Where was the church ...

[LifeHiscost]

Most everything has more than one side.

 

  

Is Black a Color?  Is White a Color?

 

The answer to the question - "Are black and white colors?"  - is one of the most debated issues about color. Ask a scientist and you'll get a reply based on physics: “Black is not a color, white is a color.” Ask an artist or a child with crayons and you'll get another: “Black is a color, white is not a color.” (Maybe!)

There are four sections on this page that present the best answers.

 

Introduction: How Colors Exist

# 1 - The First Answer: Color Theory #1 - Color as Light
Black is not a color. White is a color.

# 2 - The Second Answer: Color Theory #2 - Color as Pigment or Molecular Coloring Agents
Black is a color. White is not a color

# 3 - The Third and Most Complete Answer: Vision and Reflection

Comments from color pros: More about black & white
 

---

Introduction

How Colors Exist

A basic understanding of how colors are created is the first step in providing correct answers. Here are two examples:

 

The color of a tangible object is the result of pigments or molecular coloring agents. For example, the color of a red apple (in the illustration at the left) is the result of molecular coloring agents on the surface of the apple. Also, a painting of a red apple is the result of red pigments used to create the image.

The colors of objects viewed on a television set or on a computer monitor are the result of colored light (in the illustration at the right). If you're not familiar with how colors are created by light, look at your monitor or television screen close up. Put your eye right up against the screen. A small magnifying glass might help. This is what you will see:

  

[Geoarrge]

2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Someone died. They were killed. Thats not "a political happening."  Its murder.

That is not necessarily true.  Not all killing is murder, and I'm not sure one death justifies ignoring other malicious assaults by the other side.  Tim 'Baked Alaska' Gionet was sprayed in the face with acid and nearly blinded.  That is not simple 'riot defense.' That is a premeditated deliberate maiming.  And at other events where Antifa did not have the excuse of opposing white supremacists, there are recorded examples of them beating girls and the elderly.  Whereas it cannot be so easily proved that James Fields, however disgusting his affiliations may be,  wasn't in legitimate fear for his life where a mob of anarchists was blocking the street and attacking vehicles from in front and behind. A manslaughter charge may very well be the correct conclusion to this, which is not murder nor terrorism.   

The point of the original post holds. It is disturbing to see a church spokesman whitewash a communist paramilitary organization.

[Gary K]

10 hours ago, CoAspen said:

"It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me, and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one's life, career and reputation," Byrd wrote in his 2005 autobiography. "I displayed very bad judgment, due to immaturity and a lack of seasoned reasoning."

Before his death, in 2010, Byrd was the longest-serving senator in the country’s history. Throughout his career he made many attempts to amend for drawing in 150 members to the Klan, and for attaining the position of “Exalted Cyclops.”

Those attempts led the National Associated for the Advancement of Colored People to issue a statement in praise of Byrd upon his death, and for Clinton, when she was secretary of state at the time, to comment on his passing. She started the video commemoration by saying, “Today our country has lost a true American original, my friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd.” Clinton also said that Byrd had been “the heart” of the U.S. Senate.

Still, unlike white supremacist and former Klan leader David Duke—who praised Trump following the president's press conference Tuesday—Byrd renounced his experience with the hate group.

Well, let's look at this in light of the facts of Byrd's life.  

1. He joined the KKK in the early 1940's.  He became a recruiter for the KKK and convinced 150 people to join.  He then became the leader of that group.  So, he was not just a member, he was a recruiter, an organizer, and leader within the Klan.  It was the leadership of the KKK that convinced him to enter politics, and it was their support that got him elected.

2.  In 1964 he personally led the Democrat filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. 

3.  In 1967 he voted against the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court.

4.  In 1987 he voted against the confirmation of Robert Bork.

5.  He is the only senator in history who voted against both black nominees. 

6.  In 2001 he used the term, and I quote, 'white [theN-word]' in a live television interview.

7. In 2005 in his memoirs he said the KKK was made up of fine upstanding people.

8.  No one has ever been able to determine when it was that Byrd actually changed his views.  He says he did, but only under political duress.  As to determining when this supposed change was made it is untraceable. 

Now just where, other than his self-serving statements on his supposed change of view, was that change visible?  This was not a "mistake" made in his middle 20's from which he disavowed himself a short time later, and then lived his life making up for that error.  His life's record says he was a racist from when he was a young man until his death. 

