the doctrine of teetotalism was first advocated, to all but a clear-sighted, adventurous few it seemed utterly chimerical. How is it now regarded? Now, it seems to us that the doctrines referred to are not more consonant with reason and duty than that which requires freemen to have “no Union with slaveholders.” 6. The protestants “regard the proposition as calculated to1 impair the character and influence of the Society.” The American Anti-Slavery Society has never had any character, except for fanaticism; and never can have any, safely, until the trumpet of jubilee sounds throughout the land. Our prophecy is, that while the new position which it has assumed will subject the Society to fresh contumely and derision, for a time, posterity will regard it with special admiration and gratitude; and universal tyranny shall feel it as a blow struck by the hand of omnipotence. The “influence” of the Society has been just in proportion to its faith in God, its fidelity to its principles, its readiness to be without reputation. We believe it now occupies the highest defensible ground against the enemy. 7. It is objected, that this is “ precisely the course which all2 the crafty advocates of slavery would wish us to pursue.” This is empty assertion—and the facts that have already transpired prove it to be equally fallacious. What rage and consternation were excited in Congress on the presentation of the famous Haverhill petition for a peaceful dissolution of the Union! How3 did “the crafty advocates of slavery” gnaw their tongues for pain, and cry out, as did kindred spirits of old, that they were tormented before their time! How did it extort the confession from the lips of Southern Senators and Representatives, that a dissolution of the Union would be a dissolution of slavery! How effectually has it silenced Southern bluster, and humbled Southern audacity, in regard to a separation! And now that the American Anti-Slavery Society calls for secession—now that a host of the foremost and most unflinching advocates of emancipation are ready to sound the tocsin of disunion—now that the motto on the anti-slavery banner is, “no Union with slaveholders!” —is it to be credited that they who quailed before the solitary petition from Haverhill, signed by some thirty individuals, will now rejoice and take courage? O, most lame and impotent conclusion! But let time determine this. 9. It is “in opposition to the evident doctrine of the4 constituition of the Society.” But that constitution provides for the
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.