|
Friend Spooner, I have recently written to Gerrit Smith about
supplying your work to the Lawyers of the State of N. York, not having received
any reply to two letters which I had written to Mr. Green. The following is Mr. Smith's answer to my
letter. "Peterboro, Mr. Bela Marsh. Dear Sir, I have your letter. Mr. Spooner's
Argument on the Unconstitutionality of Am. Slavery is admirable & far
surpasses every other on that subject. I
had intended to take an active part in supplying the Lawyers of this State with
it, But recent occurences have disinclined me to carry out this intention. The Lawyers in my own County will be supplied
with it – for, previous to those occurrences, I had agreed with Mr. Wm. P.
Green to furnish me the copies for this purpose. I wish that the lawyers of every County might
be supplied with it. Respectfully Yours,
Gerrit Smith." I cannot account for my never having received
a reply from Mr. Green, but as I thought you might like to see Mr. Smiths', I
forward it as above. Yours Respectfully, Bela Marsh Gerrit Smith, Esq. Sir, Last summer you drafted a resolution, which
was passed at one of your conventions, recommending abolitionists to furnish
the bar with copies of my argument on slavery.
Subsequently, Mr. Marsh, the publisher of the
argument, wrote you on the subject, as he told me. He sent me a copy of your answer. In it you say, "I had intended to take an
active part in supplying the lawyers of this state with it, (my argument); but
recent occurrences have disinclined me to carry out this intention." The recent occurrences have alluded to, are
the fact that I did not choose to work for you, and enlighten your ignorance
without pay. In January last Bradburn wrote me a letter,
and it it he gave an extract from one he had just received from you. In this extract, in speaking of your
discussion at From some accounts I have seen of your recent
speeches at It seems, therefore, that while you avow your
disinclination – and act upon the disinclination– to circulate my arguments, in
my own words, it is yet a matter "of course" with you to use them as
materials for a speech, whenever you attempt one of your public displays– I had expected of course, that men would feel
free to use my argument in speeches – but it had never before occurred to me
that any one was base enough to avow his disinclination to circulate my
arguments in my own words, and then use them as speeches for himself. It seems, however, there was one such person
– and he proves to be the same, who, while making the most ostentacious
displays of real or pretended philanthropy toward the poor, could yet ask a
poor man to work for him and enlighten his ignorance, and then refuse to pay
him. Since these things have been done, I am glad
they happened both to be done by the same individual– for it saves me the
necessity of recognizing any other person as capable of either. But this is not all. I now hear that you are to print your Albany
Speeches for circulation. You are
"disinclined" to circulate my arguments under my name, but you can print them,
put your own name upon them, and then circulate them, thus morally and I
presume legally, prating upon my copyright.
Of course, you add some ignorance and bombast of your own, to serve as
drapery, in the hope that you will thereby in some measure hide the fraud and
crime you are perpetrating. You are
embolden to do all this, no doubt, by my poverty. But for that you would never have thought of
such a thing. And it shows that ....
letter ends Gerrit Smith Esq. Sir, I see it stated that you are about to publish
your Albany Speeches. From some accounts
I have seen of them, and from other circumstances, I infer that you cannot
publish them, without infringing my copy right.
