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

zion was equally wrong Such was the law OF i7sS =
not enter Ia where the consultation itself wrong
eonStiutionay confer no validity Consuuisonsliy
The law Of 1898 wrong and stain upon our annals can
not be for a moment doubted The same Womb DC
said il were no than that OF 1888 t would be bad
enough. That which is worse than wicked Is wicked
of he oiIeams,ances This law, then, is wrong
ia the sight OF God and manit is unexampled climax
OF sin Ii is the monster iniqniy OF the present age
There yet thing more guilty than the act Of passing
this law There is yet one seg waning 70 genasf conn
hst step Is obedience 10 the law. in conclusion,
therefore, my application Of The spblee, IS DisonEs rnIs
fore God, and ask his forgiveness
This argument, in its general features, is logical and
The conclusions flow naturally from the premises II the
constitutional provision alluded to is wrong, the laws en-
acted to carry it into effect also wrong and laws
papaby contrary 10 the law OF God ought mol 10 De
obeyed.
the disncness which characerizes the declarations Of
Mr. Beecher, have the vanity 10 believe that even
could understand you But frankly confess that, not
withsandng the very large space which you have de-
voted TO development OF your views on This topic, am
rather 'confused" TO what your real sent-
ments than was before. You begin by asserting in the
paragraph which have quoted above, mat the constu
lion contains no recognition OF slavery; and you repeat
the assertion many FORMS that II would really seem
as il you meant something by IT, hut alter long DIS
seraton the relations which you nceiye 10 exist be-
tween the constitution and the laws, you finally admit
the very thing you had dened-yiz that the constu-
ton does recognise slavery For you say:
at looks kindly even on The slave whom it pro-
ec or deliver Az ii IL had n of pity for him, and
blush Of Indignation for the he suffers, IL refuses 10
know him as oHArrEL and only spsass u him as PER-
SON."
So, according TO your own showing the constitution
"knows" or (Which is the same thng) recognises the
slave. and speaks Of him not however as chaitel"
but only ''as person" 1t is not my business recon-
Gle this palpable contradiction. Neither is il OF the
slightest importance as TO the force OF the stipulation in
question, whether the slave is regarded as person or
chael, SINCE in either case, he is 10 be delivered up
Again, you say:
The constitution more than that the servant
though he be slave, shall be discharged Of his legal
obligations by escaping into another State and that when
his comes claim him, the fugitive shall be
rendered leaves room for whatever legislation may be
necessary to guard the Free"
Very good Now we begin 10 touch bottom You ad-
INIT that The constitution requires the surrender OF fug
lives from service, when claimed by their masters,
seven though they be siapes." No matter what may be
their number they escape into other States and are
claimed BY their masters. they be delivered up"
This is all that contend for this point and all that
understand to be involved in the decision of the
peme tribunal oil the nation the naked question of
surrender.
And now NAV ask, you in favor of the stipulation
OF the constitution as thus defined? Will sou sustain and
defend III The essence OF consists in the" delivering
up" OF fugitive aaues You complain OF the present law
will you sustain any law which is effective for that end
viz The surrender. of fugitive slaves! You must be
aware that much not most, OF The opposition arrayed
against The fugitive-save law sin reality arayed against
It's Object The extracts above quoted from Rev Charles
Beechefs sermon are an ILLUSTRATION OF this Allow
TO present few more OF the same order;
Rev, Henry Ward Beecher, in The Independent OF
March 81, 1850, writes as follows:
"Never, while have breath, will help any official mis-
cennt in his base errand OF recapiurng fellow for
tondsge, And may my foot palsy and my right hand for
get her cunning il ever become Grey and
and soecor to every man whose sh, eis me
be worthy Of liberty. II asked, what then becomes
constitution of humanity II yon give back slave the
lenorseess ma Of seryimde pnrcon'itation against
Rev. Mr. Storrs, of Brooklyn, formerly an associate
with yourself and Mr. Thompson in the editorship OF
the Independent, says, in his thanksgiving sermon De-
cember IL, 1850:
fact that he has suffered il long already Is why
should not. The TACT TINT he Is hunted afflicted. poor
should aid him. God tells me love him l love my
se-,o do 20 him what would that he in turn should do
unto Why shall not him in his struggle for the
rights that God gave him indelby when he made him
man There Is nothing 70 prevent but the simple require
which they have written. Bot where will that pare hment
Whe nav end 70 DO Ss
tice I l do not find that my fathers
nanted that should do hi. act but II they i'd il us be
cancelled. cannot renew covenant for such crime"
From the New York Observer. June !. 1850.
"The New York Observer is almost the only religious
paper in the North which does ain,ain least
from labor under the provision Of United States cons
tuition Is contrary 70 the law Of God"
This was before the fugitive slave law OF 1850 was
passed. and OF course did not refer 10 the provisions OF
that law. AT meeting held in Faneull Hall, Boston,
October Ia, 1850, the following resolution was unani.
monsly adopted, on motion OF Rev. Mr.. Culver:
Rssored That, law law constitution or no cons-
nton who sets his foot the sacred soil Of
Massachusetts shall be carried away from IL slave"
In one OF your letters 10 the independent as quoted in
an editorial OF that paper, May 0, 1851, you say:
IL know that his is in pursuit Of him. and that
the hounds Of oppression close bis track
suton does require then beray the t,e M
bling outcast. Nor would bcuay him, God helping me,
though human commanded m 10
the baseness and Nebucbodnezzss fiery furnace were
the penalty"
In the New Highlander, OF which You are one OF The
editors, read in article the "Speech Of William
H. Seward" as follows;
From the New Engand,r.
Let, then, Me'ns: Webster Clay, and Cas- snecr at
the martyrs let them, IN their e1tre me
and fanaca loyalty the slave-catchlng compacts Of
human constitution, their upon the Bible and
upon our Divine Lord"
From The Independent, OF which you are one OF The
editors, although absent from the country when these
editorials were published, copy the following;
From the Independent, Dee. 90, 1850
The fugtvessve law 1. agsinst the law OF God and
while retain faith Ia the Gospel, and our hope
in Christ we shall never obey that law"
Prom the same, Jan. ls, 1851
Let such become frequent about rs, md certain
y should with feeling and conviction united
In H. Jet the Union perish rather than such consummate
tniquity DO perpetrsed by H."
From the same, Oct "a, 1850
eve reject the iusvo-save law contrary the con-
con'uton We neverhscss reject it, and claim to be good
and faithful citizens"
The article counsels each individual fugitive as
follows: