The Liberator (newspaper)/September 18, 1857/Refuge of Oppression
Refuge of Oppression.
With the exception of a few journals indissolubly wedded to the ultraist parties North and South, the public press of the country has responded to Mr. Buchanan’s letter to Professor Silliman and his friends in a manner which must be in the highest degree gratifying to the supporters of the administration. Even among those who profess but a lukewarm sympathy with the democracy, the calm and practical suggestions, the cogent logic, and the manly candor of the President’s letter have extorted universal approbation. Throughout the country, it has been a remarkable success—a palpable hit.
Of course, Professor Silliman and his colleagues do not look to us for advice as to their conduct either in public or private life. But they may perhaps be induced, as men of some sense, to bestow a little reflection on the judgment which the bulk of the American public are forming on the step which has brought them so prominently into public view.—Some of them are men of considerable repute in their particular walk in life—whether that walk be science, religion, or abstract philosophy. Professor Silliman himself has filled a large place in American scientific records, and may be properly regarded as the patriarch of at least one branch of science.—Hitherto, his name has been mentioned with invariable respect. During his long life he has, up to this time, done no act that has tarnished his reputation. It was reserved for him now, it seems, at the close of a most respectable career, to step out of his usual path in order to become the tool of designing politicians, and to tarnish by folly the fame he had built up by long years of strenuous and honest toil. Whether the act must be ascribed to the growing feebleness of age, or to the inexperience in politics for which scientific men are remarkable, it is undeniable that it has damaged the Professor’s reputation for judgment and common sense: and no one who respects science can help regretting it.
As to the rank and file of the clergy who subscribed their names to the silly memorial which elicited the President’s reply, they need not be treated with so much consideration. They are old offenders. Deeply imbued with the theocratic spirit of their predecessors, they have never forgiven the politicians for stripping them of their despotic control over the secular as well as the religious concerns of the people; and on every possible opportunity they seek to revenge themselves for the injury by maligning our statesmen, and organizing an opposition to them from the pulpit. We do not believe the country contains a more foolish or more mischievous body of men than the New England clergy. Without dwelling on their morals—of which recent events have led many to form no very high opinion—it may be said roundly that, as a general rule, they are almost invariably wrong whenever they attempt independent thought or action. Their stand-point in life is bad; their standards are false; their logic is incorrect; their aims are puerile or mean; their instruments unworthy. We defy their best friend to find us a single instance in all our history when the New England clergy took an independent course that was not a wrong one. There seems to be a fatality about it.
However, the great law of retribution which regulates all sublunary affairs, is sure to come into play here, and as the calm reasoning of President Buchanan’s letter will satisfy every one that there is no ground whatever for the shrieking that has gone on about ‘bleeding Kansas,’ so the folly of the ministers who stepped out of their pulpits to send him impertinent advice on matters far removed from their knowledge, will only have the effect of putting the people of New England on their guard against the teachings of their clergy, and raising up another barrier against the encroachments of the New England theocracy. These parsons will be punished where they have sinned. And when the time comes that the Protestant clergy of New England have no more influence over their flocks than the Catholic priests of Spain and Mexico have over theirs, they will then remember how they began the work of suicide by indiscreet interference in party politics during the old slavery controversy.
As to the Kansas question, it is obvious that the country had been soothed and calmed by Mr. Buchanan’s letter. It has reassured the public mind, and restored peace and order in the breasts of all who were still within reach of reason. It has satisfied every one that, whatever the Southern fire-eaters may rant, or the Northern abolitionists shriek, the laws of the nation will be carried out, and the right thing be done, at whatever cost. Kansas free, or Kansas slave, all that the bulk of the people care about is that the thing should be done fairly, without fraud, trickery or violence; and Mr. Buchanan’s letter is the best guarantee of that which we have yet had.—New York Herald.
