A Western Political Abolitionist (1839)

By JAMES GILLESPIE BIRNEY

. . . THE originators of the American Anti-Slavery Society believed, that slavery ought immediately to be abandoned. The majority did not. . . .

The OBJECT of the American Society was—the entire abolition of slavery in the U.S. The MEANS for effecting it were,—

1. The admission, that each State in which it exists has, by the Constitution of the U. S. the exclusive right to legislate in regard to its abolition in said State.

2. To convince our fellow citizens, by arguments addressed to their understandings and consciences, that slaveholding is a heinous crime in the sight of God, and, that the duty, safety, and best interests of all concerned, require its immediate abandonment, without expatriation.

3. In a constitutional way to influence Congress to put an end to the domestic slave trade—and

4. To abolish slavery in all those portions of our common country which come under its control—especially in the District of Columbia; and lastly,

5. To prevent the extension of slavery to any State that might hereafter be admitted to the Union. . . .

It is not unworthy of remark, that whilst our fellow-citizens, generally, were to be ’addressed’—Congress were to be influenced. Not that members of Congress were not included in the words ’all our fellow citizens,’ to whom arguments were to be ’addressed;’ but, because certain of our fellow citizens were members of Congress, and possessed, in virtue thereof, extraordinary power, with them the society were to use additional means. They were ’also to endeavor, in a constitutional way, to influence Congress,’ &c, that is, by such considerations as are usually found to have a peculiar influence on men enjoying peculiar stations at the will of the people. They were to be asked to do, only what, in their public character, they were authorized to do—what it was right for them to do; if their action was not responsive to our petitions, they were to be influenced by the fear of incurring the displeasure of their constituents; consequently, of being removed from their places, that others might occupy them;—the only ’constitutional way’ of doing which was, by the use of the Elective Franchise.

This action on Congress has been called, by way of distinction, ’political.’ For several years after the organization of the American Society, our numbers were too few to attempt it. It was therefore, generally, deprecated as inexpedient. . . .

It is not recollected, that any amount of opposition worthy to be mentioned was made to political action as inculcated (according to the foregoing interpretation) in the constitution—in the Declaration of

Sentiments—in the State Societies’ constitutions—and in the Editorials of the Liberator till after political action was, in consequence of the increase of our numbers, decided upon. Within the last twelve or eighteen months, it is believed—after efforts, some successful, some not, had been begun to affect the elections—and whilst the most indefatigable exertions were being made by many of our influential, intelligent and liberal friends to convince the great body of the abolitionists of the necessity—the indispensable necessity—of breaking away from their old ’parties,’ and uniting together in the use of the elective franchise for the advancement of the cause of human freedom in which we were engaged;—at this very time, and mainly, too, in that part of the country where political action had been most successful, and whence, from its promise of soon being wholly triumphant, great encouragement was derived by abolitionists every where, a Sect has arisen in our midst, whose members regard it as of religious obligation, IN NO CASE, to exercise the elective franchise. This persuasion is part and parcel of the tenet which it is believed they have embraced,—that as Christians have the precepts of the Gospel to direct, and the Spirit of God to guide them, all Human Governments, as necessarily including the idea of force to secure obedience, are not only superfluous, but unlawful encroachments on the Divine government, as ascertained from the sources above mentioned. . . . In short, the ’No-Government’ doctrines, as they are believed now to be embraced, seem to strike at the root of the social structure; and tend—so far as I am able to judge of their tendency,—to throw society into entire confusion, and to renew, under the sanction of religion, scenes of anarchy and license that have generally heretofore been the offspring of the rankest infidelity mad irreligion.

It is but justice to say—judging from the moral deportment of the adherents of the ’No-Government’ scheme—that so far from admitting, what I have supposed to be, its legitimate consequences, they would wholly deny and repudiate them. . . .

. . . If . . . my interpretation of the constitution be correct, it would seem to be the most honorable, amicable, and respectful course for the No-Government men to move directly for an alteration of the constitution. To this, I think, no one would take exception.

But to this it may be replied—where is the necessity of a change of the constitution, when both the No-Government men and the Government men can act under it according to the dictates of their consciences respectively? But is this really so? Is the difference between those who seek to abolish any and every government of human institution, and those who prefer any government to a state of things in which every one may do what seemeth good in his own eyes—is the difference between them, I say, so small, that they can act harmoniously under the same organization? When in obedience to the principles of the society, I go to the polls, and there call on my neighbors to unite with me in electing to Congress, men who are in favor of Human Rights, I am met by a No-Government abolitionist inculcating on them the doctrine, that Congress have no rightful authority to act at all in the premises—how can we proceed together? When I am animating my fellow-citizens to aid me in infusing into the government salutary influences which shall put an end to all oppression—my No-Government brother cries out at the top of his lungs, all governments are of the Devil ( ! ) where is our harmony? Our efficiency? . . . One party is for sustaining and purifying governments, and bringing them to a perfect conformity with the principles of the Divine government—the other for destroying all government.

’But, although the No-Government Abolitionists refuse themselves to vote, they do not object to petitioning Congress.’—True—and so far so good. If this seem an absurdity to others, it may not to them. They may have some method of accommodating their principles to such a proceeding, of which others are ignorant. And even if there be a substantial inconsistency in refusing, from religious considerations, to have any hand in electing members of Congress—and afterward, when they are elected by others, using them as members of Congress, and only as such, it is nothing more than what often happens to good men who embrace absurd dogmas to which their practical humanity and common sense cannot be brought entirely to submit. . . .

’But would you trample on the conscientious scruples of the No-Government abolitionists, by requiring them to vote?’ By no means. There is no power to do so—nor would I if I could. But Right is to be respected as well as conscience—consciences are to be moulded by right, and not right by the consciences of men. If the Constitution of the American Society requires of those who subscribe to it, to use the elective franchise, for the abolition of slavery, and men join the Society knowing this, they are justly bound to vote. . . .

I am prompted to publish the foregoing remarks by no personal ill-will to any of those who are counted as teachers or disciples of the No-Government doctrines. I have no ground for ill-will. On the contrary, I know of nothing which would authorize me to say, speaking of them in the mass, that they intend any thing but good; whilst for several of them I cherish particular sentiments of regard. But it is high time that something was done to bring this subject directly before the great body of the abolitionists, in order that they may relieve their cause from an incubus that has so mightily oppressed it in some parts of the country during the last year. It is in vain to think of succeeding in emancipation without the co-operation of the great mass of the intelligent mind of the nation. This can be attracted, only by the reasonableness, the religion, of our enterprise. To multiply causes of repulsion is but to drive it from us, and ensure our own defeat—to consign the slave to perdurable chains—our country to imperishable disgrace.

(New York), May 2, 1839; reprinted in James G. Birney, (Boston, 1839), 3–13 passim.