tive slaves, we would not disturb their
peace. But he had already exhorted the people of the North to "extend a
cordial welcome" to our fugitive slaves, and to "defend them as they
would their household gods." What, then, does he mean by peace?
This outcry, indeed, that the peace of the country is disturbed by the
Fugitive Slave Law, is as great a delusion as ever was attempted to be
palmed off on any people. If this law were repealed to-morrow, would
agitation cease? Would the abolitionists of the North cease to proclaim
that their doors are open, and their hospitality is ready, to receive
the poor benighted blacks? (the blacks of the South, we mean; for we
have never heard of their open doors, or cordial hospitality, for the
poor free blacks of their own neighborhood.) But we have heard--from Dr.
Channing himself--of "a convention at the North, of highly respected
men, preparing and publishing an address to the slaves, in which they
are exhorted to fly from bondage, and to _feel no scruple in seizing and
using horse or boat which may facilitate their escape_." Now, if the
Fugitive Slave Law were repealed, would all such proceedings cease? Or
if, under the Constitution as expounded by the Supreme Courts of the
Union and of New York, and without any such law to back him, the master
should seek to reclaim his property, would he be welcomed, or hooted and
resisted, by the defenders of the fugitive from service? Let these
things be considered, and it will be evident, we think, that the repeal
of the law in question would only invite further aggressions, and from
this prostrate outpost the real enemies of the peace of the country
would march, if possible, over every other defense of the Constitution.
Hence, although we most ardently desire harmony and concord for the
States of the Union, we shall never seek it by a surrender of the
Constitution or the decisions of the Supreme Court. If it cannot be
found under these, it cannot be found at all. Mr. Chase assures us,
indeed, that just so long as the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of Prigg prevails, we must "encounter difficulties, and serious
difficulties."[228] If it must be so, then so be it. If the question be
whether the decisions of the Supreme Court, or the dictation of
demagogues, shall rule our destinies, then is our stand taken and our
purpose immovably fixed.
We have a right to peace under the decisions of that august tribunal. It
is neither ri
|