LETTER XXXVI.
Dear Charles,—You reason in your last on the manner
of intercourse with the world, in the main, judiciously;
although exceptions may be taken to some of your inferences.
For, beyond all doubt, if the practical working of a
principle lead us into absurdity, that principle is somewhere
defective or false; and that, whatever show of excellence it
may have. By the fruits, principles may be tested as well
as men.
Be it ever remembered, that we deal with men in this
mixed state in one or more relations, without dealing with
them in all; and provided we deal with any in what is lawful
and good, we are not understood to deal with them in
what is of a different character, or thus to countenance them
in what is illegal and bad.
Men do have often some employment or office that is in
all respects proper and advantageous, and with that, some
other which is doubtful. But one coming into necessary
and regular contact at the lawful point, does by no means
touch them at the other; and even if they make use of
gains acquired by praiseworthy industry, in ways hurtful
and immoral, we do not give them money for such abuses,
but for their honest labor.
Supposing, as ultraists say and attempt occasionally to
act, we were to cease all dealings and intercourse as citizens
of a mixed community with men whose whole life and
doings did not quadrate with the rules of strict virtue, then
may we at once “go out of the world,” and profess ourselves
wiser than an inspired Apostle, who does not forbid
us as citizens of a community to act as such. Our kingdom
is not of this world, that we should dare by these self-righteous
and pharisaical ostentations, to frown and lash
men into virtue; let us allow Cæsar to chastise his own
subjects. Not only “is it not good to be righteous over
much” in this way, but it is an attempt fraught with silliness
and abortion. Nay, it is of the essence of a most
odious despotism; and if not thwarted, would establish an
inquisition with all its satanic implements in every village,
hamlet, and neighborhood, throughout both Purchases. This
self-consequential spirit, affects the character of heaven; it
would, if it dare and could, cast men into hell.
It sometimes happens, that with a lawful business may
be so linked and blended an unlawful one, that it becomes
exceedingly difficult to know whether, in dealing with the
person at all, we are not encouraging him in his wickedness;
and whether he does not so understand and interpret
our course. Here all the rules that pertain to doubt in
morals apply; and no greater difficulty is found in determining
our duty in this perplexing case than in a thousand
others. We act in cases almost innumerable only from the
greater probability. Absolute certainty in most moral
actions is rare. Of course, then, the ordinary probabilities
are to guide us here; and no new rules are necessary or
obligatory. In most cases, our established character and
well known opinions on moral and political questions, will
secure us from being unavoidably misunderstood; and in
others, a public or private protest, as the case may be, will
be sufficient to prevent evil. But if neither of these can
obviate the erroneous impression our conduct would produce,
then let us cease all intercourse with the man whose complex
business leaves it doubtful whether he be acting more
against than for law and virtue.
Upon the whole, then, as citizens subject to the same
political rules, we may, in general, deal and have intercourse
with our fellow-citizens in whatever lawful and good employments
and offices they may exercise or discharge—provided
such employments and offices are not clearly in opposition
to the Bible—and we may leave to our fellow-citizens the
entire responsibility of using their honest gains as they please.
Adopt a contrary principle, Charles, and it becomes reductio
ad absurdum: and impracticability proves the falsity of a
moral as well as of a mathematical proposition.
The rules adopted by some moral reformers array citizens
in clans, and keep the community in a perpetual state
of intestine war—an evil greater than what they would destroy.
The most bitter, vindictive, and fiercely censorious
spirit, is generated and cultivated. The rabid reformer, on
the one hand, determining to hunt, prosecute, punish, and
destroy all not squaring with his perfect rule, and the others,
with clenched teeth and fixed jaws, determined to resist
intolerance, impudence, and bigotry.
We may enter the kingdom of heaven ourselves, and, in
addition to example, we may earnestly, and affectionately,
and logically, and perseveringly entreat others to come with
us; but we may not, and we cannot scourge men into it by
prosecutions or persecutions, whether by laws, or public
opinion, or combinations. Fish will not bite till they are
disposed to taste the bait, even if you swear at them.
And some rampant lecturers, on both sides of the Atlantic
and of opposite genders, do all but swear at existing systems
of what they deem political and moral evil.
In both Purchases, under semblance of encouraging reformations,
premiums are paid for new virtues. Hence, not
rarely do the Jonathanistical avail themselves of the offers,
and find ways, by a timely adhesion to the combination, of
making more money than in their former concerns. All this
is very well, in the general: for, if men have not faith, and
do not look for reward and approbation beyond this life,
and are not conscientiously in love with virtue for its own
sake, it may be right to let them feel the immediate reward
of goodness every time they thrust a hand into the breechespocket.
Society may defend itself even by the selfishness
of its citizens. But we pause and doubt and question when
the premium floods the country with lecturers who tell what
all know and yet find it profitable—with “moral” play-actors—with
“moral” singers—with “moral” stages—“moral”
ferry boats—while all the time these “moralists” are
often infidel in sentiment and sometimes licentious in practice!
