The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1862-11-14
The AhoIIt,osisfs,

l.
Thurlc " Weed and Wen
dell PHILIPPE are all called by the
same name. Ofcourse there ie bot
one point upon which oil these men
agree, and that 10, . truly vigorous
prosecution Of the war. But that
is not abolitionism. Emancipation
as means ol war may be justified
by oil oi them; but that is not abo-
litionism. The word abolitionist
desiguates = party in the country
uhoee position and Influence have
never been correctly estimated, be
cause its members have been too
much hated to be fairly treated
Nobody has taken the trouble TO
know Whist thev thought or what
they proposed. II has been enough
that they were said to be disuuion-
lets. What kind Of disunionists, or
why disunionisis have not been
questions they thought to bs worth
The asking, especially BY the polite
ians who now call their late com.
panlons stoliiionists, because they
insist upon the Union at every coat; !;
and who think and call the op
bloody disunionists OF the South "er'
ring brethren"
But the history Of these times
will have to deal differently with the
facts, the influences, and the char.
acters which are summarily classed
as "abolitionism." For merely to
call the men known ss sbolitionists
a handful OF fanatics, incendiaries
end agitatora, explains them and
their cause as much ~ sydney
Smiths sDeering accounts Of Meth
odism and the Methodists. or Of
Ilume's description Of Cromwell and
tho Independents; but no more. 1t
10 certainly not very complimentary
to tho American people to cay that y
lew bitter fanatics at the North,
callt d abolitionists, and q few other
fanatics at the South called seces
sionis,s, plunged $4,000, 900 OF US
into this tremendous civil war. II
the individual james Otis had held
his tongue would there have been
90 revolution2 IL Join IIampden
had paid the ship-noney would
the Stuarts to day be Kings oi Eng
landl James Oils and John Hamp
len we're bnt ,nen who spoke or
fundamental anI dec sive principles
When those ideas were in play those
men we're inevitable. II fifty abo
litionists and as many secossionis,s
had Teen hung. think many, there
would have been no trouble. But
do you lhink that il Luther had
been hung there would have been
no Roformationl In what conceiv
able way was Luther strong or cue
C saul but in being the mouth Of
those who believed as be did? Un
lees Won could have hung the in
s'iDct Of popular instinct, Of popul ar
liberty in England iH 1910, or the
same ins.inc, in America in ITO.
YOU would have struck hut one SCI
dier % an army in striking Hamp.
den or Otis. Unless you kill Pro
rcstintism you might as well spare
l.ui or. And unless you can hang
sboliiorism you will ang aboli.
'onists in vain.
CIR city speaking, the aboliti, n
ists w.re, in our history, a body OF
men wi thought slavery wronl I;
who held that the Constitution ia
vor,d it; and that as the system
was sure to corrupt tho whites ss
we'll az imbrnte tho blacks. there
was no hope for either but in the
change Of the Constitution and the
dis is'olution of the Union, OF which il
WAS the bond. But thy prop ,sed
hat the change should be effected
peacefully and legally, bv common
consent; and to that end they en-
deavored to show what they consiI.
cred the ultimate danger and prescn,
wrong OF the Constitution. This
was their agitation" They op.
posed violence OF every kind. They
were, many OF them, non resist .nts
They did not vote; for to vote WAS
20 acknowledge what they thought
q w'c'ei Oorsiituti'n They did
not approve the method but only the
purpose Of John Brown; and they
said to tho rest Of US, You who be
licve in force have no right to blame
him for helping Others to do what
yon praise orr fathers for doing in
the II volutio,." They believed
hat immediate emancipation wss
desirable. bu, they aimed to achieve
it solely by influencing public opin
ion through that perfect Freedom OF
difcussion which the Constitution
guaranteed. Some among them.
but very tw, were more vehement.
and sometimes att, mpted to resist
the law, as in Boston at tho Burns
c ,pturo. But the Personal Liberty
bills. slthrugh tho abolilionists ap
proved and advocated them, were
enacted bv Legislatures in which no
abulitionist sat, because no ahol'
ZIONIST could swtar 10 surl ort II
G Institution and the laws OF the
United States.
AhoIitionism, justly undcrstood
was 'hus purely moral power II