The Natick Resolution; or, Resistance to Slaveholders/Letter to Henry Wilson
LETTER TO HON. HENRY WILSON,
TOUCHING THE NATICK RESOLUTION AND SERVILE RESISTANCE
AND INSURRECTION.
Hon. Henry Wilson:
Sir,—In the Senate of the United States, you were called upon, on Tuesday, December 6th, to give an account of yourself to the slave-drivers for attending a meeting in Natick, called to discuss a resolution affirming "the right and duty of slaves to resist their masters, and the right and duty of the North to aid them." A Mr. Brown asked you, in an insolent tone—"Were you present to countenance such a meeting?" You explained and said, "It was a lecture attended generally by Democrats and others; that nobody interrupted the proceedings; that only some dozen Garrison Abolitionists voted for the resolution, and that the great mass of the meeting came from curiosity." The slave-driver who held the lash over you said, "I am satisfied!" But another, Mr. Iverson, still flourished the lash over you, taunting you because, "being a Senator from Massachusetts, you heard such treasonable sentiments avowed at a public meeting, in your own town, and did not at once rebuke them, instead of sitting and giving silent assent to them."
Instead of rebuking those insolent lords of the lash for presuming to dictate to you your course of conduct at home, among your neighbors, you submissively attempted to explain to them the whys and wherefors of your action, out of Congress, as if anxious to deprecate their frowns and stripes.
That meeting was called by public notice to discuss the question of "Resistance to slaveholders as obedience to God, in reference to John Brown at Harper's Ferry." It was hoped and expected that both sides would be heard. It was stated at the opening of the meeting, you being present, that it was not a lecture, but a meeting for discussion. A prominent citizen of Natick was appointed chairman, who introduced Mr. Wright, who read the resolution and commented on it some forty minutes, and gave way. You (if I mistake not, by name) were invited, with others, to give your views for or against it, as your reason and conscience should dictate. You declined, as was your right and duty, if your own reason so decided. Though all would have gladly heard you, none hlamed you for your silence.
It was urged in that meeting, that it was the right and duty of the slaves, and of the North, to embody their resistance to slaveholders in every department of life, wherever they deemed it right to live—in domestic, social, ecclesiastical, political and commercial life; and that it was the right of the slaves to defend themselves against the lusts, the thefts, robbery and rapine of their masters, by arms and blood, in the same sense that it is the right of the masters to defend themselves against like outrages on the part of the slaves.
As to military resistance, Mr. Wright denied that it was ever right or expedient. At the same time, he said, if ever it was right to resist tyrants by arms, it was the right and duty of the slaves, and of the North, to resist slaveholders; that if ever one human being deserved death at the hand of another, (which Mr. Wright denied,) every slaveholder deserved it at the hand of the slave; and that, according to the religion, the government, the popular opinion and universal history of the nation, John Brown had done right, and only his duty to God and Humanity, in resolving to run off slaves, and to shoot down all who should oppose him in his God-appointed work.
Three things were distinctly urged in that meeting, as taught by the ministers, legislators, judges, presidents and governors of the entire nation. (1) The right of slaves to run away; (2) their right to defend themselves against all who shall attempt to molest them; (3) their right to call on the people of the North to aid them, and the duty of the North to incite them to run away, and to defend them against all, whether governmental officials or not, who shall oppose their exodus.
It was urged upon Henry Wilson, Charles Sumner, William H. Seward, John P. Hale, and all Northern Senators and Representatives, in and out of Congress, as a duty, to incite slaves to insurrection and resistance of soul against slaveholders, and all who would enslave them. The hope was expressed that the slaveholders in Congress would bring Northern members to the test, that they might have an opportunity to affirm in Congress the sentiments they are known to entertain at home—i.e., that it is the right and duty of slaves to seek freedom by running away, and to defend themselves against all who would intercept them, and that it is the right and duty of the North to incite and aid them thus to get their freedom.
Such sentiments were uttered in that meeting in your hearing, and not one word was said by you or any one against them. And it was said that your silence would be taken for consent. Why, then, do you intimate that you were silent because you did not wish "to interrupt the proceedings"? You well know that, had you spoken, not one would have considered it an interruption. The feeling was that you were silent because your sense of justice, truth and humanity forbade you to oppose the resolution. I do not believe there were ten persons in the meeting who would have said that it is not right for slaves to run away, or that John Brown did not do right in inciting them to run away, and in helping to defend them against all who should oppose them.
It was not "curiosity," but sympathy with Brown, that brought them there. It would be difficult for you to convince your neighbors that it was not a deep interest in the life and fate of Brown that brought you there. It is true, as Iverson says, "by your silence, you gave your sanction to the resolution." You were invited to oppose it; you declined. Had you openly and earnestly sustained it, there were not probably ten in the hall, I doubt if there was one, who would not have admired you all the more for it.
I allude to this meeting, not because it is worthy of special notice in itself; for thousands like it are being held on the same subject all over the North, in which stronger sentiments, it may be, are urged without contradiction; but because you and other members of the Senate and of the House are trying to throw glamour in the eyes of Southern members, and make them think that Republicans have no sympathy with Brown and his efforts to run off slaves, and by so doing to arouse the nation to its great sin and danger. You would have them think that "regret and condemnation" of Brown and his objects are universal at the North. Well may they, in their terror and agony, ask you, "What mean those mighty gatherings, and that tolling of bells all over the North on the day of his execution? What mean those speeches eulogistic of Brown and his doings, and so condemnatory of Wise, and Virginia, and their doings? What means the almost universal applause bestowed on the remark of Ralph Waldo Emerson, the most prominent literary man, lecturer and moral philosopher in the nation, that the execution of the hero and saint of Harper's Ferry, 'Will make the gallows as glorious as the cross'? Why was it that the seizure, trial aud execution of Brown, as a felon, swelled the Republican vote at the recent elections in the Northern States? Will you, in the face of ten thousand facts like these, still assure the quaking slaveholders that Republicans have no sympathy with Brown? Well may they retort upon you—"You take a queer way to show it."
Please show the doings of the Massachusetts Legislature on the day of the execution (Friday, December 2d) to the slaveholders, and tell them that is evidence of the truth of your remarks! What were they? In the Senate, soon as the session was opened, Mr. Luce, of the Island District, moved, "That, in view of the execution of John Brown in Virginia, the Senate do now adjourn." This motion was negatived—ayes, 8; nays, 11. At 12, noon, Mr. Luce again moved, "That, as it was probably about this time that John Brown was being executed in Virginia, as an expression of sympathy for him, the Senate do now adjourn." A debate ensued.
"Mr. Odiorne, of Suffolk, expressed admiration for Brown as a man; declaring that he had the greatest sympathy with him."
"Mr. Walker, of Hampden, said he yielded to no man in sympathy for Brown. He looked at the action of Virginia as unjust, and condemned the unseemly haste with which the trial and execution had been hurried forward."
"Mr. Davis, of Bristol, did not propose to condemn the acts of Brown, as he wished them to be judged by posterity; and he felt sure that no more heroic or brighter name would be found in history, than that of old Osawatomie Brown. Brown, with the Constitution of the United States in one hand, and the Golden Rule in the other, marched straight forward and attacked the Slave Power, and he was to be honored for it."
"Mr. Walker, of Hampden, said he did not believe, as a lawyer, that John Brown had been legally convicted of treason or murder. While he did not wish to go into the slave States to run off slaves himself, yet he did not object to others doing it in any way they saw fit."
"Mr. Hotchkiss, of Franklin, said he was a States' Rights man, in the fullest sense; but he thought it would be as perfectly proper to adjourn out of sympathy for Brown as for any other great and good man; and he considered John Brown one of the noblest works of God. If Brown had done wrong, it was an error of the head, and not of the heart. He held the Governor of Virginia guilty of wilful murder, and this act would be the hanging of the Governor and of the whole State of Virginia. Brown had not been proved guilty."
On this second motion, the vote was—yeas, 12; nays, 20. Such was the spirit and action of the Senate. But one spoke condemnatory of Brown and his deeds. Remember, the Senate is almost entirely Republican. All who spoke in favor of Brown were such. Read the above, and then tell the slaveholders that Republicans have no sympathy with Brown, and no responsibility for his deeds! What will they think of you? Would that Republicans would avow their work and glory in it; for this is the richest fruit they have ever borne,—so far as it is theirs.
In the House, at the opening of the session, Mr. Ray, of Nantucket,—moved "That, for the great respect we have for the truthfulness and faith that John Brown has in man and his religion, and the strong sympathy for the love of liberty (the avowed principle of Massachusetts) for which he is this day to die, this House do now adjourn."
"Mr. Robinson, of Middleboro', was unwilling to say John Brown was right, though he respected him, and thought his motives good."
"Mr. Griffin, of Maiden, said, the spirit of the order is merely a tribute to the piety and integrity of John Brown. Let us imitate old Brown, and attend to the business God and our constituents have given us to do. He had his views of John Brown and of his value to the race; but this was not the place to express them. In other places, it might be done."
It was done in a meeting of three thousand in the Tremont Temple, that very night,—called for the purpose of expressing sympathy for Brown, and abhorrence of his murder by the Governor of Virginia.
In this meeting, S. E. Sewall, a much respected lawyer of Boston, and a leading Republican, said:—"Under these circumstances, whether John Brown was technically guilty of any offence against the laws of Virginia or not, he had not had a fair trial, and his execution is therefore butchery and murder, and the Judge and Governor were only the tools of Virginia in carrying out this judicial assassination. As it is, Governor Wise seems likely to be pilloried by history at the side of Pontius Pilate, as the man who shed innocent blood in violation of his own convictions of right, to satisfy the clamor of a deluded populace, crying, "Crucify him! crucify him!"
Mr. Griffin, at the same meeting, said: "He undertook to defend Pontius Pilate against a comparison with Governor Wise. The chairman should apologize to the memory of Pontius Pilate for the comparison." (Uproarious applause.)
With such facts before them, what must the slaveholding Senators think of your assertion, that Brown and his deeds excite only "regret and condemnation" among Republicans? Brown, Iverson, Mason, and all the Senators from the South, justly tremble for themselves, their wives and their children. They frankly declare to you and to the nation their terror and agony. They say the North sympathizes with Brown and his deeds, and in so doing seeks to incite insurrection, rebellion, and resistance among their slaves. It is true. Their fears are well founded. Why seek to lull them into security till the storm shall burst upon them in a way they dream not of,—as it surely will, and deluge their homes and their plantations with blood, unless they escape by repentance and emancipation? Why should you seek to quiet their guilty consciences and awakened terrors?
The masses of the North are in sympathy with Brown and his deeds. In no State is this more true than in that which you represent. In no place in the State is that sympathy more vital than in your own immediate neighborhood; as if your presence there had only tended to kindle the flame and keep it blazing.
Millions in the North rejoice that the slaveholders in Congress bring you and all your associates in politics to this one test,—i.e., Is resistance to slaveholders the right and duty of the slaves and of the North? Will you and your fellow-Republicans help to kill the slaves if they attempt to defend themselves, their wives and children against the rape, rapine, robbery and murder perpetrated on them, daily, by their masters, or will you side with the slaves against the masters? Was John Brown a traitor against God and humanity? Henry Wilson and Charles Sumner will never say he was.
Slaveholders may well turn pale with terror. As Iverson and Mason say, "they sleep on the brink of a volcano." They know they deserve death, on their own showing, at the hands of their slaves. They feel, hourly, their victim's knife at their throats; his dagger at their hearts, and his torch at their dwellings; and their wives and daughters outraged by those whose wives and daughters, mothers and sisters, they themselves have ravished. If they will persist in turning men and women into brutes and chattels, they must abide the results of their inhuman deeds. Their reward is sure and terrible. The bayonets of the North will not much longer defend them. I would that you and your associates in Congress were as true to liberty as the South is to slavery; that you would, in every department of life, as truly embody resistance to slavery, as they do resistance to liberty. Then this "irrepressible conflict" would soon be ended; and the Higher Law be the only rule of action, in Congress as well as out of it. For the Constitution and the enactments of Congress are but so much blank paper, and will be set at nought as such, when they are opposed to that Higher Law which enjoins it upon slaves to escape from slavery, and upon the North to incite and help them to escape. If this be treason—as it unquestionably is—against the Lower Law, and you and your fellow-Republicans undertake to hang all such traitors, as you say you will, rest assured you will have enough to do. You must, indeed, become a common hangman.
Judged from the stand-point of the religion and government of this nation, the design of John Brown was founded in the deepest wisdom and benevolence, and executed with consummate skill, and unrivalled heroism, integrity, and self-forgetfulness. His life was a complete success; his death, an unparalleled and most honorable triumph. He sought to arouse the soul of this nation, the intellect, the conscience, the sympathy and will, to a state of resistance, rebellion, insurrection against slaveholders, and against every law. Constitution, Bible or religion that sanctions and sustains them in turning men, women, and children into beasts and chattels. He sought to accomplish this chief end of his existence by running off slaves or by death. He has triumphed by the gallows! The blood of John Brown appeals to God and Humanity against slaveholders and their confederates in crime. To that appeal, the heart of this nation and of the civilized world will respond, in one defiant shout, "Resistance to slaveholders is obedience to God!"