CHAPTER XVI.

CREED of Parties-Their Tendencies and Results-Warning of Washington-Mr. Morris a Democrat from Principle-Catechised by the Democratic Legislature-His Answer-Rejected for a Second Term--Benjamin Tappan his Successor-Letter to the Ohio Statesman-Charles Hammond Read out of the Party-A Poem written after his Rejection and dedicated to Mr. Morris.

THE rigid creed of political parties, allows no liberal latitude in the expression of opinion. If a public man does not hold the doctrines of the party, with a dovetail exactness, he is, in the technical language of the party, read out; is a rotten member, unworthy of party confidence. His private judgment and conscience are subsidized to the inflexible tactics of party machinery; so that he is not free to act, or to follow where conscience and duty would lead. The political creed, formed often by selfish, ambitious politicians, is fixed, and no man can be a loyal member of the party, unless he adopts and carries out, in every particular, its doctrines. If he does not, he forfeits his party standing, and suffers disfranchisement from all political favors. Under this anti-democratic rule, politicians, and public men in office, have, against the convictions of their conscience and deliberate judgment, voted for public measures, because they were the measures of the party.

The dangers and evils of this political despotism are manifold. It is subversive of true manhood and independence. It substitutes a partisan spirit for national patriotism. It is a political inquisition, that tortures men to affect to believe what they can not. It enthrones the power of party, above conscience, truth, and patriotism,

and thus tends to the demoralization of the national heart. It disintegrates politics and political creeds from moral principles; and so subverts the strongest pillars of national prosperity and safety. It encourages corruption in public men, and creates a class of politicians, who live for party purposes, and labor only to reap the spoils of office. It is a virtual interdiction of freedom of thought, allowing no generous expansion of views, no act, except it is in exact conformity with party.

It was in view of such results of parties, that Washington, in his Farewell Address to his countrymen, declared: "The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party, are sufficient to make it the duty and interest of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. Their being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume."

It is a hopeful and healthy indication, now in its incipient stage of development, among the people of the United States, that political Platforms made by politicians, have lost the confidence of the American people. A new political and moral Millenium, will be inaugurated under such a dispensation.

Senator Morris was a Democrat, not because it was the synonym and watchward of a party, but because it was the representative of doctrines, that were free, universal, beneficent, and equal in their operations on all men; and if carried out, in their true intent, would enfranchise the world, and bestow on every man, the boon of personal liberty and all civil and natural rights. Hence, he was constitutionally incapable of working in the traces of a modern party. Indeed he thought party organizations frequently detrimental to the success of principles. "I follow party," said he, "where the Constitution and prin

ciples lead." And it was his unfaltering fidelity to true Democratic principles, that secured his banishment from the Democratic party.

The year subsequent to his retirement from the Senate. of the United States, he was a delegate from Hamilton County to the Democratic Convention, which assembled at Columbus, Ohio, on the 8th of January, 1840. That Convention passed strong resolutions against any political movement or agitation, connected with slavery, and declared that no sound Democrat would have part or lot with it."

Mr. Morris, faithful to the great principles of Democracy, attempted to speak, in defense of the repudiated principles. He was permitted, as an act of grace, to go on a short time, and then coughed down, and silenced by a Democratic Convention, which, in their address to the people of the State, reckoned it one of the chief glories of Jefferson's administration that "the freedom of speech and of the press were restored to the people."

After Mr. Morris had been silenced, a member rose (Mr. Sawyer) and declared-"That the Democratic party had no affinity with Abolitionists; and that he considered the gentleman from Hamilton (Mr. Morris) as a rotten branch that should be lopped off." This was received with loud shouts of "Agreed!" "Agreed!" "Let him go!" "Turn him out of the party, and all other Abolitionists with him!"

Previous to the defeat of Mr. Morris, for a second term, to the Senate of the United States, the Democratic Committee of the Legislature of Ohio, sent him the Democratic Creed, for his approval.

To that communication he sent the following answer:

WASHINGTON, December 11th, 1838. GENTLEMEN-I received yours of the 7th instant, this morning, and I reply thereto as soon as possible. You

inform me that, having been selected by the Democratic members of the Legislature of Ohio, as a committee to interrogate the several persons named for United States Senator, you request my answer to the following interrogatories:

1. Are you in favor of an Independent Treasury Bill? My answer is, that I view the independence of the Treasury as essentially necessary to the independence of the country itself. I am, therefore, in favor of an Independent Treasury, free from all local and private influ

ence.

2. Are you a supporter of the leading measures of the present Administration?

I answer-I shall give my support to the Administration, in whatever situation I may be placed, in its opposition to a Bank of the United States; in its views with regard to the safe-keeping of the public money, and the disbursment thereof; the rights of the States, and the limitations of the powers of Congress. I say, further, that I know of no recommendation made by the present incumbent of the Presidential chair, of a general character, in which I do not concur. I am, therefore, in favor of the leading measures of the present Administration. 3. Are you for or against modern Abolitionism?

I am opposed to slavery in all its forms; and against its further extension in our country; believing it to be wrong in itself, and injurious to the best interests of the people, I view it as a creature of State law only, and that Congress have no power over it, as it exists in the States; neither have Congress the power to create a system of slavery where it does not exist, or to give it new and additional security. I believe that, if the citizens of a free State, when within the jurisdiction of a slave State, violate the slave laws of such a State, they are as justly punishable for such acts as they would be for the violation of the laws of such State in any other particular. I

hold that the citizens in each and every State, have an indisputable right to speak, write, or print, on the subject of slavery, as on any other subject; always liable to the laws of the State where the act is done, for the abuse of that liberty. The right of petition to the Legislature for a redress of grievances, I hold to be inviolate on all subjects, and above the power of law.

I believe also, however much we feel opposed to slavery, and however wicked and unjust we may believe the system, we are still, under our Government, bound to protect the slaveholder in his slave property, by aiding in the suppression of servile insurrection, or war. I believe it to be the duty of the States as well as their interest, to abolish slavery where it exists, but that no other State would be justifiable in interfering for that purpose.

I also believe the African race, born in our country, or brought into it against their will, ought to be protected in, and enjoy their natural rights; but I do not believe it would be good policy, or promote the safety of the country, the happiness of ourselves, or the Negro race, to admit them to the enjoyment of equal political or social privileges. I believe that the moral power of truth and reason, ought alone to be employed on behalf of the slaves; and that every citizen has the right to exercise this power, which, if rightfully used, will be sufficient for the downfall of slavery; and that, in all our intercourse with the colored race, we ought, constantly, to give them to understand, that we will not aid, but suppress, any attempt that may be made for their liberation in any other way.

I have thought it best to answer your third interrogatory, as I have done, because a direct answer might be liable to misconception or misunderstanding. As to what modern Abolitionism is; as it is represented by many, I believe it entirely wrong, but whether the representation be correct or not, I do not pretend to say. My opinions on this question have been often, both in public and private,