This is to warn you against any such infringement. (This paragraph crossed out: I may add that I
should suppose that one, who extolls my arguments as much as you have done, and
nevertheless avows his disinclination to circulate them in my own
words, would blush (if he were capable of blushing) at the thought of using
them, even as speeches, for himself – to say nothing of printing them under his
own name. The face of a man would
blister at such an act. Lysander
Spooner) One other thing. Last fall, Mr. Marsh, the publisher of my
argument, send me a copy of a letter he had received from you. In it you say, "I had intended to take an
active part in supplying the Lawyers of this State with it (my argument), but
recent occurrences have disinclined me to carry out this intention." In January Bradburn sent me an extract from a
letter he had received from you. In
January last Bradburn wrote me a letter, and it it he gave an extract from one
he had just received from you. In this
extract, in speaking of your discussion at It now appears that at It seems, therefore, that while you avow your
disinclination – and act upon the disinclination– to circulate my arguments, in
my own words, it is yet a matter "of course" with you to use them as
materials for a speech, whenever you attempt any of your public displays. The face of a man would blister at the
thought of such an act. Lysander Spooner. To Gerrit Smith, Not Sent, copy of a
part of it. See copy of a letter of
March 30- 1850 Last fall Mr. Marsh, the publisher of my
argument on Slavery, sent me a copy of a letter he had received from you. In it you say, "I had intended to take an
active part in supplying the lawyers of this state with it (my argument). But recent occirrences have disinclined me to
carry out this intention." The "recent occurrences" here alluded to, are
the fact that I did not choose to work for you, and enlighten your ignorance,
without pay. In January Bradburn wrote me a letter, and it
it he gave an extract from one he had just received from you. In this extract, in speaking of your
discussion at It seems, therefore, that while you avow your
disinclination – and act upon the disinclination– to give my arguments to the
bar, in my own words, it is yet a matter "of course" with you to
use them as materials for a speech, whenever you attempt one of your public
displays. From some accounts I have seen of your recent
speeches at Albany, it appears that there also you again, "availed yourself
greatly of Lysander Spooner's argument."
One would have thought that while thus
avowing and acting upon the disinclination to circulate my arguments in my own
words, so as to gie me the credit (if any) and the income which rightfully
belongs to me, your face would have blistered at the thought of using those
arguments in speeches of your own. That
your face did not blister is probably to be accounted for on the principle
that, although steel may blister, bras never does. You have however some apology for this
conduct. A man may do almost any thing
for his life. You would die if you could
not make speeches. Yet in order to make
speeches, that any one will listen to, it is indispensable that they be made up
mostly of other men's ideas In consideration therefore, and I may, say
also, in commiseration, of your necessities, in this regard, I am disposed, on
one condition, to give you a full dispensation from all obligations of justice
and delicacy towards me, and allow you full liberty to use my arguments in your
speeches, 'so long as your own self-respect, (if you can be supposed in such a
case to have any self-respect) shall permit you to use them. That condition is, that in using my
arguments, you shall never tell your audiences where you obtained them, or who
was the author of them. My reason for
affixing this condition, is, that your auditors, who might otherwise be
favorably impressed with the arguments, may not hold me responsible for all the
ignorance and bombast you mix up with them.
By bearing this condition in mind, in future,
you will greatly oblige one who once had some respect for you. Lysander Spooner Esq. Sir, I have your letter of the 30th
ultimo. I imply ___ that you should ___
____ by such a spirit toward me, toward one, who has, I suppose done more to __
you under your pecuniary _____ ___ them all after ___ put together. Your hatred of me is unnatural. It is true, that, whilst it
_____illegible.... for the circulation of your Book. Nevertheless, your hatred of me should be
greater than it is, I shall in little ways, continue to I – or less to promote
in order of your invaluable book in the Constitutionality of slavery. For instance, I shall continue to bring up in
the Antislavery meetings, which I attend, the great merits of your book, to
call on my __ to supply them, but___.
This I take special pains to do, wh Wm. __ __ (who sells your Bookls is
present). This I did in the Illegible.
Your friend Gerrit Smith. P.S. You think it strange that I can not go
forward in the work which I professed to myself last Summer. How can I with my knowledge of your worrying
______? I used ___ in the work of having
you employed by the N.Y. Vigilance Com. On their Journal. I thought it would bring you a few hundred
dollars & secure the services of an able lawyer. But what an __, cruel, & __ construction
you put upon this __ of mine! W__ in
your eye the offspring of ____ andmeanness, instead of generosity, is still as
__ by you . You are noe easilt suited sometimes I make
arguments without making any ___ ____ you have said. You are displeased. Ansd when I make
arguments, and ___ something that you have said, then you are displeased. Gerrit Smith, Esq. Sir, I have received a copy of what purports to be
"Gerrit Smith's Constitutional Argument."
