FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2318   2319   2320   2321   2322   2323   2324   2325   2326   2327   2328   2329   2330   2331   2332   2333   2334   2335   2336   2337   2338   2339   2340   2341   2342  
2343   2344   2345   2346   2347   2348   2349   2350   2351   2352   2353   2354   2355   2356   2357   2358   2359   2360   2361   2362   2363   2364   2365   2366   2367   >>   >|  
* * * * * CAN ABOLITIONISTS VOTE OR TAKE OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? "The preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery is the vital and animating spirit of the National Government." NEW YORK: AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, 142 NASSAU STREET 1815. INTRODUCTION. The American Anti-Slavery Society, at its Annual Meeting in May, 1844, adopted the following Resolution: _Resolved_, That secession from the present United States government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the United States Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin. The passage of this Resolution has caused two charges to be brought against the Society: _First_, that it is a _no-government_ body, and that the whole doctrine of non-resistance is endorsed by this vote:--and _secondly_, that the Society transcended its proper sphere and constitutional powers by taking such a step. The logic which infers that because a man thinks the Federal Government bad, he must necessarily think _all_ government so, has at least, the merit and the charm of novelty. There is a spice of arrogance just perceptible, in the conclusion that the Constitution of these United States is so perfect, that one who dislikes it could never be satisfied with any form of government whatever! Were O'Connell and his fellow Catholics non-resistants, because for two hundred years they submitted to exclusion from the House of Lords and the House of Commons, rather than qualify themselves for a seat by an oath abjuring the Pope? Were the _non-juring_ Bishops of England non-resistants, when they went down to the grave without taking their seats in the House of Lords, rather than take an oath denying the Stuarts and to support the House of Hanover? Both might have purchased power at the price of one annual falsehood. There are some in this country who do not seem to think that price at all unreasonable. It were a rare compliment indeed to the non-resistants, if every exhibition of rigid principle on the part of an individual is to make the world suspect him of leaning towards their faith. The Society is not opposed to government, but only to _this_ Government based upon and acting for slavery. With regard to the second charge, of exceeding its proper limit
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2318   2319   2320   2321   2322   2323   2324   2325   2326   2327   2328   2329   2330   2331   2332   2333   2334   2335   2336   2337   2338   2339   2340   2341   2342  
2343   2344   2345   2346   2347   2348   2349   2350   2351   2352   2353   2354   2355   2356   2357   2358   2359   2360   2361   2362   2363   2364   2365   2366   2367   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

government

 

Society

 
States
 

United

 

Government

 

resistants

 

slavery

 

office

 

Constitution

 

Resolution


taking

 

proper

 

conclusion

 

perfect

 

juring

 

Bishops

 
England
 

satisfied

 

abjuring

 

hundred


exclusion

 

qualify

 

dislikes

 

Commons

 
submitted
 

Catholics

 

fellow

 
Connell
 

Hanover

 
suspect

leaning
 
individual
 

exhibition

 

principle

 

opposed

 

regard

 

charge

 
exceeding
 
acting
 

perceptible


purchased

 
support
 
Stuarts
 

denying

 

annual

 

unreasonable

 
compliment
 

falsehood

 

country

 

Slavery