Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 2, Number 51, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 April 1859 — JOSEPH C. LOVEJOY’S LETTER. [ARTICLE]

JOSEPH C. LOVEJOY’S LETTER.

, On the first page of this paper will be f6und the letter of Joseph C. Lovejoy, makingrestrictions on the speech of h's brother, the Hon. Owen Lovejoy, of Illinois, which speech was published in the Gazette last week. Joseph holds a fat office in the Boston Custom House, and the probable ) motive that induced him to write the letter was, perhaps, the fear that the Admiirstration would look with suspicion on the “Democracy” of the brother of the man who delivered such a bold, defiant and masterly speech as did Owen Lovejoy. Taking this view of Joseph’s motive, it will somewhat palliate his conduct in coming forward as the champion of the Pro-slavery party, and endeavor to snatch from the noble brow of his noble brother the laurels that he has so honorably gained in defending the rights of free labor. If we take any other view of his motive, we will be forced to admit that he was actuated by a mean spirit of envy for his brother’s popularity. But take it in any light we choose, the letter of Joseph C. Lovejoy to Owen Lovejoy is unbrotherly, unkind, and totally uncalled so this unbrotherly" act is aggravated by his sending the letter to the Washington Union f republication. It is a Federal officerholder rebuking the chosen Representative of the people— a disgrace to a free government. Our object in copying the letter in full is to clearly show where the Democratic party now stands. The Democratic press of the country have spoken out in favor of the doctrines contained in the letter, and we have heard several of our Democratic friends in Rensselaer pronounce it the best thing of the kind they ever read, and that it “completely uses up Owen Lovejoy.” We have heard men make such remarks who afterward admitted that they had not yet re; d the speech, and therefore were not qualified to express an intelligent opinion on the subject; but they were fast enough to indorse

I the letter. The letter, without comments, j answers itself in most particulars, but we ! cannot refrain from noticing some of its I most glaring inconsistencies. It Is like the Australian “ boomerang,” which, when it is thrown by an inexperienced hand, after darting and curving in almost every conceivable direction, returns and injures the person who threw it. The Republican press and orators have always contended that the fathers of the Republic looked on slavery as an evil, and that Washington, Franklin, the Adamses, Jetferson, and other great men, anxiously looked forward to the day when this curse should be ult mutely eradicated from American soil. This position the Democratic I press and orators denied ; but Joseph C. Lovejoy says that, only twenty-five years ; ago, “almost every man at the South, at ; that time, admitted that slavery was an evil, moral, social and political.” Thus, by ) their own witness, we prove that the Democratic part has changed fronts on the slaveiry question within twenty-five years, and still they unblushingly claim Jefferson as the great founder of their party! Eight and ten years ago the Democratic press and oralors, and Democratic i.'onventions, in the free States, admitted that slavery was an evil, and loudly protested that they were as much opposed to its extension as any set of men could be—that it was the true policy ot the country to prevent its extension by all legal means. Now, Joseph says, “if slavery be a sin, a wrong, or an evil, no fair mind can resist the conclusion that efforts ought to be made, as soon as possible, to, do it away.” So far, so good; but he says in another place, that slaveholders “are entitle to be lot ked upon as benefactors to the ci.untry and to the human race!” With the admission that “almost every man at the South,” twenty-five years ago, “admitted that slavery was an evil, moral, social and political,” but that this belief was fallacious, and that slaveholders “are entitled to be looked upon as benefacfactors to the country and to the human race,” Joseph says that the Democratic party “is destined, under that name, and with essentially its original and present principles, to govern this nation while it remains a Republic.” “Original and present principles!” Was ever such a flat contradiction heard before! As though the Democracy of Jefferson, the first Democratic President, was the same as ’lie Democracy of Buchanan, who we believe is destined t be the last of Democratic Presidents. Well di I Owen Lovejoy entitle his speech “The Fanaticism of the Democratic Party.”

