OCR Text |
Show 10 were not woven by human policy, nor can statesmen sun~ der them. Suppose that one of the States of the Union should become pledged by its in stitutions to intemperance, that its laws should be framed to encourage the production and consumption of ardent spirits. Would not every other State be bound to give utterance to its detestation of this hor ~ rible system ? Suppose that temperance societies, in their anxiety to purify I his sink of corruption, should make its excesses and crimes their standing themes. Who of us would recognise the right of the intemperate State to repel this interference as an assault on its sovereignty ? What should we think, were this community to insist, that it would not suffer its character to be traduced, or the product, on which its wealth and revenues depended, to be diminished, and that it would recede from the Union unless permitted to manufacture and drink alcohol un.rcproved ? These questions answer themselves. But I shall undoubtedly be asked, whether intemperance and slavery be parallel cases. They are parallel as viewed in relation to my object, which is, not to weigh the guilt of different crimes, but to establish a general principle, to establish the right and duty of men to oppose the force of moral reprobation to prevalent moral evils, whether in our own or other countries. In regard to the comparative guilt of intemperance and slavery, I will only say, that the last involves the worst evil of the first ; that is, it does much to degrade men into brutes. There is, however, this difference ; the intemperate man degrades himself; the slaveholder degrades his fellowcreatures. Which of the two is most culpable in the sight of God, let every man judge. The position is false, that nation has no right to interfere morally with nation. Every community is responsible to other communities for its laws, habits, character ; not re .. 11 sponsible in the sense of being liable to physical punishment and force, but in the sense of just exposure to reprobation and scorn; and this moral control communities are bound to exercise over each other, and must exercise over each other, and exercise it more and more in proportion to the spread of intelligence and civilization. The world is governed much more by opinion than by laws. It is not the judgment of courts, but the moral judgment of individuals and masses of men, which is the chief wall of defence round property and life. With the progress of society, this power of opinion is taking the place of arms. Rulers are more and more anxiouS to stand acquitted before their peers and the human race. National honor, once in the keeping of the soldier, is understood more and more to rest on the character of nations. In this state of the world all attempts of the slaveholder to put to silence the con: demning voice of men, whether far or near, are vain. I claim the right of pleading the cause of the oppressed, whether he suffer in this country or another. I utterly deny, that a people can screen themselves behind their nationality from the moral judgment of the world. Because they form themselves into a state, and forbid within their bounds a single voice to rise in behalf of the injured; because they crush the weak under the forms of law do they hereby put a seal on the lips of foreigners ? Do ;hey disar~ the moral s~ntiment of other states ? Is this among the nghts of sovere1gnty, that a people, however criminal, shall stand unrcproved ? In consequence of the increasing intercourse and intelligence of modern times, there is now erected in the civilized world, a grand moral tribunal, before which all com~ nunitics stand, and must be judged. As yet, its authority IS feeble compared with what it is to be, but still strong enough to lay restraint, to inspire fear. Before this, slaveholding communities are arraigned, and must answer. The |