



Produced by Julia Miller, Josephine Paolucci and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)







SPEECHES, ADDRESSES,

AND

OCCASIONAL SERMONS,

BY

THEODORE PARKER,

MINISTER OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN BOSTON.

IN THREE VOLUMES.

VOL. III.

BOSTON:
HORACE B. FULLER,

(SUCCESSOR TO WALKER, FULLER, AND COMPANY,)

245, WASHINGTON STREET.

1867.


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by
THEODORE PARKER,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court
of the District of Massachusetts.




CONTENTS OF VOLUME III.


I.

A SPEECH AT A MEETING OF THE CITIZENS OF BOSTON
IN FANEUIL HALL, MARCH 25, 1850, TO CONSIDER THE
SPEECH OF MR. WEBSTER                                 PAGE 1

II.

A SPEECH AT THE NEW ENGLAND ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION
IN BOSTON, MAY 29, 1850                                   38

III.

A DISCOURSE OCCASIONED BY THE DEATH OF THE LATE
PRESIDENT TAYLOR.--Preached at the Melodeon, on
Sunday, July 14, 1850                                     87

IV.

THE FUNCTION AND PLACE OF CONSCIENCE, IN RELATION
TO THE LAWS OF MEN; A SERMON FOR THE
TIMES.--Preached at the Melodeon, on Sunday, September
22, 1850                                                 131

V.

THE STATE OF THE NATION, CONSIDERED IN A SERMON
FOR THANKSGIVING DAY.--Preached at the Melodeon,
November 28, 1850                                        180

VI.

THE CHIEF SINS OF THE PEOPLE.--A Sermon delivered
at the Melodeon, on Fast Day, April 10, 1851             230

VII.

THE THREE CHIEF SAFEGUARDS OF SOCIETY, CONSIDERED
IN A SERMON AT THE MELODEON, on Sunday,
July 6, 1851                                             292

VIII.

THE POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR.--An
Address delivered at Waterville, August 8, 1849          346




I.

SPEECH AT A MEETING OF THE CITIZENS OF BOSTON, IN FANEUIL HALL, MARCH
25, 1850, TO CONSIDER THE SPEECH OF MR. WEBSTER.


Mr. President and Fellow Citizens: It is an important occasion which has
brought us together. A great crisis has occurred in the affairs of the
United States. There is a great question now before the people. In any
European country west of Russia and east of Spain, it would produce a
revolution, and be settled with gunpowder. It narrowly concerns the
material welfare of the nation. The decision that is made will help
millions of human beings into life, or will hinder and prevent millions
from being born. It will help or hinder the advance of the nation in
wealth for a long time to come. It is a question which involves the
honor of the people. Your honor and my honor are concerned in this
matter, which is presently to be passed upon by the people of the
United States. More than all this, it concerns the morality of the
people. We are presently to do a right deed, or to inflict a great wrong
on others and on ourselves, and thereby entail an evil upon this
continent which will blight and curse it for many an age.

It is a great question, comprising many smaller ones:--Shall we extend
and foster Slavery, or shall we extend and foster Freedom? Slavery, with
its consequences, material, political, intellectual, moral; or Freedom,
with the consequences thereof?

A question so important seldom comes to be decided before any generation
of men. This age is full of great questions, but this of Freedom is the
chief. It is the same question which in other forms comes up in Europe.
This is presently to be decided here in the United States by the
servants of the people, I mean, by the Congress of the nation; in the
name of the people; for the people, if justly decided; against them, if
unjustly. If it were to be left to-morrow to the naked votes of the
majority, I should have no fear. But the public servants of the people
may decide otherwise. The political parties, as such, are not to pass
judgment. It is not a question between whigs and democrats; old party
distinctions, once so sacred and rigidly observed, here vanish out of
sight. The party of Slavery or the party of Freedom is to swallow up all
the other parties. Questions about tariffs and banks can hardly get a
hearing. On the approach of a battle, men do not talk of the weather.