Even if he did recant his views, the Democratic party never has.  It has never even acknowledged it's record and behavior.  That is not how people who recognize they have done evil, and change their ways, behave.  They acknowledge their errors and sins publicly and apologize. 

Look at the areas of the country under long term Democrat control.  They have the biggest black slums, the most crime ridden black neighborhoods, the poorest schools in the black neighborhoods, etc....  They have done nothing for the black community which they profess to love and support.  Well, they have done a few things.  During their control of the political offices the crime rates have expanded, the schools have gotten far worse, and the black family has disintegrated.  In other words, they have been destroying the black communities. 

[Gary K]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

A death resulted here, and one can wrestle all day about what kind of death, or what to call it; but thats whats being white-washed. The church has neither said or done anything to  support/white-wash any paramilitary organization. Some are getting church beefs mixed up where they dont belong.

Quote from the original document where the church says that both sides are at fault.  Show where it says antifa has any responsibility at all for what happened. 

Oh, that's right.  You can't.  The document blames only one side for everything that happened.

[Gary K]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

The first statement I quoted is not true The Church did not limit their comment in any such way that could be construed as "taking sides."  The second statement I quoted is equally mis-leading. What is being called "facts" is simply a heavy leaning upon "news articles" from rogue news media that "has no fear" in speaking about it. trouble is, the news is not the news, and the church was not "wrong" for speaking out against the needless death of a young lady "on the other side. Someone died! They will never be able to tell their side of the story, and we cant presume to know it because "the other side had clubs" and this is just white-washing the fact that someone died. That someone was killed. But that doesnt seem to matter to those who say "the other side was no better."  I can think of a lot of things to "blame" the church for; but this is not one of them.

Here are a couple of quotes from church leaders:

Quote

We are deeply disturbed by the violence and hate that descended upon Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend. We are heartbroken by the tragic death of Heather Heyer, who was standing up against bigotry and hate when her life was senselessly cut short. We pray for Heather’s family, the community of Charlottesville, and all of those who were injured by the attack on those who rose up in solidarity against evil. As Christians and followers of Jesus we stand with Him against the white supremacist groups that spread racism and violence. We pray for the day when all of God’s children, of all races, treat each other with love and respect rather than bias and hate.

Where is antifa mentioned?  Where are both sides mentioned?

Quote

Only a few days ago, white supremacists, Neo-Nazis and members of the KKK decided to use another campus in Charlottsville, Virginia, as the base for despicable words and acts of bigotry, racism and hatred. I stand with the many others throughout this nation to condemn without reservations both the philosophy and actions of these alt-right groups that seek to demean, diminish and even eradicate those whose skin color and in some cases religion are different to theirs. Such actions and words are completely counter to the values of this campus and the gospel which we live.

Now where, once again, are both sides mentioned?  "Without reservation", the author condemns one side.   Antifa is just as bigoted as the KKK.  It has just as much disdain for religion as anyone on the KKK/Nazi side of things.

There is no statement coming from the church that decries the violence coming from both sides.  There is condemnation of only one side.  That is politicization of the situation.  While the condemnation of the one side is not without merit, where is the condemnation of those who brought what are basically biological weapons to a demonstration, and have done so repeatedly?  Apparently the SDA church finds that acceptable behavior.

 

[Bravus]

I'd be interested to see this list of US mass shootings by leftists, since I don't know of any. That's a hole in my knowledge, not a claim that they have not occurred. I can, though, recall a number of mass shootings by those whose politics would be considered to be on the right-wing fringe.

[Bravus]

A search did find a list circulated by Ted Nugent, among others, that Snopes rated as 'Mostly False'. I'll assume that's not what was being referred to...

[Margie]

I'm not sure if I follow the reasoning of some of the writers here. The Church typically sends out a press release like this when an emotional event takes place. This is something terribly sad that happened last week and people are talking about it online. There is nothing wrong with the Church to let everyone know that we denounce hate and violence.  Nowhere in the article does it say that what Antifa is doing is acceptable. What I'm seeing here is some people just arguing that the alt-L is wrong, rather than saying that violence and hate is wrong, period. And that is wrong.

[Gary K]

14 hours ago, Margie said:

I'm not sure if I follow the reasoning of some of the writers here. The Church typically sends out a press release like this when an emotional event takes place. This is something terribly sad that happened last week and people are talking about it online. There is nothing wrong with the Church to let everyone know that we denounce hate and violence.  Nowhere in the article does it say that what Antifa is doing is acceptable. What I'm seeing here is some people just arguing that the alt-L is wrong, rather than saying that violence and hate is wrong, period. And that is wrong.

