The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-03-18
DIR. DEWEY ON PROGRESS AND REFORM.

DIR. DEWEY ON PRoaREss AND REFORM.
We are very glad to see Dr. Dewey's Lee
ksa. =, = AZ l.s1s.:;.l2 af-@grH. ss9c;;t:on
printed in so goodly form, and have marked
several passages for insertion The whole
Lecture shows how deeply the author feels
himself wronged by being regarded as in any
sense n pro-sayery man, and will tend in a
considerable degree to correct the impression
produced by his speeches and articles on the
Fugitive Slave Law. We are happy to OBJ
serve so direct a denial of the language as
crbed to him regarding his own kindred:
81 said in my speech, Il would consent that
my own brother for certainly ! was never
guilty of the vulgar irreyerence of thus allu-
ding to a more venerable relative and those
who have frequently asserted it must settle
the account with their truth and decency as
they can. THIS is what ] said both in my
speech and lecture Il would consent for |
said nothing of sending anybody would
consent that my own brother, my own son,
should 90 "a. e. into slavery-ten times rather
would | 90 myself-than that this Union
should be sacrificed for me or for us and
am ready to stand by this as just and honor
able sentiment; and | can only wonder that
any man should think it extravagant or ridicu.
lous. Indeed, suppose the only chance of
making it appear so, was to connect with 1t
the falsehood to which have just referred"
Taking the language as it stands, whilst We
can see in it meaning very heroic, and doubt
not that the writer so felt it, we regard it
as very excessive and gratuitous 1t is not
well to deal in rhetorical illustrations soshock-
ing to the feelings and so likely to be distorted
from their true meaning into apologies for a
law whose only plausible defence can be its
alleged necessity. We could not believe that
DR. Dewey ever had the bad taste to allude to
his mother in that connection and are glad
that the contradiction once made By one Of
| our editors, at our ministerial conference, has
now the confirmation Of his own undoubted
| word. Such errors are not corrected in day
| yet we hope that the truth may overtake
them. and that, however others may differ
from DR.. Dewey in opinion, they will not try
to rob him of his rightfu reputation as a fear
less and uncompromislng advocate of what he
believes to be the truth He has never been
disposed to withhold his opinions from motives
of expedency, and has sometimes seemed to
us too Indifferent to times and circumstances
in stating his views He has not shrunk
from dealing plainly with the evils of slavery
| in community where the institution exists
| and if his views do not please Northern Abo.
| litionists they have been as little welcome to
Southern shareholders. Certainly, it is very
wrong to impcach mans conscience because
it does not square with our own and whilst
maintaining the ground upon the subjec here
toforc advocated by the Inquirer, we have
not, and never have had, any disposition to
dctract from the conscientious fidelity of the
author of this pamphlet. We contend as
| strongly rs he does against violent resistance
to the law Of the land, but apprehend far less
evil than he docs from pacific nonconformty.
for conscience sake to statute which reviyes
the darkest feature Of a code adopted before
the conscience of Christendom had prescribed
the institution that holds man in bondage for
no crime but his skin.
We gladly insert the eloquent passage in
which Mr.. Dewey defines his position
"And now let us come to the great and ter.
rible question of Slavery In the survey which
! am taking of certain questions this the
greatest of all, cannot be omitted and on this
subject, let me say, ] still adhere to my posi-
ton ! am not an ultraist. ! have. to a GER
tain extent, sympathies with both the parties
to this question | respect the feelings and
situation of the people Of the South; | share
the sentiments of the bulk of the people at the
NOTtH anu uS ltNc iuu tIS IOTLuDe I'D Dc
misconstrued on this subject, am still more
DESTROYS to use the privilege, which have
craved this evening, Of speaking for myself
" In a speech which made in Pittsfeld last
winter, and also in lecture which delivered
in Boston, did not discuss the present Fugi-
tive Slave Law, though was Immediately
represented as violent advocate for it, but
rather addressed myself to the question,
whether we at the North could in conscience,
yield our assent to any such bill-to any bill
that should give the Southern master the
power to reclaim one of his slaves that had
fled to us for refuge. Should We make our
Northern cities cities Of refuge TO the
fugitive, or should we say to him, Under
the circumstances, we do not think it right to
offer you an asylsm and protection = That
was the question. Were we bound by the
highest obligations Of conscience and humanity
TO say to the master, You shall not have
your slave we will not hear Of rendition we
will have no law about it any wayH The
Abolitionists themselves might have seen in
that speech the painful struggle OF con-
science to decide, not whether this ito them 10
odious law could be obeyed but whether any
law Of the kind could be obeyed. After the
publication Of that speech, ! received letter
from friend, saying, Your speech has been
read among us with much satisfaction even
the greatest of our Abolitionists has nothing to
say against il, but that you ought To have
denounced the present bill replied Tell
my friend that, of the two, am the greater
Abolitonist; for | 40 detest all Fugitive Slave
bills, that have hardly patience to 80 into
detail and observation-disclosures say which Is
better and which is worse
But | did not denouncc the bill Tor other
reasons. ! felt hardly competent to 90 NO. IL
had been framed by the supreme Legislature
of the land; and whether it was constitutional,
whether it was the best law that could be
made, ! was not prepared to say. besides,
when the tide Of public opinion was running 20
strong against the law as TO threaten, III my
opinion, 10 break down the barriers Of the Cons
stitution and the Union, did not think It right
to join the indictments in decrying the law.
Moreover wished to put the question at once
upon its ultimate merits The main offence
does not lie in this law, but IN any enective
law. As said in my speech, The Abolition
lists ought themselves to see that they Will never