Four great men in the Senate of the United States have given us their
decision; the four most eminent in the party politics of the nation--two
great whigs, two great democrats. The Shibboleth of their party is
forgotten by each; there is a strange unanimity in their decision. The
Herod of free trade and the Pilate of protection are "made friends,"
when freedom is to be crucified. All four decide adverse to freedom; in
favor of slavery; against the people. Their decisions are such as you
might look for in the politicians of Austria and Russia. Many smaller
ones have spoken on this side or on that. Last of all, but greatest, the
most illustrious of the four, so far as great gifts of the understanding
are concerned, a son of New England, long known, and often and
deservedly honored, has given his decision. We waited long for his
words; we held our peace in his silence; we listened for his counsel.
Here it is; adverse to freedom beyond the fears of his friends, and the
hopes even of his foes. He has done wrong things before, cowardly things
more than once; but this, the wrongest and most cowardly of them all: we
did not look for it. No great man in America has had his faults or his
failings so leniently dealt with; private scandal we will not credit,
public shame we have tried to excuse, or, if inexcusable, to forget. We
have all of us been proud to go forward and honor his noble deeds, his
noble efforts, even his noble words. I wish we could take a mantle big
and black enough, and go backward and cover up the shame of the great
man who has fallen in the midst of us, and hide him till his honor and
his conscience shall return. But no, it cannot be; his deed is done in
the face of the world, and nothing can hide it.

We have come together to-night in Faneuil Hall, to talk the matter over,
in our New England way; to look each other in the face; to say a few
words of warning, a few of counsel, perhaps something which may serve
for guidance. We are not met here to-night to "calculate the value of
the Union," but to calculate the worth of freedom and the rights of man;
to calculate the value of the Wilmot Proviso. Let us be cool and
careful, not violent, not rash; true and firm, not hasty or timid.

Important matters have brought our fathers here many times before now.
Before the Revolution, they came here to talk about the Molasses Act, or
the Sugar Act, or the Stamp Act, the Boston Port Bill, and the long list
of grievances which stirred up their manly stomachs to the Revolution;
afterwards, they met to consult about the Embargo, and the seizure of
the Chesapeake, and many other matters. Not long ago, only five years
since, we came here to protest against the annexation of Texas. But
before the Revolution or after it, meetings have seldom been called in
Faneuil Hall on such solemn occasions as this. Not only is there a great
public wrong contemplated, as in the annexation of Texas, but the
character and conduct of a great public servant of the people come up to
be looked after. This present conduct of Mr. Webster is a thing to be
solemnly considered. A similar thing once happened before. In 1807, a
senator from Massachusetts was disposed to accept a measure the
President had advised, because he had "recommended" it "on his high
responsibility." "I would _not consider_," said the senator, "I would
_not deliberate_, I would _act_."[1] He did so; and with little
deliberation, with small counsel, as men thought at the time, he voted
for the Embargo, and the Embargo came. This was a measure which doomed
eight hundred thousand tons of shipping to rot at the wharf. It touched
the pockets of New England and all the North. It affected the daily
meals of millions of men. There was indignation, deep and loud
indignation; but it was political in its nature and personal in its
form; the obnoxious measure was purely political, not obviously immoral
and unjust. But, long as John Quincy Adams lived, much as he did in his
latter years for mankind, he never wholly wiped off the stain which his
conduct then brought upon him. Yet it may be that he was honest in his
vote; it may have been an error of judgment, and nothing more; nay,
there are men who think it was no error at all, but a piece of political
wisdom.

A senator of Massachusetts has now committed a fault far greater than
was ever charged upon Mr. Adams by his most inveterate political foes.
It does not directly affect the shipping of New England and the North: I
wish it did. It does not immediately concern our daily bread; if it were
so, the contemplated wrong would receive a speedy adjustment. But it
concerns the liberty of millions of men yet unborn.

Let us look at the matter carefully.

Here is a profile of our national action on the subject now before the
people.

In 1774, we agreed to import no more slaves after that year, and never
finally repealed this act of agreement.

In 1776, we declared that all men are created equal, and endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In 1778, we formed the Confederacy, with no provision for the surrender
of fugitive slaves.

In 1787, we shut out slavery from the Northwest Territory for ever, by
the celebrated proviso of Mr. Jefferson.

In 1788, the Constitution was formed, with its compromises and
guarantees.

In 1808, the importation of slaves was forbidden. But,

In 1803, we annexed Louisiana, and slavery along with it.

In 1819, we annexed Florida, with more slavery.

In 1820, we legally established slavery in the territory west of the
Mississippi, south of 36 deg. 30 min.

In 1845, we annexed Texas, with three hundred and twenty-five thousand
five hundred and twenty square miles, as a slave State.

In 1848, we acquired, by conquest and by treaty, the vast territory of
California and New Mexico, containing five hundred and twenty-six
thousand and seventy-eight square miles. Of this, two hundred and four
thousand three hundred and eighty-three square miles are south of the
slave line--south of 36 deg. 30 min. Here is territory enough to make
more than thirty slave States of the size of Massachusetts.