Dem -crats of late have been very sou l of asserting"that “Black Republicans” were “amalganjutionists,” “nigger loyeis,” that they desired to place the blacks on a social equality with the whites, &c. Joseph comes forward and kindly relieves the “Black Republicans” from such charges, by saying that “ the most respectable colored men in Boston (that hot-bed cl “Black Republicanism”) would not be permitted to hire o to own and quietly enjoy a pew in the broad ais e of any fashionable church.” All “Black Republicans” must feel pfir*--soundly grateful to Joseph for I elptng them out of this dilemma, although we cannot help thinking that no intelligent man, in his sound senses, ever gave credit to the charges. But the grand and culminating point in the letter is the argument to show that the African race is taken from heathenism and brought to this country and enslaved, in order that “they may be taught to worship the true God.” The African slave-trade is' a grand and magnificent scheme for Christianizing and humanizing the black man! Such philanthropy is almost incomprehensible! The Southern slaveholders, who have heretofore received the exe. rations of mankind, have been going on steadily and calmly in their huge self-denying work of ledeeming the African race from heathenism. Slavers have been lilted out to kidnap them and b>mg them to a land of Christianity and moral elevation. We have heretofore esteemed slavers as no better than pirates, ' but are now taught in this letter to look on them as the most self-sacrificing and heroic i missionaries the world ever saw. They I brave the dangers of wind, fire and water to | elevate the social condition of the black Iman; and this is not all—they brave the danger of being detected in their holy and I and philanthropic work, and of being branded and punished as pirates, to suffer an ignominous death or imprisonment, when, in fact, they are undergoing martyrdom for the cause of humanity and of religion. Such holy devotion, such pure Christianity, such i unexampled steadfastness of purpose to the | cause of elevating the condition, social and I rebgious, of the down- roddon son of toil, is unparalleled in the history of all the nations that have risen and fallen since the world ■ began; and future historians will record in ' words that burn how the slave-catchers have ' waded through seas of him afn blood and human anguish to benefit the poor and despised Africans! The blacks are brought hpre ami taughtto work, so as to save their souls in the next world. Joseph says that Dr. Dwight once said tha’ he “never knew hut one lazy man to be {converted,” and “as God had some chosen people in Africa, in was necessary I that they should be taught ,to work in order to their.conversion." Hem again is sn ev-

idence of that self-sacrificing missionary spirit that permeates the slaveholder. Missionaries to heathen lands go there to teach the Gospel to the heathens, in the full faith that they themselves wilEalso reap eternal life along with the poor heathens; but the slaveholding missionary gives up the cultivation of his rice, sugar and cotton fields to the despised race, “in order to their conversion,” while he jeopardizes his own salvation by living a lazy life of eaze and luxury. “Dr. Dwight never knew but one lazy man to be converted.” Awfully grand and magnanimous! The slat eholder teaches the slaves to work “in order to their conversion!”—and at what a earful cost! “Hung be the heavens in black!" Joseph tells us that the king of Dahomey has tour hundred wives, whom he employs in carrying palm oil to the coast, and are driven “along by a herd of lazy men.” He then adds: “Now, is it any great sin to catch a set of t.izy fellows that live on the ettrning*. of their wiyes, learn them to work, make them to work, teach them to love one another and to love their children, so that' their highest ambition shall no longer be to buy an extra number o! wives, that they may have a few pickaninnies to sell!” This argument goes too far,for il it proves anything it proves that “it is no great sin to catch a set of lazy fe lows” who live on the earnings ol their slaves—sometimes “their wives and children,” or, what is the same thing, their slave concubines and bastards—and “learn them to work, make them Work.” The same argument that justifies the enslave-) went of the blacks because they work and ; mistreat their wives, will also justify the I enslavement of their white masters because I they mistreat their,slaves. This argument ' goes too far’. It would justify an insurrection a ong the servile blacks of the Southern States. However, ilt is the correct conclusion to be drawn from the argument in the letter under consiueration. “Teach them to love one another and to love their children.” What for! To make them suffer the m“re excruciating anguish, when their families are torn by ruthless' hands! Well would it be forthem, while! writhin '• under the lash of their Southern task-masters, if God had not implanted in their breasts the divine instinct of love for one another: for then father, mother, si.-ter, brother, would not bo compelled to undergo that terrible grief at separating from those they hold most deter on earth, and to ; bitterly mourn over their unknown late until relieved by death. Oblivious to all the finer feelings of human nature would be a ' blessiqg to them while they remain in slavery. - W In the same paragrap i Joseph savs that “the fie t thing that could be done for Africe, if they could jive there, would be to send a hundred thousand Am -riean slavelu Ilers,! to work them (not the slaveholders, but the blacks, we suppose he means.) up to somedegree of civilization.” XVe will add, that I the best thing that couild be done for the) United States, if it were practicable, would; be to send all the slaveholders in this country to Africa,or to some other heathen coun■<ty, where their profession would not be a disgrace to the civilization and intelligence of the nineteenth century. The letter goes on to say that “there are visible footprints of God’s disapprobation ol the Abolitionism ot this country,” and then! points to the number of infidels to be found. I The author certainly forgets himself when he lays the increase of infidelity at the door; of Abolitionists. Who have done so much; to heap disgrace and ignominy on the Chris-! tian religion as the Democratic papers of the day! Since 1853, when three thousand ministers in New Englund alone protested) to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Democratic press, with singular unanimity, have clutched with fiend-like exultation every opportunity to create the impression that the ministers of the country were all wolves in sheep’s clothing. Every one who has been in the hajbit of reading the Democratic papers, could nut help but notice how careful they Were to note everv fault in an erring minister. Every case, from Maine to California, was set forth in flaming characters, in order to throw all the disgrace possible upon the profession. They sometimes even went sol far as to manufacture cases of delinquency in ministers out of the whole cloth, and village gossip, that would not have been noticed by any respectable paper in relation to any other class of citizens, when a preacher was connected with it, was heralded forth in all the Democratic papers of the country as a specimen of the depravity of the Clerical profession. Is it to be expected that such a combined effort, for a number of years, would not have the effect of increasing infidelity! No; the wonder is that all Democrats are not infidels. We would expect, under such circumstances, that every member of the Democratic party would either leave it or denounce Christianity as a monstrous delusion. And now, for a Pro-slavery writer to come forward nnd charge the increase of infid dity on “God’s disapprobation of Abolitionism in this country,” is the most audacious and reckless assertion to be found in the letter. Joseph srys, “as to the influence of i slavery on the character of the whites, th. 4 | is quite another question,” and then proI ceeds to enumerate the names of the inuuy >‘stinguit>hcd men and pure patriots who