I consider a large portion of it a flagrant violation of my copyright,
and I do not think that the requests of others that you would publish my
arguments under your own name, afford any justification for your doing so. This injustice to me is increased by the
loose, crude, and imperfect mode in which you have stated my argument – for
your readers will naturally infer from your declaration that you are indebted
to me for them, that I have stated them in the same careless manner as
yourself. Your readiness to spend your money to publish
my arguments under your own name, in plain violation of the moral law, and the
laws of the land, while you refuse to spend it to circulate them in my own words,
(lest I should thereby get some pay for writing them), is another example of
the honor and justice of which I have had some previous illustrations. You complain of the "scorn" I have expressed
at your conducts in refusing to pay me for the written opinion I furnished you
last summer. In answer I have to say
that while you make before the public so many apparently ostentatious displays
of either real or pretended charity towards the poor, and at the same time refuse
to pay a poor man for labor that he has done for you at your request, I think
you ought not to expect to escape the scorn of any man of common sense; who is
cognizant of such facts. Your conduct has been very base and
unprincipled. You first induce your
party, (I believe your followers called themselves a party), to put forth, in a
party manifesto, a long argument of your own in the Unconstitutionality of
Slavery – which argument they had never seen before, and of the merits of which
they knew nothing. You this induced them
virtually to declare to the public, that those were the grounds on which they
believed slavery unconstitutional – while you also induced them to keep
entirely silent (in the address) in rgeard to the argument, which you knew had
really convinced them– and which you still admit to be uncomparably superior to
every other. I complained of this an
injustice to me, tending to keep my argument out of circulation. It was also a fraud upon the public, and a
fraud upon the cause. Its injustice was
increased , in my estimation, by what I believed to be the unsoundness of your
argument. When I complained of this
injustice, you, instead of making an acknowledgment or apology for the wrong,
took advantage of the circumstances, and of my confidences in you, to obtain
for me an argument which you had long desired, but had never offered to pay
for. And when you had obtained it, you
refused to pay me for it. And this you
did when you knew I was so poor as to lack the common decencies and comforts of
life. To screen yourself from my reproaches for
this heartless, and shameful conduct, you have resorted to various
misrepresentations of me. Some of these
misrepresentations have been so palpable as to afford very strong evidence that
they were intentional – trumped up for no purpose but to divert attention from
your own indefensible conduct. They are
unworthy of notice, and I will not speak of them now. But there is one, which you seem to have
wrought yourself up to believe – and I therefore reply to it. 1.
Chaplin's letter said nothing about the Vigilance Committee– but it did
say that Mr. Smith wished to bring the suit. And your own declarations to me since, show
that the matter was one of your own, rather than of any committee. 2. I never said, to you or anybody else, that I
had any thought that you intended to wrong me in any way, as to the
compensation for my services in that suit (supposing the suit to have gone
on). But I will now say that I have
little or no doubt that you expected to get my services for a much less sum
than you would have expected to get the services of any other man whose
services you would have considered equally valuable. 3. In
my letter to you (which has been made the sole foundation of your complaint in
this point), I only spoke of Chaplin's request (on your behalf) that I should
go to Boston and of your neglect to send me the means of paying my expenses,
although you were aware of my extreme poverty.
I mentioned this as an example of your thoughtlessness, and only
of your thoughtlessness of what was due to me.
