23
rank agrarianism. On what principle, then, can the abolitionists rest this demand? They have neither biblical, legal, nor constitutional grounds on which to base this demand—for all three are against them; because, when the several states entered into a national confederacy, and when each surrendered up certain rights and powers, the slave-holding states demanded and received the privilege of being unmolested by the general government of the confederacy in the permission to retain their slaves—and, therefore, by the terms of the compact, the sentiments and demands of the abolitionists, is an impudent, illegal and unconstitutional intermeddling with the sacred, legal and political rights of others—rights that are secured to them by the Bible, the laws and constitution of their country. And it is sheer mockery, and little short of blasphemy to cover such proceedings and designs with the specious and imposing names of philanthropy and religion. More blood has been shed, more injustice committed, and more cruelty perpetrated, under these names, than in any other way.
But, say the abolitionists, by construction and expediency we can make abolitionism constitutional and right.
The doctrine of construction and expediency, when adopted as the rule of interpretation and action, will destroy any constitution that ever was framed by God or man, and has done it. It is one of the most patent and convenient powers in the world, for il will give you any thing you please, how you please, when you please, and where you please. It is the genteel, the patriotic and religious mode of gratifying pride, ambition, or any other unsanctified passion of the human mind. It can reconcile all contradictions, render practicable all impossibilities, authorise all kinds of absurdities, sanction all kinds of fooleries, and justify all kinds of cruelties. What has not this doctrine of construction and expediency done with the word of God? and with the church of Christ? It has made the former utter sentiments and doctrines the most absurd—and led to practice the most irrational, not to say wicked—and established “isms” impossible to folly herself—while it has made the latter an arena for ecclesiastical gladiators to display their skill and bravery in, for the amusement and amazement of those who have no more to do, and no more sense than to gaze at men, who might be more wisely employed. Yes, and it has taught men, and Christian men, the art of hating and biting one another scientifically and systematically. So much for construction and expediency.
