Among the much reading I have
to do for this American slavery and racism project, about half ends up being
helpful or interesting. Some of it is drudgery. Some, however, gives a little
delight and a spark of hope, as well as a little surprise. Among the more
remarkably surprising little bits I have found is Charles Hodge’s
article penned on the occasion of Lincoln’s assassination.
While I find the piece to be
far too hagiographical of Lincoln himself, it contains several surprising
notes. Hodge gives a remarkably clear and convincing review of why slavery
was indeed the cause of the war, yet he also later notes just as
clearly and firmly that Lincoln did not wage war to free the slaves, and
clearly maintained that position, but rather it was to save the Union whatever
else may happen. Hodge acknowledges several other interesting facts and perspectives
as well. But when he turns to the question that many people were urging the
execution of Southern rebels for war crimes, the human race receives one of the
finest little gems of theological and moral writing ever put to paper,
especially by a Northern writer. Here, we see man of principle remain
consistent with his principles under pressure. The excerpt on the “sacred”
right of revolution is as follows:
***
(From “President Lincoln,” by
Charles Hodge, The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 37, no.
3, July 1865.)
The right of revolution is a
sacred right of freedom. It is a right which, if Englishmen and Americans had
not claimed and exercised, despotism had now been universal and inexorable. It
is of special moment in times of popular excitement, that great principles of
moral and of civil policy should be kept constantly in view. It is plain that
rebellion as homicide, may be an atrocious crime, or justifiable, or
commendable, according to circumstance. Whereas moral offences are always, and
under all circumstances, evil. A good thief, or good murderer, is as much a
solecism as good wickedness. But a good rebel is no such solecism. Hampden was
a rebel, so was Washington; they and thousands of other good men have risen in
armed resistance to constituted authority, and such resistance has been
justified by the verdict of the enlightened conscience of the world.
But even when rebellion is not
justifiable; nay, when it is not only a great mistake, but really a great crime
in itself considered, it does not necessarily follow that those who commit it
must be wicked men. It is often the effect of wrong political theories. In the
protracted wars In England, between the house of York and Lancaster, good men
were found on either side. So also, in the war between Charles I and the
Parliament; between the adherents of the Stuarts and the house of Hanover. It
did not follow that a man was wicked because he conscientiously believed that
the Pretender was legally entitled to the British throne. A man might be a
Christian, and believe that the Salic law bound the Spanish nation, and
rendered it incumbent on him to be a Carlist. In like manner it cannot be
doubted that thousands of our Southern brethren religiously believed that their
allegiance was due first to their several States, then, and only conditionally
to the Union. This does not infer moral depravity. No sane man can believe that
all the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist clergy and laity, who
entered into the rebellion, were unrenewed, wicked men.
There is, therefore, a
distinction between political offences and ordinary crime, and to treat both
alike would be a violation of the plainest principles of justice. This is not
saying that rebellion, except for adequate cause, is not a moral offence; nor
is it saying that the late Southern rebellion was not a great crime, for such
it assuredly was; nor is it saying that because a man think a thing is right,
to him it is right; but it is saying that there may be a great difference
between the criminality of an act in itself, and the blameworthiness of the
offenders. Men forget what a strange anomalous thing human nature is. There
have been pious persecutors, and pious slave-traders. The Scotch Covenanters
believed that it was the duty of the civil magistrate to suppress false
religions, and therefore they felt justified, in treating their opponents as
their opponents treated them. Samuel hewed Agag in pieces, they believed
heretics should be put to death. John Newton (author of hymns still sung in all
our churches,) was a slave-trader after his conversion. Why, then, must we take
it for granted that every man who aided the rebellion was in heart a
reprobate[?]
(The full piece can be accessed
here.)