Cornish) was full o
fears that they were going to make politics para
7 mount to religion, and was opposed to carrying
: political action too far on that ground. Now Mr.
: l.. held that no man had right to any polite:
: which were not part of his religion. Politics
: and religion were not as too many supposed anti
podes. If man was bound to do all things tt
the glory of God, he was bound to act politically
for the glory of God. TO adopt the resolution
was not making politics paramount; it was only
lifting politics out of the, mud of party spirit and
the mire of corruption, and placing them high on
the baltIements of moral principle. Religion had
been too much excluded from mans political cal
culations and actions. The resolution sought to
bring her out Of degrading obscurity-and to en-
throne her in her proper seat in the halls of our
national Legislation. To him it was most obv-
ousy the duty of aboltonists to vote, and if their
ISO1ioSiCH|C WOulu lGJ tHGlH VUle lHGy were
not abostioniss ir the full sense of that term be-
cause it was fundamental principle, expressly
declared in the constitution of the Abolition Soci-
ETY., that their members should do all that was
lawfully in their power to put an end to the exist
ence of slavery. But voting was lawful act
and was in their power-and therefore they were
hound by their own act in uniting themselves to
the society, to promote its objects by the exercise
of their political franchise. They were bound by
the same act to influence Congress to put stop
to slavery as they had put a stop to the slave
trade; but this surely involved political action.
He knew it had been argued otherwise. 1t was
admitted that to influence Congress a thing
required by the constitution of the society from
all who joined it, but then it was asserted that
Congress might be influenced without political
action, and therefore abolitonsts were not bound
to act politically. This was a sophism, and the
real question was not whether Congress might
not be influenced in some other way than by po-
litical action, but whether it could be influenced
in that way If it could, then aboitionists were
bound by their own pledge to pursue this way OF
influencing Congress as we'll as other ways.
Their being bound to do other things did not prove
that they were not bound to do all this thing. Be-
fore objections could arrive at the desired conclu
sion, they must change the minor member of the
syllogism and put it in this form. Abolitioniss
are bound to do all they lawfully can to influence
Congress to put end TO slavery; but Congress
cannot be influenced to this end by political ac-
ton; therefore abolitioniss are not bound to use
political action. An effort had been made to show
that to create Congress was one thing, to nau-
ence it was another, and men that could not
vote to elect rulers, might never
theless conscionttously exert themselves to infu-
ence rulers whom others had elected. And as an
illustration of this it had sometimes been said that
a man might endeavor to influence the pope not
to grant any indulgence without thereby endors-
ing the other acts of the pope. The cases were
not parallel They would be if the popes under
clergy We're selling inda igences. If man inter-
tered then, bya petition to the pope, to interfere
by the exercise of his papal power, it would be
endorsing his authority. In like manner it had
been said that one might endeavor to influence a
military chief not to destroy certain town with
out endorsing his authority to destroy it. But il
the town was in state of riot, and the strong
were destroying the weak, if man influenced the
military chief to come in and put stop to the up
roar, it was admitting his authority. So if aboli-
tionsts influenced Congress to pass law affect
ing the domestic slave trade, it would not be a
mere cessation from wrong action in unfolding
that trade but it would be new act in putting ii
down, Just as in the case of the foreign slave trade
WITH OOIiSlCS puSSCu u law uCtIdl ~ W oC
piracy-and so put an end to it. How else could
it have been done? So if Congress should de-
clare the domestic slave trade msdemeanor, and
set officers to enforce the law, this would be a
new act. And if abolitionists were bound to do
everything in their power to influence Congress
to take this course, they are bound TO the whole
round of political action directly conducive to that
end. They said as abolitonists that the slaves
ought to be Immediately emancpated and placed
under the protection of the law If so, then there
ought to be law to protect them, and if there
ought to be law, there ought to be men to make
the aw-and if there ought to be law makers,
and the people alone can create them, then the
people were bound to create them-and if the peo-
pie as such were bound to create them abolition
lists that were part of the people were bound to
create them. And if they could be created only
by voting at the polls, then abolitinists are bound
TO vote at the polls. He therefore again insisted
that the pledge given by every abotopist on
joining the society bound him to the whole round
of political action. If man could come all the
way, let him come but if in conscience he could
come only part of the way, then let every man
come as far as he could. If he could not do all,
let him do what he could, but because he stopped
half way, let him not condemn those whose con-
science permitted them to 90 ahead of him.