As one of those instances of thoughtlessness, (culpable, unless
explained), which had made it necessary for me to remind you that I could not
afford to work for a man of your wealth for nothing. I have never intimated, either to you
(as you pretend), or to anyone else, that you had any improper and deliberate design
in not sending me the money– I did not, as you put, imagine at the time that
you had any such design– although I felt wounded at such an evidence of
indifference towards me on the part of one who knew of my poverty, and had made
such professions of gratitude and friendship for what I had done. Quite possibly if I had known as much of you
then, as I do now, I should have considered your omission to send the money an
intentional one. Not that I think you
are avaricious of money for its own sake.
You love applause better than money.
And you are avaricious of money to buy applause with. And you care little where your money goes, so
only that it goes into the newspapers and brings you a fair whiff of that
stinking incense which ignorance and folly from under the nose of sham
philanthropy. Hence you will send
printed notices into every County in the state remarking of your intention to
give $30,000 for the purpose of removing poor people into the wilderness, while
at the same time you refuse to pay another poor man, for labor you have
requested him to do for you. Your pretenses that you have furnished me
money, as a personal favor to me, to assist me under my pecuriary embarrassments,"
is of a piece with the rest of your conduct.
The only pecuniary favor I ever asked of you, as a personal favor to
me, I asked on the groud that I had saved you a great deal of money in
postage. That favor was refused. But to save appearances you bestowed upon me
your actual quantity of fine words, told me how much other folks might
pay me for my labors, and added such a donation as you acknowledged yourself to
br under obligation in general principles, to make me for reducing the
postage. Of the other money ($150) which you have
furnished me, every dollar was advanced, professedly, for the purposes for
which it was asked, viz, to enable me to write books, which you (professing to
have at heart the same object s as myself) expressed your desire that I should
write. You furnished money, as I
furnished labor, for common objects. And
you have as much right to pretend that the money you have paid to support
Anti-Slavery lectures and Anti-Slavery newspapers was paid to hose lecturers,
and to the editors of those papers, as personal favors to them, "to
assist them under their pecuniary embarrassments," and that they are
consequently under obligation now to work for you forr nothing, as you have to
pretend the same in regard to me. I once felt sincerely and deeply grateful to
you for your assistance, when I supposed the assistance was rendered, not to
me, but through me to the cause, in which you professed to be heartily
engaged. But when yu show that you had
another, and a selfish object in view – that of bringing me under personal
obligation to you (and I suppose of ____ the ____ of your political support) –
I am disgusted at the meanness and hypocrisy of the act. But supposing even that, instead of
furnishing that money for the cause you had furnished it to me "to assist me
under my pecuniary embarrassments." You
furnished it in consideration of and with a special view to, the knowledge
which I was to give you and which I had given you, " , and you to assist you
under your "intellectual "embarrassments."
I gave you that knowledge, and you formerly professed yourself more than
paid. And I think you might have
remembered that payment in offset for your money. If your own repeated declarations are to be
believed, I have given you knowledge of a kind, which, above all other kinds,
you desired – and in quantity to your entire astonishment, knowledge which you
could not have purchased elsewhere with half of your fortune – knowledge, which
you would not part with today for a sum equal to half your fortune – knowledge,
which you are far more proud of than of any knowledge you profess – knowledge,
which saves you as the principal material for all your public displays, whether
in the village, or in the capitol – knowledge, which your ravenous appetite for
applause induces you to print (in violation of both my moral and legal rights)
under the title of "Gerrit Smith's Constitutional Argument." And yet, imprudent ingrate that you are, you
now claim that your $150, (given purportedly to the cause, and not to me) has
not only cancelled all of your indebtedness to me, but has also laid me under
obligations to enlighten your ignorance still further for nothing. To prove your "pure love and generosity"
towards me and your title to me "thanks", you speak of your intention at
one time to give me "a few hundred dollars" of managing a suit, and of your intention
another time to expend some five hundred dollars in distributing my books among
the bar of New York. I have only to
answer that I would much rather see you pay me for the opinion which I
furnished you at your request, than to take your word as to any of the great
deeds you had intended to do; provided I had not asked you to pay me for my
labor. To prove your disposition to promote the
circulation of my argument, you state that on three different occasions you
have recommended it to your audience– that you "occasionally purchase a few
copies for distribution" – that at one
time your purchased $4.25 cents worth, and at another time you "sent to a
lawyer five dollars" for the same purpose.