Yes, Charles, some of these new lights, were it not for
one solitary virtue professed and practised for a consideration,
would be shunned by some truly good and pious people of both
sexes, because of the many vices they practise without consideration.
You did right enough, Charles, when you renewed your
allegiance to the Temperance Society, to stand on the “reserved
rights.” Yes, buy your groceries where you please—
travel by what conveyance you choose—stop where you
like—employ what mechanics and laborers you think fit—
give not up your liberty. All other things equal, occasions
may arise when it may be proper to give preferences—but
if such preferences are in consequence of a systematized
plan, they are always a short-sighted policy, and not rarely
unjust and mean and sneaking.
What! are men who were only indifferent in any art
before their fall, are they by some legerdemain transformed
by a reform in their morals into the most skillful and excellent
persons? Does one vice, even if persisted in, cut a
man off from all the ordinary expectations he has in common
with the sober? And why shall we stop at one special
vice—why, not insist men shall cease from all lying, and
swearing, and smoking, and demagogueism! as well as
drinking and Sabbath-breaking?
Do we not all incline enough to our own interests and
look sharp enough after number one, to desert readily poor
workmen and negligent storekeepers, and careless coachmen,
without being commanded to do so? And if drinking
make men negligent or fraudulent, we shall soon enough
take care of ourselves. Let us, then, be left to judge when
we are hurt or cheated; and not magisterially forced by a
combination to take away custom from our fellow-citizens—
for fear of what may happen. Our fellow-citizens who are
wickedly and foolishly addicted to one or a dozen vices, will
naturally go to ruin; we need not do what is equivalent to
giving an accelerating shove.
In many cases, Charles, where a husband, or father, or
brother is an inebriate, or sells the forbidden liquors, there
the wife and children, the sisters, are among the very best
people on earth;—and in any sense of the term you choose.
They are religious, well educated, polished, tasteful, liberal:
and will you dare to ask me to punish these for the sins of
the relative? Are they not bowed down sufficiently? Must
I be raised up, by the machinery of an irresponsible combination,
and dropped down upon their crushed hearts—a dead
weight? Charles, these “rectified spirits” may use others
as opinion serves—but myself never!
Charles, men very frequently deceive themselves in
thinking a benevolent regard for morals induces them to
these restrictive measures. Motives, upon a severe and
honest examination, will often be ferreted out of the dark
works of a deceitful heart, that we shall shudder to behold—
a wish on our part to be felt in society as masters—and a
determination to punish rather than reform. True it is, “power
steals from the many to the few;” but no less true that
many love power and will exercise power when they have
the opportunity. Easy, then, for such, if the cause in which
they aim at supreme power is a moral one, to keep the real
motive concealed from others and in a measure from themselves;
and naturally taking the Supreme Being as of their
party, they will soon learn to exercise his exclusive power,
and punish as well as reign.
From the times of our blessed Saviour till now, zealots
have ever been ready to call down fire to destroy the Samaritans;
and secular as well as sacred papists are willing to
roast any sort of a heretic either in a quick or a slow fire.
Most will not wait till the harvest, but are determiued to pull
up the cockle, even if they root out the wheat.
Pray, does your reverence intend to be witty, when you
dared to say in a late epistle, “a conservative is a sensible
sort of a fellow that sees faults in both sides and none in
himself?” Now let me enlighten your darkness: know,
that a conservative is neither a neutral like some folks, nor a
lukewarm like others.
A neutral is a chap that cares for no interest save his
own: a lukewarm is a once fiery hot ultraist that is become
sick of his cause, because he can neither rule nor punish, and
is ready to—cascade; but a conservative is a noble fellow
that stands on the side of common sense and common decency—a
man that, scorning the control of a party or a
clique, is for the rights of humanity, and in defence of such
rights he will dare to do battle single-handed against the
insolent zealot on the one hand, and the sneaking fagger on
the other. Far away from cowardice is the conservative;
and he needs all the excellent qualities that constitute the
true patriot and the true philanthropist; and all the perspicacity
and logical coolness and acumen that characterize
the genuine philosopher.
Small mental calibre is needed to admit the little shot
fired by the one idea party, whether in politics or morals.
Half wit and half an eye are sufficient to discern the superficial
bigness which they either assault or defend; for such
men see nothing but the most obvious matters; which, however,
they clamorously set forth as wondrous discoveries!
And as to courage, a very tiny amount serves to charge with
a crowd of zealots amidst noise, frenzy, and self-glorification
upon—nothing; and especially if money or eclat is to be
had for the service. Shaking Quakerism lives only in—company.
A single one would die.
I know these fellows boast of their “big guns;” but of
course they can mean only because of the noise which said
artillery makes in exploding, and the dense volume of stenchy
smoke that follows. We have heard the large artillery of
ultraisms; but we were reminded, not of cannon, but of an
enormous bell with a dozen clappers ringing odd changes on
the veriest common places
ad défendumdum.
Ergo, conservatism is the bone and sinew and muscle of
truth; and temperance and all moral reformations are to
be advocated temperately. Quod erat demonstrandum.