At the present day, it is proposed to have some further action on the
matter of slavery. Connected with this subject, four great questions
come up to be decided:--

1. Shall four new slave States at any time be made out of Texas? This is
not a question which is to be decided at present, yet it is one of great
present importance, and furnishes an excellent test of the moral
character and political conduct of politicians at this moment. The
other questions are of immediate and pressing concern. Here they are:--

2. Shall Slavery be prohibited in California?

3. Shall Slavery be prohibited in New Mexico?

4. What laws shall be passed relative to fugitive slaves?

Mr. Webster, in this speech, defines his position in regard to each of
these four questions.

1. In regard to the new States to be made hereafter out of Texas, he
gives us his opinion, in language well studied, and even with an excess
of caution. Let us look at it, and the resolution which annexed Texas.
That declares that "new States... not exceeding four in number, in
addition to said State of Texas... may hereafter, by the consent of
said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be
entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
And such States... shall be admitted with or without slavery, as the
people of each State asking admission may desire."

I will not stop to consider the constitutionality of the joint
resolution which annexed Texas. Mr. Webster's opinion on that subject is
well known. But the resolution does two things: 1. It confers a power,
the power to make four new States on certain conditions; a qualified
power, restricted by the terms of the act. 2d. It imposes an
obligation, namely, the obligation to leave it to the people of the new
State to keep slaves or not, when the State is admitted. The words _may
be_, etc., indicate the conferring of a power: the words _shall be_,
etc., the imposing of an obligation. But as the power is a qualified
power, so is the obligation a qualified obligation; the _shall be_ is
dependent on the _may be_, as much as the _may be_ on the _shall_.
Admitting in argument what Mr. Webster has denied, that Congress had the
constitutional right to annex Texas by joint resolution, and also that
the resolution of one Congress binds the future Congress, it is plain
Congress may admit new States from Texas, on those conditions, or refuse
to admit them. This is plain, by any fair construction of the language.
The resolution does not say, they _shall_ be formed, only "_may_ be
formed," and "shall be entitled to admission, under the provisions of
the Federal Constitution"--not in spite of those provisions. The
provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the formation and
admission of new States, are well known, and sufficiently clear.
Congress is no more bound to admit a new slave State formed out of
Texas, than out of Kentucky. But Mr. Webster seems to say that Congress
is bound to make four new States out of Texas, when there is sufficient
population to warrant the measure, and a desire for it in the States
themselves, and to admit them with a Constitution allowing slavery. He
says, "Its guaranty is, that new States shall be made out of it,... and
that such States... may come in as slave States," etc. Quite the
contrary. It is only said they "_may be_ formed," and admitted "under
the provisions of the Constitution." The _shall be_ does not relate to
the fact of admission.

Then he says, there is "a solemn pledge," "that if she shall be divided
into States, those States may come in as slave States." But there is no
"solemn pledge" that they _shall come_ in at all. I make a "solemn
pledge" to John Doe, that if ever I give him any land, it shall be a
thousand acres in the meadows on Connecticut River; but it does not
follow from this that I am bound to give John Doe any land at all. This
solemn pledge is worth nothing, if Congress says to new States, You
shall not come in with your slave Constitution. To make this
"stipulation with Texas" binding, it ought to have provided that "new
States... shall be formed out of the territory thereof... such States
shall be entitled to admission, in spite of the provisions of the
Constitution." Even then it would be of no value; for as there can be no
moral obligation to do an immoral deed, so there can be no
constitutional obligation to do an unconstitutional deed. So much for
the first question. You see that Mr. Webster proposes to do what we
never stipulated to do, what is not "so nominated in the bond." He
wrests the resolution against freedom, and for the furtherance of the
slave power!

2 and 3. Mr. Webster has given his answer to the second and third
questions, which may be considered as a single question, Shall slavery
be legally forbidden by Congress in California and New Mexico? Mr.
Webster is opposed to the prohibition by Congress. Here are his words:
"Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded
from those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and
sanctions it in Texas. I mean the law of nature, of physical geography,
the law of the formation of the earth."... "I will say further, that if
a resolution or a law were now before us to provide a territorial
government for New Mexico, I would not vote to put any prohibition into
it whatever. The use of such a prohibition would be idle, as it respects
any effect it would have upon the territory: and I would not take pains
to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor to reenact the will of God."
"The gentlemen who belong to the Southern States would think it a taunt,
an indignity; they would think it an act taking away from them what they
regard as a proper equality of privilege"... "a plain theoretic wrong,"
"more or less derogatory to their character and their rights."