I have never said, and I expect never to be
able to say, anything so contemptuous of your faithlessness and treachery to
the Anti-Slavery cause, as are these statements of your own, when compared with
your other acts and sayings. You have
publicly described my argument as the most meritorious "law argument ever
written, either in this age, or in any former age – either on this side, or the
other side of the One would have once thought that if there
were any sincerity in man, you might be relied on to do something substantial
for the abolition of slavery, provided one argument could be produced that
would induce that abolition – that you could hardly have slept until that
argument were in the hands of every lawyer in the country. Yet now when you admit that you have got such
an argument, you are impressed with the paramount importance of sending a few
free persons into the woods– and to accomplish this latter purpose you will
squander two or three times as much money as would have been necessary to
secure the speedy emancipation of three millions of people from bondage. No man of any standing in the Anti-slavery
ranks has ever branded the proof of his hypocrisy so deeply into his own forehead,
as yourself. You give your bombastic and
hollow professions to the slave – you give your money to the whites (for the
whites have votes, while the slaves have none – to keep your hold on the
confidence of the Abolitionists, (blind men that they are for having any
confidence in you,) you reproach every body almost in the country for not being
abolitionists. Yet at the same time you
say, in practice, that it is more important to send a thousand white families
into the woods than ti give freedom to three millions of people and their
posterity. Heaven pity the man to whom
it has given neither head nor heart enough to save him from perpetrating such
enormities in the face of mankind. There is no wonder that such a man can refuse
to pay me for my labor, violate my copyright, and thus filch from me the
pittance on which I live. Let him go on
doing so – these are small matters in the comparison, and I hope not to have to
waste any more words with him in regard to them. Lysander Spooner I have not forgotten that just before this
time, when you say you had, that from your love and generosity towards me, the
intention of giving me, mostly out of your own pocket, "a few hundred dollars"
for managing a suit, you had refused to loan me money , on the security
of my copyright, "a few hundred dollars" to enable me to complete my argument
in favor of three millions of men within our own country. You will not be surprised, therefore, if I am
very skeptical as to your ever having had any serious intention of giving me "a
few hundred dollars" for any argument in behalf of a few persons on the high
seas. Messrs. Gerrit Smith, Lewis Tappan, William
Goodell and others, Gentlemen, I have received a copy of your circular,
requesting the liberty to append my name to a call for a convention to nominate
"thorough abolition candidates" for President and Vice President. If I were going to vote for any candidates, I
should certainly wish them to be "thorough abolitionist candidates." But in as much as I know of no one, who
agrees with me as to the essential requisites of an honest government, or, at
least, would (if he could) act according to those requisites, under our
existing constitutions, I cannot consistently aid in nominating any candidates
whatever, however they may agree with me on the subject of slavery. As I believe my reasons for not acting with
the A system of government must be honest
throughout, (and not merely on a few, or even on many points) to be entitled to
the support of honest men. I think out
constitution is a thousand times better – not only in its relation to slavery,
but in relation to most other things – than it is generally understood to
be. But I do not think it perfect – ot
such as honest men who know its true character throughout, can consistently
support. Nevertheless, I feel at liberty – standing
outside of the constitution – and knowing that government of some kind will be
carried on in the name of the constitution – to interpret the constitution, on
those points wherein it is right, and then appeal to those, who profess to
be governed by it, to act up to their own standard. I do this on the same principle that,
standing outside the Mohammedan religion, I should feel at liberty to interpret
the Koran, and appeal to believers to act up to their own creed, wherein it was
right. It is on this ground that I write
about the constitution, and not because I ever intend to take any part directly
or indirectly in administering it. I think no robbery is more flagrant or
palpable – nor hardly any more unjustifiable – than taxing men for the support
of government, without their personal consent. I have given the reasons for this somewhat at
length in the appendix to my "Trial by Jury."