Margie,

Since everything you just said here is a mischaracterization of what those of us on the unpopular side have been saying, I'm going to put it into analogy form for you.

Let's say you're a mother of two sons.   Number 1 son thinks things that number 2 son disagrees with.  Now whenever son 1 expresses these ideas son 2 punches him in the mouth and then the fight is on.  You as a parent must put an end to this violence between the two so you go to son 1 and tell him that he has to stop saying things son 2 doesn't like, and that he, son 1, is responsible for the fights.  You say nothing to son 2 about him punching his brother in the mouth just because his brother said something he didn't like.  Is this just and fair?   Are you treating both sons the same way, or are you singling one of them out and blaming him for everything that happens?

[Gary K]

On 8/19/2017 at 10:56 PM, The Wanderer said:

Antifa, or "the other side" has not KILLED anyone. Its not part of their agenda

And as I said earlier in this thread, that death may very well not be murder.  And the leftist demonstrators on that street bear a degree of responsibility in that death.  They attacked first.

As to anfifa, well, let's look at their agenda....  They take biological weapons everywhere they protest.  What biological weapons?  They take balloons and bottles filled with urine and feces.  These can contain all kinds of deadly organisms.  Who is to say they have not infected someone with HIV by using these weapons?  People have been convicted of felonious assault for simply spitting someone, let alone  throwing urine and feces on them....

There is a video online showing an antifa woman cursing out other leftists because they wouldn't use violence.  And you want to say violence isn't in antifa's agenda?  That they haven't killed someone as yet is a miracle.  They've beaten people over the head with metal objects, with baseball bats, etc... and you want to tell me they are not trying to kill people?  Hogwash.  Antifa is very dangerous.  They are committed to violence.  That makes them no different than the Nazis. 

[Gary K]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Well, after doing further research, I see that both sides bring various weapons to these events. Good reason #1 to never attend any of them or to take sides. All who incite violence or killing need to be jailed where they can then only hurt each other

Watch the following youtube video.  Towards the end there are antifa members saying they are committed to violence and that they are out to kill Nazis.  Their grandfather was a hero for killing Nazis in WWII so this person sees no reason why he isn't heroic for wanting to kill them now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih_crCAA3M8

 

[Gary K]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Well, after doing further research, I see that both sides bring various weapons to these events. Good reason #1 to never attend any of them or to take sides. All who incite violence or killing need to be jailed where they can then only hurt each other

This is exactly what has been being said this entire thread.  The church took a side when it condemned only the white supremicists for the violence, and let the other's walk scot-free, so to speak.  They need to condemn all of them, not just one side.  Both sides are very dangerous.

[B/W Photodude]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

The church cannot be faulted here.

The CHURCH cannot be faulted, but some PEOPLE were using less than reasonable judgement in the posting. And that reflects badly on the CHURCH to find that type of posting in a CHURCH operated media site.

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, Gary K said:

They need to condemn all of them, not just one side.  Both sides are very dangerous.

I do not believe the church should even be involved in the discussion. Any reasonable person would see the folly of that fight and those involved or sympathetic to the "cause" probably are not going to be influenced anyway. I tend to believe that people are settling down into very hardline positions and are increasingly unwilling to even consider a change of opinion. This occurs in a wide variety of social fronts, both in and out of the church. People are going to become increasingly separated into extreme positions of hatred which are leading to what some believe is even civil war. 

[Gary K]

2 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

The CHURCH cannot be faulted, but some PEOPLE were using less than reasonable judgement in the posting. And that reflects badly on the CHURCH to find that type of posting in a CHURCH operated media site.

I will disagree with you on this.  When the President and Executive Secretary of the NAD make a statement and it is published on the official website of the NAD it is statement of the church.  Also the presidents of Oakwood and Andrews published statements on their official websites condemning one side. 

Had all of these people made those statements as individuals and not in the name of the church, then I would agree with you.  They did not.  They made them official statements of the organizations they represent.

The presidents of Allegheny West, Potomac and Columbia Union conferences made a joint statement that just condemned the violence.  That was acceptable as they didn't take sides. 