"African slavery," he tells us, "cannot exist there." It could once
exist in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Very little of this territory
lies north of Mason and Dixon's line, the northern limit of Maryland;
none above the parallel of forty-two degrees; none of it extends fifty
miles above the northern limit of Virginia; two hundred and four
thousand three hundred and fifty-three square miles of it lie south of
the line of the Missouri Compromise, south of 36 deg. 30'. Almost all of it
is in the latitude of Virginia and the Carolinas. If slavery can exist
on the west coast of the Atlantic, I see not why it cannot on the east
of the Pacific, and all the way between. There is no reason why it
cannot. It will, unless we forbid it by positive laws, laws which no man
can misunderstand. Why, in 1787, it was thought necessary to forbid
slavery in the Northwest Territory, which extends from the Ohio River to
the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude.

Not exclude slavery from California and New Mexico, because it can never
exist there! Why, it was there once, and Mexico abolished it by positive
law. Abolished, did I say! We are not so sure of that; I mean, not sure
that the Senate of the United States is sure of it. Not a month before
Mr. Webster made this very speech, on the 13th and 14th of last
February, Mr. Davis, the Senator from Mississippi, maintained that
slavery is not abolished in California and New Mexico. He denies that
the acts abolishing slavery in Mexico were made by competent powers;
denies that they have the force of law. But even if they have, he tells
us, "Suppose it be conceded that by law it was abolished--could that law
be perpetual? Could it extend to the territory after it became the
property of the United States? Did we admit territory from Mexico,
subject to the Constitution and laws of Mexico? Did we pay fifteen
million dollars for jurisdiction over California and New Mexico, that it
might be held subordinate to the laws of Mexico?" The Commissioners of
Mexico, he tells us, did not think that "we were to be bound by the
edicts and statutes of Mexico." They pressed this point in the
negotiation, "the continuation of their law for the exclusion of
slavery;" and Mr. Trist told them he could not make a treaty on that
condition; if they would "offer him the land covered a foot thick with
pure gold, upon the single condition that slavery should be excluded
therefrom, I could not entertain the offer for a moment." Does not Mr.
Webster know this? He knows it too well.

But Mr. Davis goes further. He does not think slavery is excluded by
legislation stronger than a joint resolution. This is his language: "I
believe it is essential, on account of the climate, productions, soil,
and the peculiar character of cultivation, that we shall, during its
first settlement, have that slavery [African slavery] in a part, at
least, of California and New Mexico." Now on questions of "A law of
nature and physical geography," the Senator from Mississippi is as good
authority as the Senator from Massachusetts, and a good deal nearer to
the facts of the case.

In the House of Representatives, Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina,
amongst others, wants New Mexico for slave soil. Pass the Wilmot Proviso
over this territory, and the question is settled, disposed of for ever.
Omit to pass it, and slavery will go there, and you may get it out if
you can. Once there, it will be said that the "Compromises of the
Constitution" are on its side, and we have no jurisdiction over the
slavery which we have established there.

Hear what Mr. Foote said of a similar matter on the 26th of June, 1848,
in his place in the Senate: "Gentlemen have said this is not a practical
question, that slaves will never be taken to Oregon. With all deference
to their opinion, I differ with them totally. I believe, if permitted,
slaves would be carried there, and that slavery would continue, at
least, as long as in Maryland or Virginia. ['The whole of Oregon' is
north of forty-two degrees.] The Pacific coast is totally different in
temperature from the Atlantic. It is far milder.... Green peas are eaten
in the Oregon city at Christmas. Where is the corresponding climate to
be found on this side the continent? Where we sit--near the
thirty-ninth? No, sir; but to the south of us." "The latitude of Georgia
gives, on the Pacific, a tropical climate." "The prohibition of slavery
in the laws of Oregon was adopted for the express purpose of excluding
slaves." "A few had been brought in; further importations were expected;
and it was with a view to put a stop to them, that the prohibitory act
was passed."

Now, Mr. Foote of Mississippi--"Hangman Foote," as he has been
called--understands the laws of the formation of the earth as well as
the distinguished senator from Massachusetts. Why, the inhabitants of
that part of the Northwest Territory, which now forms the States of
Indiana and Illinois, repeatedly asked Congress to allow them to
introduce slaves north of the Ohio; and but for the ordinance of '87,
that territory would now be covered with the mildew of slavery!

But I have not yet adduced all the testimony of Mr. Foote. Last year, on
the 23d of February, 1849, he declared: "No one acquainted with the