Such taxation is not only robbery in itseld, but it supplies the means
for, and is the legitimate parent of, nearly all the other tyranny, which
governments practice. You will see
therefore that it is impossible for me to support any government that acts on
that principle, or to act with any party that adopts it. Yours Respectfully, Lysander Spooner Gerrit Smith Esq. Dear Sir, I send the forgoing letter to you, instead of
Mr. Goodell, because I wish you to understand the reason I do not act with the
Liberty Party; and I am afraid if the letter were sent first to him, it might
not come under your eye. Please
forwardit to him, if you think proper. Yours truly, Lysander Spooner. Gerrit Smith, Esq. Dear Sir, Yours of the 29th ult, was recd
two days ago – I have been so much engaged on mt Williamson argument that I
could not stop to think of any thing else, and that is the reason I have not
answered you sooner. The draft you send me for $50, and the $100,
which I presume Mr. Tappan will appropriate agreeably to your request, will pay
for 300 copies of the book. I am very anxious these 300 copies should go
into such hands as will read them, and make the most of them for the
cause. If nothing should be heard from
them, after they are distributed, Mr. Tappan and Mr. Goodell would be confirmed
in their fear that lawyers will not read them.
If, on the other hand, the copies should be heard from, those gentlemen
will have faith to distribute more. There will be great agitation of the slavery
question in congress this winter. If I
felt sure that the members of congress would read the book, I should think it
best that these 300 copies be sent to them, in the hope of provoking a
discussion of the constitutional question in congress, and thus exciting an
interest outside, which would induce lawyers to read the book. I suppose members of congress are too busy to
read much– and many of them, if this book were sent to them, would, very
likely, throw it aside unread. You know
better than I what reception it would meet with. If you think it would get read, I would like
your opinion whether the whole 300 had better no be sent there. Would not the southern members read it? And if they should, would they not put the
question to the northern members, whether they adopted its sentiments? Whether
any considerable number of the northern people adopted them? And other such like questions, as would make
it necessary for the northern members to post themselves upon the whole
subject? If we could but once get an
agitation out of the constitutional question in congress, the whole country
would be aroused by it, and could never after be put to rest in regard to
it. If a determined effort were made to provoke a
discussion in congress, I think it might possibly succeed. Petitions, praying congress to establish
courts throughout the southern states, ofor the liberation of the slaves, on
habeas corpus and petitions for arming and disciplining the slaves as militia,
would help to provoke such as discussion.
Mr. Tappan I suppose is the proper man to undertake the business of
getting those petitions. I think I will
suggest it to him, bur such a suggestion from you, if you approve it, will be
more likely to command his attention. But if you think no effort can possibly
succeed in getting up a discussion in congress, these 300 copies had perhaps
better be distributed elsewhere. I have not read Mr. Seward's late speech at I wished to say more, but have a severe
neualgia in me head, which unfits me for saying any thing. Yours Respectfully. Lysander Spooner I have not yet found time to look over the
letters you returned to me. I will do
it, and make a proper disposal of them. Lysander Spooner Esq. D Sir, I have yours of 2d inst. I am happy to learn by it that you are
writing an Argument __ the Williamson Co.
Could I be sure that over 50 of the 300
copies would be used, I would be in favor of the whole 300 being sent to
Congress. But Congress is made up, in
the main, of ____ & ___ your seek to learn not what is truth – but what
will serve their ___ selfish interest. Were there half a __ speaking member of
Congress to take the ground that the Constn is antislavery, a hundred members
of Congress would be prompted to read your Book. I am told that Genl Granger(?) Of I like much your suggestions for putting
Congress infavor f establishing Courts for liberating the slave on Habeus
Corpus. SO too so I like the idea of ___
on the subject of the Militia. But I
would have that a Petition against excluding __ for the Militia. I would have that a ___ to answer against the
frequent unjust disarmitation. Many,
like myself, not believe in the right of Congress in ___ of war. They would unpetition for any militia. But they would gradly sign a petition of the
character I have indicated. I seize upon your suggestion & sent this
day to Gov Seward a copy of your Bookl.
