|
Dear Bradburn, I had hoped to be able, before this, to
send you a copy of my book. It will not be out until next week. I may be able
to send you the unbound sheets the last of this week. It will probably be on
sale at the I presume there will be great division in
the convention. 1st in regard to postponing the nomination, 2, in
regard to the Liberty League. Let me suggest that you forestall
discussion on both those points by presenting, at the outset, resolutions
somewhat like these. Resolved. That this convention will
nominate no candidates, who do not avow the opinion that all slavery in this
country is unconstitutional. Resolved. That this convention will
nominate no candidates who do not avow the opinions that it is within the
constitutional power, and is the constitutional duty, of Congress to establish
courts throughout the slaveholding states, and to take all other measures
necessary for liberating the slaves on habeas corpus. It seems to me it would be an infamous
violation of principles, and a most stupid piece of policy[?], for the party to
nominate men, who believe slavery constitutional, and believing it
constitutional, will yet swear to support the constitution. It was this that
killed Birney, I think—and I think that politically it ought to kill any
man—although I presume those who do it, reconcile their consciences to it in
some manner. But it must be by a process, the correctness of which is invisible
to the world at large. There is no necessity for nominating such
men—for there are enough, who believe slavery unconstitutional. Gerrit Smith
says that if he should be elected, he should “construe the constitution as a
deadly hostility to slavery,” as I recollect his words. Fesserden [?] told me,
as long ago as Jerry’s[?] funeral, that “he did not believe my argument could
be refuted.” Lewis I understand believes my argument. Leavitt thinks that Hale has probably
either never examined the question, or does not agree to my argument. Chase, of
course, is not convinced. I hope however that the “second part” will convince
him. If Hale and Chase were to take true ground on the constitution, they would
perhaps be the most available candidates—although I have some doubts about it.
But it would be suicide for the party to put up candidates, who, during the
canvass, will be asserting that slavery is constitutional. The constitutional
question, I trust, will be agitated more this winter than it has been,
and yet, if the candidates hold the old doctrine, the ______ of the party, at
the very time when they should speak out loudest, will all be gagged by the
position of their candidates. I think rather than submit to any such gag, all
the papers, that hold slavery unconstitutional, will be bound to desert their
candidates, and go for Gerrit Smith. If the nomination should be postponed, as I
suppose it probably will be, would it not be very important to establish, or
attempt to establish, at this convention, the test before named, that no
one shall be nominated in the spring, who does not hold slavery
unconstitutional? Such a test will compel discussion during this winter, and in
the spring you will know who are with you, and who are not. If you do not
establish this test now, I do not see but you will wrangle as much in the
spring as now. The fact is, those who believe slavery unconstitutional ought to
separate from those who do not, and these latter should join the conscience
Whigs and Independent Democrats. As long as a part believe slavery
constitutional, and another part believe it unconstitutional, they have no right
to vote for the same candidates. It is a palpable violation of principle on the
part of one or the other, and the sooner they separate the better. Besides,
anti-slavery men have no right to call themselves a constitutional party,
unless they hold slavery unconstitutional—for a constitutional party, of but
one idea, and that idea an unconstitutional one, is an absurdity, a
contradiction, and deserves only to be despised and detested for its
inconsistency and insincerity. Such a party is necessarily traitorous either to
the constitution, or to freedom. It cannot serve two antagonist masters, and
has no right to pretend that it will. But enough of this. Let me know how you like my book. I am not
satisfied with its literary execution. I fear it is verbose, obscure, and has
some repetitions that might have been avoided. If I could have had more time, I
could have improved it, but the demands of the cause, and the emptiness of my
pocket, compelled me to publish now. I have said in it hardly half what I
wished to say. If I can get any thing to eat, I intend to commence another book
at once. I want to close up the subject now that I am about it. Hildreth and wife well—Dr. Hoyt and family
well at last accounts—also Mrs. Sargeant. Yours truly, L. Spooner I send you a copy of
the appendix to my book— |