[Margie]

On 8/19/2017 at 1:23 PM, Gary K said:

Both sides are despicable.  Antifa is nothing but violent.  So are the Nazi's and the KKK. But, the KKK is a Democrat brainchild.  They formed it.  They pushed it.  They created the Jim Crow laws with the Dixiecrats as the motivating force in Congress.  At one time in the not so far distant past the only way to get ahead in the Democratic party was to be involved in the KKK.  You don't believe it?  Ask Bill Clinton.  He came out publicly and defended Robert Byrd's involvement in the KKK as a Grand Wizard before Byrd's death by that very logic.  Hillary called Byrd her mentor.  The members of the Democratic party are the only ones of any political party to have ever owned slaves.  No Republican ever owned a slave.  That's historical fact.  Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government in his day.  FDR created concentration camps based purely upon race.  The Democrats have a long history of racism, and no visible pivot point, no public renunciation of their past, but where is the condemnation of that party?  Instead many SDA's vote strictly Democrat even though they are the party of abortion, the legalized murder of unborn children. 

I am piecing together my thoughts as I go along so this is a work in progress  

I see that you point at the Democrats of being the party responsible for the Jim Crow laws and do not acknowledge that this party was the one who pushed for States Rights and led the country into Civil War. Which party is pushing for States Rights as passionately as the Democrats used to do? that's right, the Republicians. The values of both parties have taken a 180 turn but they're still playing off each other today on opposing sides. I guess both parties thought the grass was greener on the other side of the fence. 

And the implication that no Republicians ever owned slaves is false. Most of them swore it off by 1860s but it doesn't not mean they never owned one. Besides, the fact that the 1860 Republicians swore off slavery together is an example of groupthink. Our passage of laws and political positions are usually a result of groupthinks. Speaking of this, Jim Crow laws was passed at the state level, and not at a federal level. Many of those Jim Crow laws was passed in Northern and Western States and those were usually towards People of Color rather than just Blacks. A few was upheld at the US Supreme Court.  

I'm wondering at how this writer and some others on this thread can use words that has lately gained negative connotations (groupthink, for one) to cast a negative light on a group(s). The pointing out the wrongs of the "other side" is a position that has been staked out by both sides in this increasing controversy. Why can't we agree on rooting out injustice? How can we defend injustice because the other side has said or did wrong things?

We as a country have too long allowed White privilege to be the decider of justice in our country. This system has been unjust and we need to actively speak out against injustice. I see our country repeating the same mistakes it did in the 1800s. I also see a country that claim to be a fighter for justice with a people that are continually at war with each other. 

Being partly right doesn't make a truth. Being partly wrong doesn't make a lie. Those are the tools of Satan. We need to become discerners of truth and claim Jesus as our leader. We must separate ourselves from the fray and deny ourselves with the goal of loving like Christ. 

[Margie]

By the way when I wrote my recent response I could only see the first page of replies to this topic. I see there is a total of three pages and since my response has been posted I now see the third page but not the second or first. 

[Gary K]

5 hours ago, Margie said:

I am piecing together my thoughts as I go along so this is a work in progress  

I see that you point at the Democrats of being the party responsible for the Jim Crow laws and do not acknowledge that this party was the one who pushed for States Rights and led the country into Civil War. Which party is pushing for States Rights as passionately as the Democrats used to do? that's right, the Republicians. The values of both parties have taken a 180 turn but they're still playing off each other today on opposing sides. I guess both parties thought the grass was greener on the other side of the fence. 

And the implication that no Republicians ever owned slaves is false. Most of them swore it off by 1860s but it doesn't not mean they never owned one. Besides, the fact that the 1860 Republicians swore off slavery together is an example of groupthink. Our passage of laws and political positions are usually a result of groupthinks. Speaking of this, Jim Crow laws was passed at the state level, and not at a federal level. Many of those Jim Crow laws was passed in Northern and Western States and those were usually towards People of Color rather than just Blacks. A few was upheld at the US Supreme Court.  

I'm wondering at how this writer and some others on this thread can use words that has lately gained negative connotations (groupthink, for one) to cast a negative light on a group(s). The pointing out the wrongs of the "other side" is a position that has been staked out by both sides in this increasing controversy. Why can't we agree on rooting out injustice? How can we defend injustice because the other side has said or did wrong things?

We as a country have too long allowed White privilege to be the decider of justice in our country. This system has been unjust and we need to actively speak out against injustice. I see our country repeating the same mistakes it did in the 1800s. I also see a country that claim to be a fighter for justice with a people that are continually at war with each other. 