I accompany it with a letter-- and a letter, I hope, will induce him to
read it. ____ Louis Tappan. In all execution matters he is a very wise
man. Respectfully yours, Gerrit Smith Lysander Spooner My D Sir, Would enjoin you to learn that I have got
said Widninor? Himself taken up the __ orientation. Later arguments in favor of its abolition
powers. I send you his letter and last w___
. Please return it to me after reading
it. I send you also a copy of my hasty
reply to him. I have so much to doi have
to d everything very hastily. It is only
a wonder that I fell into no more g__l thunder.
Where is our friend Geo Bradburn? Is he sick still? Res'ly yours, Gerrit Smith My dear Sir. I am very glad you sent to me your letter to
Goodell, Tappan & myself – for had you sent it to them, they might have
printed it. I hope you will be willing
not to have it printed. Your published
disgust(?) Would hurt us. You are our
own ___ highest authority in interpreting the Constitution & __ cannot
afford to have you openly ____ against us.
On one point you have ___ us. This ____ to more is are point. I ..... (illegible) has nothing at all to do
with the Liberty Party. That Party will
continue to do, as it has done, meet yearly for the purpose of ___ the
emancipation of its views of civil government & of giving tangible
formality of making a nomination, that will __ two or three thousand votes. But if the party, if any, to induce your view
of taxation in the Appendix to your Jury Trial book – for it the party cared nothing about being
popular or unpopular – it cares only to be right, and it is fearless in that
____ as you are. I should like to spend an huor with you on
this subject – of taxation. I am very
___ in my ___ of __ and __ – but you are still more son. I will send the letters to Goodell &
Tappan if you say so, but I hope you will let me keep it. I have no idea where we shall nominate for
President. I am not un___, that he be a
very able man– he msut be a thorough abolitionist, & an thoroughly honest
& ____ man. I shall rejoice if we
can give him two or three thousand votes.
Truly yours, Gerrit Smith Lysander Spooner Esq (turn over) P.S. I do not regard myself as acting under
the Constitution so much as it ___ of my natural sight to participate with my
neighbos in choosing civil under the common party__ of our freedom and
property. I would continue to vote
however admissible I might care to see the Constitution to be. However, I would say that Garrison &
Phillips should vote, notwithstanding their ____ views& at you & I so
should I do so. Copy Hon. D Wilmot, My dear Sir, I am in receipt of your calm, clean &
well-argued letter. Seldom have I
received a letter, which has interested me so much. For many years have I been laboring to induce
out ablest lawyers to study the Constitution with refernce to slavery. Until within the last year only a very few of
them have been willing to do so. But now
this reluctance is beginning to give way.
I rejoice, that you are beginning to give
your mind to this subject: and I am free to say, that I believe the day is not
distant, where we shall be allowed to include your among the rapidly growing
number, who hold not only that the Constitution shows no favor to slavery, but
that there can be no law for slavery.
Already your name stands in immortal connexion with a great measure for
Freedom. But infinitely more useful will
be its connexion with the doctrine, that slavery is at all times & in all
countries essentially & necessarily are outlaw. I hold that the Constitution is full of power
to abolish slavery. I hold, moreover,
that, if there were no Constitution, we, the people of this I send you by this mail a couple of copies of
my Speech in Congress on the Nebraska Bill.
Among all my arguments to show, that slavery is unconstitutional &
impossible of legalization, this is the best.
