The Liberator

NON-RESISTANCE.

From the Non-Resistant.

O. A. Brownson --- Non-Resistance.

Chelsea, Mass. Dec. 23.—Last evening had a discussion with O. A. Brownson, in this town. I have seldom met a man who seems to estimate human life at a cheaper rate, and whose opinions of armed defence are more bloody. His views are, indeed, in perfect harmony with the views of the ministers and churches generally; only he advocates them more frankly, and avows them more openly, and carries them out more consistently. He said 'If my wife and children were attacked, and there were no other way to save them, I would thrust a dagger into the assailant's heart; that for purposes of protection, it was the duty of the nation to prepare for war and destroy all invaders, if need be; that military power was the glory and defence of the nation. We should not look at men, in great international contests, butchering each other, but at principles that were making headway on every field of blood. Humanity and religion had made progress mainly on that field where brother met brother in deadly conflict; that the blood and carnage of battle-fields, instead of making us shudder, should be regarded as the sure tokens of the progress of humanity and civilization: and Thermopylæ, Marathon, Borodino, Waterloo, Bunker Hill and Saratoga, instead of being regarded with horror, ought to be hailed as the brightest spots on the record of time. On these fields, where brother sheathed his sword in the heart of his brother, Liberty and Slavery, Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice, Humanity and Inhumanity, Religion and Irreligion, contended for the mastery, and the right and true always came off victorious; that, when attacked men, as individuals and communities, may defend themselves by arms and blood; and afterwards inquire whether they had done right or wrong ; that in the matter of armed defence, man might take a lesson of the brutes. The brute shamed man when he refused to kill the assailant in defence of wife and children, if need be. I am shocked at hearing such sentiments advocated in view of Bunker Hill—that field of glory, where Liberty and Slavery once met in the death-struggle. We need not that a stranger should come here to tell us that the heroes and patriots of '76 did wrong in resisting oppression by arms and blood. We spurn the thought. They have left us a legacy, and we will defend it, if need be, at the expense of the heart's blood of all who would wrest it from us.'

Thus he assumed discretionary power over human life—that man might kill—annihilate man as man, at discretion—when he thought he ought to die. In this he agrees with all ministers who advocate the right and duty of human government. Yet O. A. Brownson concluded by saying—'I hope non-resistance will prevail—that men will embrace it and act it out. I have no fear that it will do hurt. It will endanger none but those who embrace it. But men will fight with swords till they learn to fight with pens and tongues.'

In answer, I assured brother Brownson that he must have gone to the brutes to learn such views as he had thrown out; for he never could have learned them of God or man. None but wolves and hyenas could teach him such sentiments. I admitted his position, that when camp duty and butchering men are to be done, the ministers and christians ought to go and do them, if any body; that the ministers ought to be the captains, the deacons the corporals, and the churches the companies to do the fighting. But I hoped he and they would do their fighting in love; that they would put away all anger, wrath, revenge and bitterness, and be kindly affectioned, tender-hearted and forgiving to each other while they thrust their swords and bayonets into each other's hearts; that they would blow out each other's brains and tear out each other's hearts in love—in the spirit of Christ!!! He took the ground of A. A. Phelps, J. Leavitt, Daniel Sharp, D. D., N. Colver, and most all the ministers of this land—that the spirit of Christ in the hearts of men would lead them to thrust the dagger and sword into each other's hearts in self-defence. In opposing non-resistance, they are driven to this position, that the spirit of the meek, forgiving, long-suffering Jesus, in the hearts of men, would lead them, in self-defence, to tear each other to pieces with cannon shot, bullets and bombshells! Thus making the Prince of Peace the commander-in-chief of all the military power of this world! FIGHT IN LOVE!!! NEVER.

O. A. Brownson has been much identified with the political discussions of our country. His views of democracy have rendered him odious and unpopular among the dominant party. The ministers, who in every country are most invariably found siding with the aristocracy of wealth, and who are opposed to non-resistance, have done all they could to load down our holy enterprise with whatever odium may be attached to O. A. Brownson and his political views. I would that O. A. Brownson were in principle, in spirit and practice, a non-resistant. If he were, I should have no objection to see the cause saddled with whatever odium might then be justly attached to him. But while O. A. Brownson figures as he now does, as a voter and office-holder in this blood-stained government, and while he advocates sentiments so ferocious and bloody, and so abhorrent to non-resistants, the enemies of non-resistance must have him all their own. All those ministers who maintain that Christ was an armed resistant, and that his spirit leads men to deeds of blood and slaughter, in defence, or as a penalty, (as most all do,) should give the right hand of Christian fellowship to O. A. Brownson. When they and he repent of their bloody sentiments and practices, (heaven grant it soon!) then will non-resistants welcome them, however unpopular, to their fellowship of loving hearts as co-workers in their dear and heroic enterprise.

H. C. WRIGHT.