have lived in the Southern States. That the; South has had her propor ion of great men and patriots, no one pretends to denv; but were any one to repeat in the Southern States of this Union the language once used on the subject of slaverv by Washington, Jefferson, Clay, and other great men who were born and reared in slave States, he would be term ed an “incendiary,” ‘.‘abolitionist,” “nigger thief,” &c., and in ninetynine cases out of a hundred would suffer personal violence at the hands of an infuriated mob. But Joseph refrains from entering into a discussion as to “ the influence of slavery on the character of the whites,” and says that “is quite another question.” We think different. If slavery proves detrimental to the white rac , no argument that it is beneficial to the black race would be satisfactory. It.is indeed wretched policy to bring slaves from Africa in order to Christianize them and improve their social condition, if, on the other h ind, it tends to depress the social stan iing of the white race. And that it does tend to debase the laboring white man there is no kind of doubt. No where in the country can the laboring class be found so debased and ignorant as those unfort nate whites in slave State who depend on their daily labor for their sustenance. There to labor is a disgrace—in the free States it is honorable. There the man who works for himself and family is termed “poor white trash”—here the man who jvorks is held in higher respect than he who does not. There education is confined to the wealthy, and the poor are kept in ignorance—here the State educates the r.ch and poor »4ike. There no man dare express an opinion in opposition to that slavery that is grinding him in the dust and crushing out every generous impulse of manhood and independence—here every one is as free as the air he breathes, to declare and maintain any opinion he chooses on any subject. There the white race is retrograding—-here it is advancing. The Southern planter affects to believe that Northern “small-fisted farmers and greasy mechanics •• re not lit to associate with a gentleman’s body servant.” They are the “mud-sills of society.” Such is the language and such the sentiment of the South. No other state of feeling could be expected in regions where the labor of a servile and inferior race is allowed to come in competition with free labor. It is burn in nature, and the sooner we stop the expansion and cut. off the supplies of slavery, the sooner will the evil be eradicated from American soil. This article has spun out to a greater length th in we had intended; but ore more point must be no Iced. The letter of Joseph C. Lovtj >y is headed: “Decay of Abolitionism m New England.” This may be so, or it may not. One thing, howev r, is certain —that an election was held in Connecticut since the letter was written, at which the last fortress of the I) inocracy in New England was taken from them. This shows,that that party has completely died out in' New England. There Republicanism carries everything b fore it. All hail the Republ cans ot New England, and may Indiana and the other North-western States imitate herjexampl'e at no distant day.