I send you also a copy of Spooner's book on the Unconstitutionality of
Slavery, which, I regard, as by far the ablest argument on that subject. I feel sure that you with your legal and
logical mind, cannot end up from the reading of Spooner's book unconvinced,
that slavery finds no shelter in the Constitution. You wish to know my authority for what I say
in the 7th Paragraph of my letter to Gov. Chase. It is to be found in the 3d Volume of the
Madison Papers page 1569 - Very happy should I be to continue our
correspondence – not only for the purpose of trying to impart light to you, but
quite as much for the purpose of receiving light from you. I agree with you in your high opinions of the
Republican party. It is full of noble
men with noble aims. But neither that
party nor any other of a merely negative policy, can make any headway against
so positive, so mighty, so aggressive a thing as slavery. Let that party, at its approaching
convention, deny all rights to slavery & declare it to be an outlaw.&
slavery will quickly fall before it. With great regard, your friend, Gerrit Smith Lysander Spooner Esq. My D Sir, On my return from I find an opp____ "private" letter from
Chase. I reply to him that I will join
the Repl. Party, if it will __ the ___, the the President himself nominate to
the Bench no man, who labors __ slavery to the law, I will also ___ the ground
that such __ belief is an impeachable offence.
I was glad to find in __ that a copy of your
never-to-be answered argument had been sent to every member of Congress. I found the abolitionsts in the City
determined to stand by their principles, & ready to call a Convention to
nominate abolition candidates for President and Vice-President. Your friend, Gerrit Smith P.S.
Among the hundred letters which have accumulated in my ten days away,
one from AP Georgia Member of Congress.
His Home is Gerrit Smith Esq, Dear Sir, I am obliged to you for a copy of your letter
to Chase. It ought to make him and
Sumner feel. But will it? I think not.
I have no confidence in either of them.
I think they have neither the courage nor the integrity to do any thing
but hold back the North from doing any thing against slavery. I do not know whether you have ever seen my
"Trial by Jury," published in 1852. I
send you a copy. Yours respectfully, L. Spooner [TYPED] SIR: You have, doubtless, read the proceedings of
the late Pitssburg Convention, and are entirely convinced that the Republican
party, although earnestly and honestly opposed to the extension of
Slavery, is nevertheless, not to abolish it. Our work of abolishing Slavery is, under God,
to be done by ourselves. A call has been written for a Mass-Convention
at GERRIT SMITH, JAMES
McCUBE SMITH, LEWIS TAPPAN, M.B.
WILLIAMS, WILLIAM GOODELL, FREDERICK DOUGLAS, S.S. JOCELYN, J.R.
BARBOUR, W.E. WHITING, H.D.
SHARPE Gerrit Smith, Esq. Dear Sir, I see that the annual meeting of Am.Abolition
Society is to be held at Syracuse the last day of this month, and I suppose
plans for future operations will then be adopted. I therefore take the liberty of asking your attention
to the project of giving my argument to the lawyers throughout the
country. I dislike to speak of this
subject myself, lest it should have the appearance of egotism– but as I believe
your society universally concede the argument to be conclusive and best all
their political movements upon that hypothesis, I know not why I should shrink
from urging them to take the only step that seems to me likely ever to bring
the question really before the nation for decision. There are in the nation some 30,000
lawyers. A volume called the "Lawyers
Directory" containing their names and residences is published annually, I
believe, and can be bought for one or two dollars. These 30,000 men will be more ready to read
the argument than any other body of men of an equal number in the country. They feel more competent, and are more
competent, to decide upon its truth, or to detect any errors in it, than any
other body of men. If they should read
it, and be convinced, their opinions will stand for the opinions of the country
and all Congresses, Courts and legislatures will have to conform to their
opinions. But so long as this body of
men remain of their present opinions to it, so long the mind of the nation, as
a nation, will remain wholly uncharged on the question – this result is the
very nature of things inevitable yet this clap of men are the very last ones
whom abolitionists seem to wish to convey.
The idea of givin |