Being partly right doesn't make a truth. Being partly wrong doesn't make a lie. Those are the tools of Satan. We need to become discerners of truth and claim Jesus as our leader. We must separate ourselves from the fray and deny ourselves with the goal of loving like Christ. 

Margie,

You put forth so many innacuracies its hard to know where to begin.

1.  The Republican part was created in 1854 by a coalition of abolitionists, Free Soilers (The party dedicated to the idea that slavery, if it was to continue, could not expand into newly formed states), ex-Whigs such as Abraham Lincoln, and some other small groups.  These people were all from the North, where slavery was not practiced.  None of them were from the South.

2.  The Democrats had two divisions, the Southern Democrats who were slaveholders, and the Northern Democrats who argued for slavery although quite deceitfully.  Stephen Douglas was a Democrat.  Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates to see how misleading and dishonest Douglas actually was.

3.  Dinesh D'Souza put up a large reward for proving that a single Republican ever owned a slave, and it was never claimed.   I do not remember the exact amount or the reward, but it was large enough to pay for doing the research and then some.  Nobody ever came up with the proof.  One of the things he does is go around giving talks of college campuses.  You might be interested in video at the following link. https://www.youtube.comwatch?v=9UTxBKQXRhE                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

4. Why did the Democrats argue strongly for state's rights?  Because they wanted to keep slavery alive and cooking.  

5.  Why do the Republicans today argue for state's rights?  To combat the unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.

6.  All Jim Crow laws were passed by Democrats.  And for years it was impossible to become a Democratic politician without being in the KKK.  These are the facts.

7.    There has never been the Big Switch as you claim.  Where is the evidence?  Where did the Democats admit and apologize for their behavior?  It's never happened.  

I am not a Republican.  I am a registered independent.  So don't think I am arguing just to protect one party and disparage the other.  I'm just very knowledgable about US history.  And I hate seeing untruths being said over and over again without pushback.     

I have a question for you too.  Why didn't you respond to the analogy I gave you?  Will you ignore this question like you ignored the analogy?

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, Gary K said:

You put forth so many innacuracies its hard to know where to begin.

There is a considerable amount of history out there that the Dems really don't want anyone to know! Warnings on the blog link, I imagine it could short circuit some liberal minds and blow gaskets!

http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/?m=0

What many don't even realize is that even as late as the 1960s, Democrats were fighting against civil rights for Blacks tooth and nail. In the link above, pay particular attention to what LBJ (Lyndon Johnson, for those who do not remember!) said he was going to do for Blacks. I chose not to post the picture here.

[B/W Photodude]

15 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I have no idea what you are talking about

Sorry you are having difficulty with the post.

[B/W Photodude]

15 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

There was nothing "hard-line" about what the Church said in that message, not a single dotting of the i that you could pin under "hatred" I dont think you are posting a very good understanding of the issues at hand in the world today. Take your beef against the church to where it belongs.

Nothing was said about the church being hardline, I was talking about people in general. Even in this forum, there are some pretty well set in stone minds and little makes a difference.

[B/W Photodude]

15 hours ago, Gary K said:

I will disagree with you on this.  When the President and Executive Secretary of the NAD make a statement and it is published on the official website of the NAD it is statement of the church.  Also the presidents of Oakwood and Andrews published statements on their official websites condemning one side. 

The presidents of Allegheny West, Potomac and Columbia Union conferences made a joint statement that just condemned the violence.  That was acceptable as they didn't take sides. 

I will agree with you on this, I think! Lately, the NAD has taken some positions that are at variance with the world church. And it is no surprise that presidents of colleges make these statements. Sometimes, the political and theological twist to some of the SDA universities get so out of line with the church that some in the conferences they are located in wish they were somewhere else!

The fact that presidents of local conference can arrive at a different opinion is also not surprising. I have not read their statements, but as you report it, if it had to be made then it should have been made that way, i.e., not taking sides.

[JoeMo]

On 8/18/2017 at 6:47 PM, The Wanderer said:

I dont call it "news" anymore. I call it something else.

I call it bovine excrement.

[Gary K]

In further support of the claim I made that only Democrats owned slaves, I submit the following.  It is the speech given by Abraham Lincoln in September of 1860 to a group of very influential New York Republicans.  This is the speech that launched him on his way towards both the Republican nomination and the Presidency.  Notice in this speech that he when he addresses the Democrats and their arguments against the Republicans he says "your slaves".  He doesn't say, our slaves.  This is very significant for Lincoln's honesty was such that if his opponent in court would fail to mention evidence supporting his own client, Lincoln would bring the evidence to light.  Can you imagine that?  A lawyer helping out his opponents client?  Also, Lincoln's reputation for his honest was so strong that if he averred something was true in court that the opposing lawyers would stipulate it to be so, for they knew if Lincoln said it, it was true.  Also notice what the main topic of this speech is: slavery.

