The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-03-24

the iulhlmen of my promise to write you second letter
IN reply 10 the two you kind enough 10 address TO
me. But besides the convenience OF little proerastna.
ton TO who has upon his hands the and tolls
OF daily newspaper, 10 say nothing OF other engage.
ments, am following your own example.
Before proceeding 10 The main topic OF your second
letteTto wit the fugitive SlaUs iag, and the
proUo upon aehieh al professedly Jouadedetu take
observation, aAd where we stand in reference 10
the original question You stated in your sermon, as
you had previously done in your letters TO the ndepend
ent. that " the idea OF higher law, TO which all men
owe primary and indissoluble allegiance and with
which the enaciments OF Congress, however constu-
tional may possibly be in conflict has been secuted as If
y We're the grossest and most pesen OF all hereses
And you represented this doctrine as being extensively
held both in church and Staieas having drawn 10 lis
support many great and honored name and dared to
claim the honors OF exclusive orthodoxy" lnmy former
letter, IN connexion with The review of your sermon
which appeared in the Journal of Commerce OF January
l7h, II has been shown think, TO the satisfaction OF
every unpreIudced mind, that the grave charge thus
brought against large numbers OF your fellow cilzens is
without foundation. II has also been shown as think
beyond reasonable contradiction, that the doctrine under
stood TO have been avowed by Governor Seward (viz:
that the clause OF the constitution in relation to flu
gitve slaves is contrary TO the law OF God) in fact
avowed BY him, and that the resolution of the New
Haven meeting denounced in your designed
to combat this pernicous and not by any TO
call in question the supremacy OF The Divine law all
human laws. AS benevolent and minister OF the
Gospel 1t can be satisfaction to you to feel that half
the community around you are atheists and there are
real errors enough to combat, without ginning others
which do not exist congratulate you therefore, the
assurance that your sermon was essentially founded upon
mistake, and that public sentiment in the matter al
ludedto is sound and healthy.
The tenacy with which you cling TO the wording Of
the New Haven resolution. as Il were the last plank
which remains YOU is doubtless according TO nature
yet seems 10 me that ought in fairness to abandon
until, OF the many hundreds who voted for that resolu
ton, you find at least individual who understood
It as contrayening the supremacy OF the Divine law, or
who denies doubts the supremacy OF that law all
human laws While acknowledging that supremacy in
the fullest manner, and that whenever human law dis
conflicts he m
give way, contended in the Review that the New
Haven resolution was entirely consistent with this view
OF duty; that it not only intended nothing inconsistent
with il, but said nothing inconsistent with it, Theground
taken that God has given 10 this nation law
rule for political acon that Gods laws respect action
not political, bat moral that instead OF consulting
merely for the good OF the body polite by giving laws as
rules for political action, He views moral beings,
subjects OF his moral Kingdom sustaining far higher rela
tons than those which respect community OF earth and
tme and consus the universal good oil his kingdom by
giving laws rules for moral action that the other
hand, civil government has higher prerogatve than TO
egslae for the well being OF the Sate considered an
earthly communiy and thatits laws therefore, not
rules for moral but only for political action this is
fitted to promote or hinder the wellbeing OF the body
polite.
These views you tell me, "seem, at first sight, very
much like formal profession and defence oil the old
principle that all is fair in politics the principle that no
moral consideration is 10 be taken into the when
men are acting IN political capacity y and you say that
this is what ought TO mean, in order contradict the
doctrine OF your sermon Not quite fast il you please
Have said anything which implies that is not in
all action whether political otherwise bound by the
law OF God 10 act morally righi Suppose had said that
God has given no laws specifying What is 10 be done
and not done by commercial, collegiate or manufaciur.
ing corporations would this very much like say.
ing that men are 10 be influenced by moral consde
ration IN these kinds oil action Yet the two are
similar
"Al political achon," you say, sis moral action" II
could suppose you 10 mean By this simply that IN all
political action men act In the exercise oil moral principle,
SO that in addition to political action there is also moral
action IN the case, should admit the truth OF your posi-
uon; will not say that the phrase political action"
might not IN some possible connexlon be used IN such
meaning. But such is not its meaning used in the
New Haven resolution for II is there confined 10 action
OF which the constitution is the authoritative rule and
nobody believe that the constitution is the authorta
tive rule for moral action Nor the meaning now
supposed be your meaning; for you say "pocal action
but moral bseause political" This is plainly representing
political action as being moral not done by moral be-
ngs in the exercise OF moral principle, or involving
any other relation than merely relation TO the temporal
welfare OF earthly community On the princi.
pie the act OF eating or drinking is moral action
solely account OF its relation the welfare of the
body irrespective OF moral principle, oil any higher
laon
The same political action may be done by different in
dviduals in the exercise OF opposite moral principles
Two legislators for example, may perform the po
ca action, and the act morally right, and the other
morally wrong; which shows. il anything show,
that as political action, IL Is not moral action.
While on this topic You may expect me TO notice your
iogcqi definition OF political action. You right in
supposng that " have forgotten" some things which
forgotten some other things which learned there with.
out damage either 10 myself or the public. STILL think
have wit enough to comprehend all the logic you have
given me in your induction OF particulars After spe
cifyng several kinds OF political action, you say:
"The meaning Of the phrase is plain enough Political
action Is either FIRST the action Of the itself In
the departments Of legislation, and OF the higher executive
administration secondy IL Is any sort Of action which
Affects or - designed to affect, whether dectV or ind
recty the proceedings Of the government"
Now this is II, in attempting define the word tree
a n
peach tree ia tree, and apple tree is tree; and
added Il is plain enough what Tree is tree Is either
hrst forest tree or, secondly, Il Is fruit tree whereas
every iyro in logic knows that the word tree denotes
neither forest Tree in particular nor fruit ia par
teuar, but is a common OF all kinds Of trees, and
of course that this pretended definition OF the word Is
faulty definition, definition al all Without stating
all the exceptions that might be taken TO your definition
OF political action am tempted 10 use your own phrase
ology and say you have blundered as honestly any
intelligent blunder grossly plain sub
ject" But do not like 10 say this lest should speak
evil OF dgnities Suffice 10 remark that your definition
il faulty in three respects L. You have entirely omitted to
specify two particular kinds OF political action under
sderaion viz obedience and dsobedience 10 the consu
lion and laws OF the land These according TO your detni
on moi political action. O. You have at most defined
two particular kinds Of political action, and have there.
fore not defined political action at all, have defined II
fauhly g. In your actual definition OF political action
you have included moral quality or characteristic
whatever, and have therefore excluded this quality from
such action You have thus denied what you asserted,
and what you aimed prove by your definition viz that
political action is moral action" Such logic, | am
bound TO believe you did not learn either at Yale or
Andover.
But leave this branch OF the subject with the single
L. kzs.w