| OCR Text |
Show 46 CHAPTER VIII. Dn. CHANNING reproves the abolitionists, and reprobates mobs. In these respects l1is book conforms to public sentiment. The conduct of the abolitionists is bad, and that of mobs worse ; but how one or the other can be the appropriate suLject of his animadversion is not easily perceived. A man who adopts his doctrine may be expected to act upon it. A very little infusion of zeal would make such an one a fanatic. If he preserved his reason to enable him to act consistently, and believed his immortal welfare depended on reforming othe•· people's sins, he could hardly be blamed for any extravagance of action. The abolitionist, if he is sincere, must be extravagant. The blame rests on those who inculcate the principle, rather than on the disciple who receives it. Hence it is that in the book the reproof is very moderate, and mingled with much praise. Indeed it is received in kindness by its objects. Their leading Journal, certainly edited with much talent and ability, has proclaimed Dr. Channing to be the prince of abolitionists. In respect to mobs, they are well represented as the usurpers of the people's rights, and the impersonation of despotism. It would be well if the sentiment expressed recently in the face of one of them by a worthy Alderman of our City could be adopted by our whole community, over my dead body,- said he, -shall they only be able to triumph over the laws. Still to a practical moralist the question returns, whether he who does that which will excite a mob, is not in some degree guilty of its excesses. Suppose he only exercises his abstract right. If he knows before hand the probable consequences of his action, how much of the blame attaches to himself? Because he may 47 strike a spark with his own flint and steel, shall he be permitted to do so over a cask of gunpowder? It is said if he docs right and the mob wrong, the blame is theirs and not his. I agree that they are blameable and punishable, but is he also, under these circumstances, free from censure ? If we take human nature as we find it, we are sure that men, physically free, will resent what they deem insult and injustice ; and, when they know the law will not redress the supposed \vront;, that ,they will take the remedy into their own hands. .i~ • He, therefore, 11 'J ~dvertises an abolition meeting, if he has reasonable grow J'c.O believe it will produce a disturbance of the public peace, has an account to sellle with his conscience, should such disturbance follow. If meat- says the apostle- maketh my brother to ollend, I will eat no meat while the world lasteth. Upon principles of established law I have some doubt in regard to the legality of meetings which are known beforehand to be the cause of a mob. A man was recently subjected to punishment by common law (which is om law) for exhibiting ludicrous pictures in his shop \rindow, whereby a crowd was collected that obstructed the streets. There was nothing improper in the pictures, and they wet·e placed in the man's own shop. But day after day people collected around them, and all business in the neighborhood was prevented. Good sense, says the Court, requires that he shall not so use his own right, that by the common operation of human motives the peace of the community will necessarily be distm ·bed. * It has long been law that a mountebank who collects a crowd in the streets in front of his place of exhibition, to the disturbance of the neighborhood, is a nuisance; and what is an abolition meeting but a new kind of HARLEQUINADE, in an~ ~:;~:~·~~sc, lrictl in the King's Dench1 15\ December, 1834. (ltll vol. Carringtoo |
