II.

SERMON BY JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE.

HERE is but one subject upon which we can think this

THERE

morning. Last Wednesday, a man was sentenced to death on a charge of exciting Slaves to Insurrection, of Treason against the State of Virginia, and of Murder. Probably many technical objections might fairly be raised against the verdict, and against the conduct of the Court. But his conviction was a foregone conclusion-it could not be avoided. Men who do such things as he did, set their life on a cast, and must be ready to stand the hazard of the die. He was thus ready-he is ready. From first to last he has shown no wavering, no desire to save his life. His whole course has been so convincingly conscientious, manly, truthful, and heroic, that his enemies have been compelled to honor him. For the first time within our memory, the whole North and South seem to be united in one opinion and one sentiment the opinion that this attempt of Brown was unwise and unwarranted the sentiment of respect for the man himself, as a Hero.

You have heard little from this pulpit upon the subject of Slavery for several years. In that time I have scarcely al

Entitled, "Causes and Consequences of the Affair at Harper's Ferry;" preached in the Indiana Place Chapel, Boston, on Sunday morning, Nov. 6, 1859, from Mark vi. 26:

"And Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man.”

luded to it; never spoken of it at length. The reason of my abstinence was simply this, that I saw no necessity for speaking. The subject is being so thoroughly discussed in Congress, in the Legislatures, in the newspapers, in public meetings, and in private discussion, that it does not now seem so necessary to speak of it in the pulpit. But such an event as this calls up too many thoughts to allow me to be silent; and I therefore choose for my subject, "THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE LATE AFFAIR AT HARPER'S FERRY." And I take for my text the twentieth verse of the sixth chapter of Mark: "And Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man.”

An attempt has been made to ascribe this event to the teachings of the Anti-Slavery party in this country. Well, they are the cause of it, in one sense, just as Samuel Adams and Josiah Quincy, James Otis and Patrick Henry, were the cause of the bloodshed at Lexington and Bunker's Hill; and just as the preaching of Christianity was the cause of the religious wars which followed. Whoever opposes tyranny and wrong in any shape, with words, will often cause a conflict of deeds to follow. Jesus said, "I came not to send peace, but a sword." He knew that his teachings would not be peaceably accepted would be resisted- and that bloodshed would follow. But where rests the responsibility? Not on Jesus, though his Gospel has been the occasion of war; not on James Otis and Patrick Henry, though their words were the occasion of war; not on those who oppose evil, but on those who maintain and defend it. Therefore, not on Anti-Slavery teaching, but on Pro-Slavery teaching, North and South, on the men and newspapers in Washington and Boston, who unite with the oppressors to put down Freedom and quench its light in the blood of its advocates; on these and such as these rests the responsibility of this tragedy.

I. The first cause of this sad affair is Slavery itself. There is an "irrepressible conflict" between Freedom and Slavery. The opposition is radical and entire; there can be no peace nor permanent truce between them, till one has conquered the other. Either Slavery is right or it is wrong. The radical question is this: Can one man belong to another, as his property, or not? To this question there can Yes, or No. There is no intermediate

be but two answers

answer.

To this question the whole country formerly said No. North and South, every one used to say that Slavery was wrong. The great minds at the South — Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Madison, Monroe, Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina — all believed that Slavery was wrong in principle and bad in its influence, and must gradually come to an end. The evidence of this is ample. One fact I will mention. The territory north and west of the Ohio was consecrated to Freedom, and secured against Slavery by a proviso, passed by the votes of Southern as well as Northern statesmen. When, afterwards, the people of the Territory of Indiana petitioned Congress to be allowed to hold Slaves for a time, on account of the difficulty in procuring free labor, their petition was reported adversely upon, by a committee, the chairman of which was Randolph of Virginia, who said, "They will thank us hereafter for rejecting their petition."

At that time all admitted that Slavery, in its principle and in the abstract, was wrong; and all said, "We expect, by degrees, and gradually, to put an end to it."

There was no war then between Slavery and Freedom; no "irrepressible conflict;" for all were on the side of Freedom.

But time passed by and Slavery did not come to an end. The immense expansion in the consumption of cotton, and its increasing price the demand always overlapping the supply made its culture the most profitable work done in

America; and this work was most easily and cheaply done by Slaves. At the end of a generation from the death of Washington, Slavery had become vastly more profitable in the Southern States than it was in his days. Now, the South did not wish Slavery to come to an end. It wished it to continue. I do not say that the Slaveholders were worse in this than other people. Their misfortune was to be exposed to a tremendous temptation, and they yielded to it. The people of New England might have yielded too, if they had been exposed to that temptation.

This was the first great change; this the essential change; this change of desire and wish- all the rest has followed that. For, though single men are illogical and inconsistent, mankind is logical and consistent. In the long ran, people will either act as they believe, or else believe as they act. The Slaveholders were believing one way, but determined to act another. The situation was painful, and they broke away from it. Never was such a revolution in opinion as that which has taken place at the South within the last twenty years, on the subject of Slavery. Twenty years ago, nine Slaveholders out of ten would tell you they thought Slavery wrong; to-day, nine out of ten will tell you they think it right. So logical is man. As they made up their wills to extend, and not abolish Slavery, they presently made up their minds to believe it right, and not wrong- a Christian Institution; a missionary enterprise; based on the Bible, and in accordance with the highest principle of duty.

I know very well that there was a transition period. While this great change of public opinion was going on, it was covered up and concealed with fine phrases. This was the period of what Bentham calls " Fallacious Designations." Bentham says "the object and effect of a Fallacious Designation is to avoid any unpleasant idea that happens to be associated with a person or class, and to present to the mind instead an abstraction or creation of fancy." Thus, says he,

Instead of 'Kings or the King,' you say 'The Crown or Throne.'

A good deal was accomplished in this way by the Slaveholders. Thus, in 1850, when it was proposed to exclude Slavery, by law, from the new Territories, it was said, in reply, "The South has a right to take its property into the territory purchased by its own treasure and blood." Translated into plain Saxon English, this meant, "Three hundred thousand Slaveholders, in the Slave States, rich enough to own, on an average, ten negroes each, insist, against the interest of thirteen million in the Free States, of six million of Non-Slaveholders in the Slave States, and of three million of Slaves, to carry Slaves into territories where there are none now, and to have the laws changed to let them do it." Mr. Calhoun first established this "Fallacious Designation" of The South' instead of 'The Slaveholders.' And, in his last great speech in the United States Senate, he carried it so far as to complain that in the annexation of new territory to the Union, "the North had obtained more than the South,"

—

not meaning that more territory situated at the North had been annexed, but that more had been secured to Freedom than to Slavery.

In the same way, in the Free States, we always have had a party who wish to cover up and conceal the radical opposition of Slavery to Freedom, and Freedom to Slavery; to daub the wall with untempered mortar-to cry peace when there is no peace. They also make great use of these "Fallacious Designations." They say 'Our Southern Brethren ;'