The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1851-03-20

Must we lay aside the right of private Judgment,
and give up our consciences, to be guided by the
Judicial tribunal established by the Constitu-
tionp Is man not permitted, in this free coun-
try to differ in opinion even with the Supreme
Court Of the United States Such a doctrine
might perhaps do in Turkey il will not take
among Christians What compel men to do
what their individual sense Of duty revolts at
II the support of slavery require such a doctrine,
down with it,
He admits that the Jews were justifsble in
disobeying the law commanding them to slay their
children, but denies that there is any analogy be-
tween that case and that of the Fugitive Slave
Law. "Not the remotest shade OF resemblance"
he tells us and those who think there is, he calls
shallow pretendersD Let us see One Of these
laws commanded the Jews TO kill their children;
the other commands us TO help to make men
slaves. Multitudes in the free States believe the
one of these to be a crime as well as the other
Admitting that the first requires the perpetra-
ton OF the greater crime, il would only follow
that the resemblance was incomplete in respect Of
he degree of enorpIuy. But if, as we believe, the
one be q crime as well as the other, then they do
resemble each other in their essential features.
The essence OF the is the essence OF the other,
viz: they require men TO commit crime. The re-
semblspce is sufficient for all the purposes of
argument. If it was right to disobey the one
because it commanded 10 do wrong it is right to
disobey the other for the reason. For the law
of God forbids all wrong with the same authori-
ty. have no more liberty to commit a small sin
if such thing could bel than an enormous crime
Human laws can no more make one virtue than
the other
Now, it would be unbecoming in me 10 call the
venerable editor of the Union a shallow pre-.
tender y but really it seems shallow to say
that there is "not the remotest shade Of resem-
blsncen between two laws, each of which requires
men to commit crime
! The truth is, the editor has made an admission
| here fatal to his cause His correspondent who
replies to Rev III. w Beecher, has made the same
admission The latter has justified Peter in dis
obeying the mandate of the Sanhedrim, and Dam
iel in disobeying that of Darius. They have
both admitted that law is void, and to be dis
obeyed, which requires men TO do wrong. On
| this same principle, we pronounce the Fugitive
| Slave Law void IL is foolish to say that this
| law does not require the same kind Of wrong or
forbid the same kind of duty as the ones referred
to- 1t is enough that it require any wrong or
hinder us to do any duty. The Divine law, as
We have said, forbids all wrong. 1t is equally
foolish to say that case similar to the Fugitive
Slave Law cannot be found in Scripture The
Scriptures are designed to direct US by furnish
ing general principles Of duty, and they usually
furnish cases enough TO illustrate these princi-
pies. The cases referred to by the editor and
his correspondent clearly illustrate the principle
that no human law is to be obeyed that requires
US to sin against God or forbids US to do our du-
ty to hias or our fellow.men This is the GROUND
on which we stand in opposing the Fugitive Slave
Law. This ground will sustain us
J. scorT.
Monmouth, III, Jan. Is, 1851.