Press enter after choosing selection

No Slaveholder For Office

No Slaveholder For Office image
Parent Issue
Day
20
Month
February
Year
1847
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

We are to discuss the policy adopted by Liberty men, oí making slaveholding a bar to office. Recollect, it is not proposed to introduce into the Constitution any such exclusive provisión, but simply to constitute a party test. This is doing nothing more than is done every day. The Whig will not vote for a Democrat, nor the Democrat for a Whig - but neither would think of maiung the fact of being a Democrat or Whig, constitutional ground of exclusión from office. Another pre'.iminary remark. before proceeding to discuss the question Liberty men in the policy they avow are actuated neither by pbarisaical nor prospective feelings. They do not assume to be patterns%of righteousness, or that the slaveholdersaresinners above all other men. Nor do they entertain any hostile feelings agninst the slnveholders personally. They understand humnn nature, and the influence of circumstnnces and education too well not to know that a man may be singularly objecüonable ín one poinf, and yet of good report in oiher respects - that a slaveholder, in his general relations, may be gentlemanly and honorable, and yct dead to the real dishonor attached to the relations of Siavery. It is not anover-weening opinión of their own righieousncss, or hostile feeling to the slaveholder pcrsonaïly, that leads them to adhere to the policy of making slaveholding a bar to office. How, then, do you justify this policy ? On several grounds. 1. The two great ideas of American Institutions are, Liberty and Equality. - If this republic has any mission, it is io carry out and exempliíy these ideas, showing that tho?e institutions are the best for Mankind, which ure strictly conformed to them. Slaveholding is the direct and perpetual antagonist of these deas; Ihose engaged in the practice of tare enemies in fact to American Institutions, opposed to the true mission of this country, and thereforo ought not Io be supported for office - especial ly for any office which confers influence over the legislation, diplomacy, or character of the Republic. 2. Siavery is regarded by the Liberty men as the paramount question for the deliberation and decisión of the American Peoplc. They cannot show their senseofits importancc, and their abhorrence of the Evil, more conclusively in any other way, than by refusing all political support to itsupholders. 3. It may be laid down as a general rule, that the slaveholding class are to a certain extent disqualified by their Jiabits and principies to bear rule over a free people. They are accustomed to exert despotic power, and exact implicit obedianee ; and thus their bearing naturally becomes arbitrary, haughty and aggressive. The sentiments and manners engendcred by a false relation, they carry with them into the Cabinet and Legislative Council, in which harmony can be secured or:ly by submission to their will, and where opposition to their demands is apt to lead to scènes of bitter wrangling, personalities and violence, disgraceful to thenational character. But this is not all. Siavery being necessarily a merely local institution, limited in its benefits to the classing it, an exception to Natural Law, an exception to our Institutions, and therefore, in constant peril from the operations of both, the slaveholders, when in office, are continually using their oíTicial influences to throw additional safeguards around it, and lo extend ils power, though at the expenso of all the real interesé, and the glory of the Republic. The theory of slaveholding and its effects is confirmed in every particular by the history of our Government, which exhibits nn almost uninterrupted series of usurpations on the part of the slaveholders, enforced by threaiening and violence, and submitted to for ihe snke of the Union. It is not rea?onable therefore to make slaveholding a bar lo office ? 4. It may also be laid down as a general rule that slaveholder?, as a class, are opposed to all effective rneasures for the constitutional removal of slavery. Liberty Men, seeking such removal as their leading object, would act most absurdly in selecting their candidates from a class of which they are the political antagonists. 5. Although principally relying on facts and argument3 to charge the opir.ions of the People, Liberty Men, ccnnot blind themselves to the fact that politicians and monopolies, essentially selfish in their policy, mny bfi afTected very deeply by agencies applied to their seif feelings. The political power of this country is oneof ihe pillars of slavery. Slaveholders, from the fact of being such, huve been able to engross a most disproportionele share of political power ; and in the free States, servility to their demsnds, strangely enough, has hitherto been the highway to preferment. Liberty men have resolved to break up this custom, so fruitful ofruinous evil; but, how are they to do this, unless by refusing to vote for slaveholders, and serviles - for the actual and indirect supporters of slavery ? Ifihey can succeed in excluding these classes from all official influence, they break down one of the most powerful supports of slavery - and this they accomplish by a course of action strictly constitutional. G. We tnight urge, ñnally, that slaveholding being an act of injustice, of the greatest enormity, the man, who votes for a'candidate who practses it, gives a sort of sanctioa to this wrong act: but, we choose now to confine ourselves to the exhibition of reasons clear'y political, addressed to the political reason of the people. And now we appeal to every candid, reílectingslaveholder: - once admit the legitimacy of the object we seek, and you must acknowledge the consistency and reasonablenessofour course. Any other course in pol i es would reilect discredit on our intelligence or integrity. Slaveholders themselves wuuld despise us. - We but pursue a policy dentical in principie with that constantly pursued by them. They hold that the maintenance of slavery is the paramount and will support for office no man whom they suspect of active hostillty to it. Had a slaveholder voted for Mr. Birney in 1844, could you persuaded anj body, that hc was a foe to aboliiionism, a friend to the "peculiar institution V' We do not blame men for voting in accordance with their principies. The slaveholders, so long as they mean to maintain slavery, act consistently in making aboliiionism a bar office, and viólale no constitutional guaranty. The Liberty rnen, determined to effect the extlnction of slavery by constitutional modes, act consistently in making s'aveholdinga bar to office, and viólale no constitutional guaranty. The two classes have the same rights, are both acting in accordance with their respective principie?, and submit tlieir respectivo clnjms to the American People. As pol lical parlies, by the decisions of the people they musí abide. But, this " amounts virtually to disunion," says the Zanesville Whig. " h is arrying the North ogainst the South." Itisdoingno such thing. You, politicians of ihe old parties, who are always appealing to sectional jcalousy, declaimingaboutthe interests of ihe North and ofihe South, os-if thfiy were antagonist., referringioadissoluiion of ihe Union as if it were the sole remedy for the evils of Southern oppression, as you style it, are the real disunionists. Liberty men hold that the Constiiution has left enough lower to the States and the peoplo thereof respeclively, to secure the eflectual removal of slavery by peaceable means. They would try first all these powers for the establishment of Justice, before abandoningr the Union that confers them. You, politicians of the old pariies,assume, that slamhoïders aro "the Souih :" we, Liberty men, assume that they constitute but a small class in ihe South, and that the great mas6 of Southern people byproper means may be brought to see ïhat the usurnutionsof ihiselass are as injurious lo them, as thpy are oflensive to their non-sla vehoMing brethren in oiher sections of tlic Union. VVe bave no conicst wiili ihe greüt mnjorily of the South. We would just as Hef our Presidents should come from that section as any other - provided tliey bc 7ion-slaceholders. Were the North to adopt the policy of excluding a man from office, on the ground of his being n Souihein man, the South would have good cause for dsoling the Union. Though a citizen of the Norlh, we should ourselves wage war againstsuch Northern policy as that. - But, this is not what Liberty men are aiming at. They eschevv scctionalism and proscription. They lëcve it to the old partiesto lalk about North and South, the oppressions of the latter, the wrongs of the former. "The Northern man with Soui hem principies" is a phrase invented, not by a Liberty man but a Whig. - We speak of Nonhern and Southern men, with Proslavery Principies. But, enough. Every reader of intelligence must sec, that the Liberty men ave adopted a policy, slrictly in accordance with their principies, and in no particular repugnant to the Union.

Article

Subjects
Signal of Liberty
Old News