The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-12-15


Ferry, heretofore described, with which on
readers are already acquainted.
WASHINGTON, December 5, 1859.
To the Editor Of the National Era.
Believing that the recent attack upon mysel
had It's origin In personal malice, which sough
TO take advantage of the fevered state of public
sentiment IN order to CRAFTY its own base ends
/ did not think to obtrude myself upon public
attention by any further notice of the SANDER
Gus accusations made against me; but the re
peatcd requests of friends, here and elsewhere
induce me TO make a brief statement of the
sentiments the advocacy of which, in a pirate
Conversation, has so alarmed portion of the
community. and compelled city magistrate to
place me under bonds to keep the peace
That | am no controversialist, all who know
me can testify; yet | value the liberty of speech
too highly 10 yield it to any considerations of
interest. During the five years that held the
unsolicited office of Examiner in the United
States Patent Office, whilst l sought never OBJ
trusiYe,y to declare my sentiments upon any
subject ] at the same time never concealed
my strong Anti Slavery convictions but avowed
them openly at all fitting times and places.
About two years since l resigned voluntarily
my commission, in order to engage In my
present business, as Solicitor of Patents.
Contiguous to my Office is that of George
Stabler. whittier l had occasion to go about
three weeks since. was then and there intro
duced to Mr.. Van Camp; and in the course OF
ACCOMMODATION which followed between George
Stabler, Van Camp, and myself, the universal
theme, John Brown was introduced. Mr..
Van Camp was at once violent in his denunci-
alton Of all AbolitiOnists, and / expressed my
belief that be did not well understand the prin-
ciples Of those he denounced that there were
many classes Of so-called Abolitionists all hos
tile 10 Slavery, but differing in regard to their
views Of duty towards it. Among these were
the Garrisonians and the Quakers, both non
resistant, and therefore as hostile to war as TO
Slavery-hence neither class could Justify the
action Of Brown; that | believed Brown was
sincere, and acted from his convictions Of duty,
but ! considered him a monomaniac mad
dened 10y the cruel wrongs inflicted upon him
In Kansas that his standpoint was not ours,
inasmuch as he believed that it was right to
fight for Freedom. As a Quaker, / believed
all war to be nchristian-Slavery itself having
Its origin in war; and being sustained by the
doctrine that might makes right" it has no
foundation in natural Justice or in the laws of
any civilized nation. To go amongst slaves in
order to excite them to instruction | con-
demned, and also the holding of them in
bondage.
But TWO witnesses have testified that l said
it was right for slaves to murder their masters,
dc. Had these witnesses not acted first as con
spirators, 10 draw me into the discussion by the
use Of violent personal threats and second, as
public iHtqrmers, betraying the confidence of
social intercourse-they might be entitled to
more credibility. As it Is, the largest Christian
charity can account for their testimony only by
the supposiuon on their part that the language
repeated by Mr.. Van Camp, and ascribed bv
him to "Abohtionists," was endorsed by me
when | answered his bullying defiance, that he
a would shoot any one who dare utter the same .
BIZ the words Z" dare do it." The issue be-
tween US then was no longer an abstraction ;
10 me, II seemed question of personal liber-
ty-of the freedom of speech. In a calmer
moment, i would have passed such language
by, as unworthy of notice, plying the passions
which prompted its utterance at that time
Indignation predominated.
In the above brief statement, have sought
20 give the leading sentiments avowed by me
on the occasion referred to, the circumstance.
under which they were made public, and m,
emphatic denial Of the brutal language ascribeC
10 me. The ridiculous inconsistency between
that language and the principles which both tn,
witnesses acknowledged j avowed upon tina
same occasion, does not seem to have strucl
their mental vision or that of the frightened
magistrate, yet 1t is evident that belief in tn,
doctrine Of non-resistance could not coexist il
any mind with a belief in the right of even ;
slave TO murder.
But, whilst | Indignantly deny ever having
uttered any language in justification of thu
crimes of murder. arson, &c. under any circum
stances, do at the same time claim the rich
of free speech-the indisputabe right of ever
American citizen, "to speak the truth, will
good motives, and for justifable ends" Her,
IN the National capital, the common neutra
ground Of the whole country, is freedom o
speech guaranteed to one class only? Do tn,
laws protect the advocates of Slavery in tn,
constant public proclamation of their peculiar
doctrines, (even when accompanied by the mos
violent, denunciatory language.) whilst the be
lever in the Declaration of Independence il
forbidden TO utter his sentiments even in pri
vate? Ii freedom of speech be suppressed, O
what value is American citizenship? 1t is thi
right OF free speech that underlies all Freedom
Deprive us of this, and We sink to condition
only nominally less servie than that of tn
African.
In extenuation of the crime of suppressinl
all freedom of speech in the capital of the ma
ton, 1t Is urged that the seat of Government
lies embosomed by slave States, and that tn
outcropping of the underlying strata of gun
powder IN SAID States renders necessary tn
suppression henceiorth Of all freedom Of di,
cussion here as there. If this argument b
valid, then 1t Is time for the removal of the sea
OF Government out of the house of bondag
forth where frcemen can live and speak an
labor. DANIEL BREED