The New York Republicans, before this speech was given, considered Lincoln to be a back-country hick.  They came to hear him thinking they were going to hear a rabble rouser give a "wild and wooly" speech.  They go this and were so impressed by his logic and his handling of the facts that they went away unanimous in the belief that he needed to be the next President. 

Read the speech and then ask yourself, would a slave holder have joined this party?  You will find question very easy to answer.

Quote

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW YORK:—The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation.

In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York Times, Senator Douglas said:

"Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better than we do now."

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting-point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: "What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?"

What is the frame of Government under which we live?

The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which the present Government first went into operation,) and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.[4]

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.[5]

I take these "thirty-nine" for the present, as being "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood "just as well, and even better than we do now"?

It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue—this question—is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood "better than we."

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it—how they expressed that better understanding.

In 1784, three years before the Constitution—the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other,[6] the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition,[7] thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four—James M'Henry—voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.[8]

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the United States, the same question of prohibiting Slavery in the Territories again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount and William Few[9]; and they both voted for the prohibition—thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. This time, the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of '87.[10]

The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question.[11]

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to an unanimous passage.[12] In this Congress, there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Oilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.[13]

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.

Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and, as such, approved and signed the bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country.[14] Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it—take control of it—even there to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization, they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any place without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought.[15] This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and Abraham Baldwin.[16] They all, probably, voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it—take control of it—in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made, in relation to slaves, was:

First. That no slave should be imported into the territory from foreign parts.

Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.

Third. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.[17]

This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton.[18] As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from federal authority, or any provision of the Constitution.

In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"—Rufus King and Charles Pinckney—were members of that Congress.[19] Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.[20]

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20—there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in anyway.[21]

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who framed the Government under which we live," who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better than we do now"; and twenty-one of them—a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine"—so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder.

Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted against the prohibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.[22]

The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all.[23]

For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty-nine" even, on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times—as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris—while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.[24]

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one—a clear majority of the whole—certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."

But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law"; while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[25]

Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution—the identical Congress which passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical same individual men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after, the act enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending.[26]

The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of "the Government under which we live," which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories.

Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation from the same mouth, that those who did the two things, alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we—better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent?

It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."[27] And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century, (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century,) declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. To those who now so declare, I give, not only "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them.

Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience—to reject all progress—all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.

If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," were of the same opinion—thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they "understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now."

But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask—all Republicans desire—in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content.

And now, if they would listen—as I suppose they will not—I would address a few words to the Southern people.

I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite—licence, so to speak—among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section—gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started—to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.[28]

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live"; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty"; but never a man among you in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.[29]

Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair; but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which was not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves.

Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least, three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry?[30] You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was "got up by Black Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection, is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains.

Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances,[31] The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed.

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."[32]

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution—the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.

John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.

And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper's Book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling—that sentiment—by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights.[33]

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it;[34] that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact—the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."[35]

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. Bear in mind, the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there—"distinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else—"expressly," that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or slavery, and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person";—and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be due,"—as a debt payable in service or labor.[36] Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.

To show all this, is easy and certain.[37]

When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live"—the men who made the Constitution—decided this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago—decided it without division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government, unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican President! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me—my money—was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can.[38] Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only; cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly—done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated—we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone—have never disturbed them—so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions.[39] Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.[40]

Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality—its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension—its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong.[41] Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored—contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man—such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care—such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance—such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

 

[Gary K]

20 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I will agree with you on this, I think! Lately, the NAD has taken some positions that are at variance with the world church. And it is no surprise that presidents of colleges make these statements. Sometimes, the political and theological twist to some of the SDA universities get so out of line with the church that some in the conferences they are located in wish they were somewhere else!

The fact that presidents of local conference can arrive at a different opinion is also not surprising. I have not read their statements, but as you report it, if it had to be made then it should have been made that way, i.e., not taking sides.

You can find their statements on Spectrum in the article addressing what the SDA church's response to Charlottesville has been.  I found it through a duckduckgo search as I stopped using all Google products after their treatment of James Damore.