Year: 1860




Phillips, Parker and Garrison, inclined to forget
the brotherhood of our race? | tell you nay, |
but it is because they cdnnot forget, that they
preach those sensation" dlscources which you
have 50 deeply lamented. 1t is not, IN my o.
pinion, the conventional lover OF deSpotc law
and order but the phanthropic lover OF his
race, that labor 10 redeem the American people
from the moral iniquity of tramphng under foot
the immortal principle of mans universal bro
therhood.


In conclusion, your sermon is evidently the
work of fine dialectcian, and looks to me IKE
a piece OF sound logic on false premises, or Ike
beautiful building on sandy toundahon.-
The only ground of my complaint is, that IN la
boring to quell the agitation OF the slavery ques
ton, YOU have ranked the great moral iniquity
which hangs over our beloved country, with the
political wrong that touched the Jewish people
and the heroes of our American Revolution. II
my position is not tenable, Will you be so kind
as to correct me, and thus greatly favor your
sincere friend and brother,


J. WHITNEY.


Springfield, Ohio


We submit, in reference to the above, the fol-
lowing remarks;


! We claimed the example ofChrist in refusing
to NEEDLE with the laws of the Roman govern
ment levying an unjust tax upon the Jews, as
proof that his kingdom was not of this world
and an indication Of a principle by which his
professed ministers should refrain from meddling
with the "yexed question Of slavery" Our
correspondent thinks our logic good enough,
but our premises false, because the two cases
are not parallel as We assume them to be. In
the case in which Christ acted, 1t was "paltry
affair Of political taxaton;" but in the case Of
our relations to slavery, it it "the great moral
question Of human freedom, which towers a
bove all human organizations and is above all
political legislation" Unfortunately our cor
respondent is wrong in both these Positions
Taxation by and a0ift the consent Of the people
who pay taxes is one thing, but MUST "oppres-
sion and hurdensome taxation" imposed upon
a people by foreign power, is another sort of
thing altogether. The former may be ''pal-
try affair."" but the former seems to us come
very near moral question. Our Fathers did
not seem to think tax on tea, and stamp on
paper, imposed by foreign Prince, very pah'y
thing. But when Rome, the huge robber of the
|
Gus sword and placing her foot upon his neck,
says, PAY me for despoilng you Of your lber.
ties, and for ruling over you," our correspon-
dent can see no moral aspect oC the case; and 1t
dwindes down to a mere paltry affair of polt-


cal taxation!


Equally unfortunate is our correspondent in
the other statement. The question of human
freedom does not as he atfirms, tower above all
human organizations and all political legislation
On the contrary, all human organizations and
all political legislation, are abridgemcnts Of hu-
man freedom, and not one of them can exist, or
be executed, without a surrender Of some Of
that freedom. They exist OF compact and Of
necessity, and not of natural or divine right
The right of every man to his own person is
not mo,ol but natural ryAt. But the mo-
ment men come together in society, there must
be government, and in order that there should
be government men must be divested of some
of their natural rights, that they may be pro
tectcd in others; and then come moral rights
which override natural rights to the extent Stip.
ulated in the governmental compact. Then it
is the natural right of every man to cultivate
the bosom of his mother earth and reap the
fruit of his l4bor but when population in
creases, and men come to live in society. to pre-
vent the claShing Of the natural rights Of indi


viduals, government emerges Of necessity, and
the moral right Of A, to the peaceful possession
of the land he occupies by virtue of the com
pact, must ovcrrule the natural right of B., to
that same land. Thus A. sur:eniers his nat


ural right to all other lands for his moral right
to that particular parcel, and B. is deprived of
his natural right to that parcel as also of his
moral right to the same. So, also, the right OF
every man to his own person is natural right;
but when he comes in contact with society the
use that he may make of his person, must be
defined by law; and the obedience or disobed-
ence to law becomes moral question. Let
him disobey the law, and there is not a govern,
mcut on earth that will not strip him of his
natural right Of the possession of himself and
take possession Of HIM, and compel obedience.
No human government can exist for an hour on
any other basis than the concession of this
right.


But this does not authorize despotism and op-
preston, for governments as well as individu-
ais are amenable to the moral law. 1t only
; shows that a legitimate government, founded up
on the consent OF the governed, and ruling up
on the principles of everlasting righteousness,


may and must infringe upon natural rights and
natural freedom; nay, in certain cases, take from
individuals the right Of self possession and self


guidance. Whatever may be the freedom that
a man is entitled to by natural right when
alone, the moment he comes into societp, and
hence, under the domain Of moral laws, every
man has right to so much liberty as he can
and does use without injury to his followers and
no more. Now, in the case in hand, what have
we? The Roman government, colossal for
eign power. without shadow Of right, save on
the principle that "might makes right" with


Israel PROSTATE at her feet, smitten down by
her iron arm of power, and wringing from the
people thus enslaved the fruit OF their toll, in
, the shape of tribute money. If there is no
: moral question here, there is none anywhere -


Yet Jesus would not medde with the matter
1t was an affair of civil government; and his
, kingdom is not of this world He only coun-
} selled the people peacefully to render unto Cae-
sar the things that belonged to him, by the