Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1845-03-14
For the Waterman and journal
THOUGHTS ON SLAVERY.
No. 1.-RIGnT OF DISCUSSION.

Nor is this fact at all surprising. The only won
der is that people so ardently devoted to the prn-
ciDles of republican liberty as are the descendants
Of the pilgrims, should have sumbercd over the
subject so long. They have been taught to oeheVe
that "lfe, liberty, and the pursuit OF happiness"
are the nalienube and natural rights OF man; they
have always regarded Slavery as reproach to the
Government under which we live, and when the
intelligent foreigner has sarcasticaly pointed to
three millions of Slaves inhabing this boosted
land of Freedom as an awkward commentary on
republican principles, they have felt themselves I'M
able TO answer the argument which this TACT was
calculated to establish.
Often have their opinions been expressed in the
strongest language in opposition TO Slavery. The
modern Abionist may have introduced doctrines,
nelC and Startling in connection with this subject,
but strong and decided feeling of opposition to
Slavery existed in New England long before the
adoption of the Federal Constitution Whenever
any Of our statesmen have uttered sentiments ia
vorable to its continuance and have acted and vot-
ed in conformity with such sentiments, one general
voice of Indignation has been raised against them.
Whenever an attempt has been made to grouse the
existence of Slavery in our country, 1t has always
been done solely on the ground Of necessity and OF
necessity alone. New England has always seen
with regret the unwilllnguess Of the South to do
justice TO the oppressed and ignorant Slave; the
legislation of some of the Slave. holding States in
relation to the education and moral instruction OF
the Slave, has been quoted as evidences of barba
rism and tyranny dsgraceu TO the American nalne
and nation.
This feeling at the North was all right. 1t did
honor to human nlture-to mankind. 1t was a
feeling which should have been encouraged, not
repressed. Whenever the North can look on with
Indifference, and behold three millions Of their fell
low beings held IN the calling chains of Slavery,
we may we'll despair of the Republic.
We have recently been grayely told by certain
class Of politicians in our community, that we at
the North have nothing to do with the subject r.
Slavery that we have not even right to discuss
it; and that the South may Justly complain of our
interference, whenever we give an independent and
manly utterance of our feelings in relation TO IT..
1t is true, perhaps, that honest and Independent
minds may well doubt the prOpriety erpediency
of much that passes, in relation to this subject
der the name of discussion; it being often little
else than partisan warfare denunciation, and abuse
but when the right of discussion comes to be ques
toned, it is impossible for the American Republic
ali TO listen long in silence. Let me not be told
that the right of discussion, IN New England, is
not home. bred right right which neither tyrants
nor Slave holders have any power to take away.
The independent yeonan, inhabting our hills and
vaes, cannot very easily be made TO believe there
is any subject sacred that he may not earessly
iscuss it, and just as earessy express any opinion
ne may happen to entertain respecting it.
Shall he be told, beside his plough,
What he speak, and rien, aud hop ?"
But it is said that %he right of discussion pre-
suppoSes the right of decision, and as the people
of the North have constitutional right to act nor
to decide upon the question of Slavery at the South,
they cannot be supposed possess the right to dis
cuSs any such question. 1t is enough to say In re.
lation this matter, that the Federal Constitution
points us to no subject concerning which the cti-
zens of the Untea kates are prohibited from dis
cussion or investN DDn. The Slave holder may
feal,essly to the North, and rail against our
institutions, unmolested; he possesses the undoubt-
ed constitutional right if he supposes that prudence
or propriety require Of him to do so, to recommend
the establishment of domestic Slavery in all the
States North of the Potomac; and shall we be told
that the North have no right to vndcate their own
Government, nor TO advocate the cause OF universal
freedom?
1t is true that in the Slave-holding States the
power TO abolish Slavery is exclusively in their own
hands. So too the power to abolish Paganism and
to introduce Christianity in the Sandwich Islands
was and still remains, exclusively in the hands OF
the inhabitants of their own soil. But the Chris
tians of America and Europe have both legal and
a moral right to discuss the superiority and advan-
tages of Christianity over Paganism, and to urge
upon the Islanders the duty of embracing Christ
and of renouncng false gods
The South attempt to justify the continuance o.
Slavery; the North have certainly right to exam
inc their arguments, and to convince the South, i
they can, that it is their duty gradually or imme
diately, to abolish Slavery.
How unamiabe, how unovely is that position
which is voluntarily assumed by the South-the
will give no to others for their conduct, no
will they listen to the voice of entreay, of argu
ment or expostulaion. Reason is said to be TIT
distinguishing attribute of man; but for what pur
pose is this faculty bestowed upon him, if he ma.
not use it? Is it true, that God has made 1t on
duty to reprove all classes of sinners, but the South
ern Stakeholder? that we may reason of "rghte
BUSINESS, temperance and judgment to come" bu
have no right to reason on the subject of Slavery
Away with such nonsense 1t deserves no bette
name, though divnes, philosophers, and statesmen
may dignity 1t by the name OF argument.
But it is said that this right OF discussion ha
been abused. So, too, has been and is every othC
right. No one believes that our modern Abolition
lists have abused this right more firmly than | d
The peculiar doctrines and tanatcal opinions
many of the opponents Of Slavery have done gre
injustice TO a noble cause Let it be borne in min
however that whoever contends that fanatics Dug
not to enjoy the right of free discussion, would II
pose eternal silence on vast majority of mankin
Fanaticism is a serious, and it may be, an alarmir
evil, but would to God that we had no worse mt
in our community than many whom the wise al
the prudent are compelled to denominate fanatics
SIN the present age" says Dr. Claiming, sit W
not do to deal harshly with the characters of fant
les They form the mass of the people Rellgi
and Politics. Philanthropy and Temperance, Nul
fcation and Antmasonry, the levelng spirit of t
Nottingham and the specializing spirit of the III
OF business, all run into fanatlcism. This is I
type of all our epidemics. A sober man who C
find? The Abolitionists have but caught the fey
Of the day. That they should have escaped
would have been moral miracle"
1t is said, too, that the doctrines of the Abe
tionlsts are dangerous; that their principles if C.
ried out and universally adopted at the North, mi
inevitably produce q dissolution of the Union
Suppose, for one moment, that we admit all this
be true. All good men, certainly all devoted Gin
tians, believe that the doctrines of infdelity,
skepucism and perhaps of Unversalsm are fe
fully dangerous TO the souls Of men; and that
those principles were universally adopted, all G
ernment and moral order must soon come to an el
and yet the lnfdel, the Skeptic, and the Univer
list, are permitted, without let or hindrance, to
cuss their principles freely and fully before the p
lie, both from the pulpit and from the press. liz
ever dangerous may be an opinion, unless that OF
aA,,1 La att mt thn