SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION ONE AND INSEPARABLE: ISSUES OF THE

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

SPEECH BEFORE THE NEW YORK YOUNG MEN’S REPUBLICAN UNION, AT COOPER

INSTITUTE, NOVEMBER 5, 1864.

The following speech[371] was delivered by Senator Sumner at

Cooper Institute, New York, on the afternoon of Saturday,

November 5, 1864, before one of the largest audiences ever

assembled within the walls of that capacious hall. By this

publication, the Young Men’s Republican Union, at whose

invitation the speech was delivered, brings to a close the

arduous labors of its third Presidential campaign,--the last of

a series of political battles, begun, prosecuted, and completed

in the interest and for the furtherance of the principles so

nobly and eloquently reasserted in the Massachusetts Senator’s

last and greatest speech.

Among the auditors, on this occasion, were at least two hundred

clergymen, of all denominations, from New York, Brooklyn,

Newark, and other adjacent cities. Not less than one thousand

ladies, and an equal number of the most eminent citizens of New

York, also aided to swell the crowd that assembled to do honor

to the distinguished orator, and to express the sympathy and

interest they felt in the great cause in whose behalf he was

announced to plead.

Besides Francis Lieber, LL. D., the widely known Professor of

Political Science in Columbia College, who was chosen Chairman

of the meeting by acclamation, there were upon the platform

many of the men and women of New York whose names and deeds in

various walks of life have illustrated the annals of Freedom’s

trials and triumphs in America.

Dr. Lieber, upon taking the chair, made a brief and appropriate

address, at the close of which he introduced Hon. Edwin D.

Morgan, who read a telegram, received from San Francisco,

giving assurance of a Union victory in California: the reading

of this despatch was hailed with applause and cheers. When

order had been restored, the Chairman presented the orator of

the occasion, who was made the recipient of an ovation such as

has seldom been accorded to a speaker in New York.

The speech, throughout, was received with every evidence

of enthusiasm and approval on the part of the vast audience,

the applause frequently interrupting the speaker for several

moments, and at times causing the hall to become the scene of

the wildest excitement. Few of those who were successful in

securing admission on this occasion will forget the rounds

of applause, the hearty cheers, the clapping of fair hands,

and the waving of hundreds of snowy handkerchiefs, by which

the swarming crowd so often testified its appreciation of Mr.

Sumner’s scholarly diction, effective eloquence, and patriotic,

statesmanlike utterance of these great political truths. It

is but simple truth to say, that none of the many political

meetings of the campaign, in New York, could at all compare

with this mass meeting of the flower of our citizenship,

whether regard be had to the numbers, intelligence, social

position, or sound sentiments of loyalty, which were the

characteristics of the great gathering of November 5th, 1864.

SPEECH.

FELLOW-CITIZENS,--In all the concerns of life, the first necessity

is to see and comprehend the circumstances about us. Without this

knowledge human conduct must fail. Without this knowledge the machine

cannot be worked, the ground cannot be tilled, the ship cannot be

navigated, war cannot be waged, government cannot be conducted. The old

Greek, suddenly enveloped in a cloud while battling with his enemies,

exclaimed, “Give me to see!”--and this exclamation of the warrior is

the exclamation, also, of every person in practical life, whether

striving for country or only for himself. “Give me to see,” that I may

comprehend my duty. “Give me to see,” that I may recognize my enemy.

“Give me to see,” that I may know where to strike.

The wise physician, before any prescription for his patient,

endeavors, by careful diagnosis, to ascertain the nature of the disease

or injury, and when this is done, he proceeds with confidence. Without

such knowledge all medical skill must fail. You do not forget how it

failed in the recent case of the Italian patriot, Garibaldi, suffering

cruelly from a wound in the foot, received at the unfortunate battle of

Aspromonte, which for a long time nobody seemed to understand. Eminent

surgeons of different countries were at fault. At last Nélaton, the

liberal professor of the Medical School at Paris, leaving pupils and

patients, journeyed into Italy to visit the illustrious sufferer. Other

surgeons said that there was no ball lodged in the foot; the French

surgeon, after careful diagnosis, declared that there was, and at once

extracted it. From that time Garibaldi gained in health and strength,

thanks to his scientific visitor, who was enabled to understand his

case.

Nowhere is diagnosis more important than in national affairs. Men are

naturally patriotic. They love their country with instinctive love,

quickened at the mother’s knee, and nursed in the earliest teachings

of the school. For country they offer fortune and life. But while

thus devoted, they do not always clearly see the line of duty. Local

prejudice, personal antipathy, and selfish interest obscure the vision.

And far beyond all these is the disturbing influence of “party,” with

all the power of discipline and organization added to numbers. Men

attach themselves to a political party as to a religion, and yield

blindly to its behests. By error of judgment, rather than of heart,

they give up to party what was meant for country or mankind. I do not

condemn political parties, but warn against their tyranny. A patriotic

Opposition, watchful of the public service, is hardly less important

than a patriotic Administration. They are the complements of each

other, and, even while in open conflict, unite in duty to country. But

a political party which ceases to be patriotic, which openly takes

sides with Rebellion, which sends up “blue lights” as a signal to an

armed foe, or which subtly undermines those popular energies now needed

for the national defence, that the Republic may live,--such a party is

an engine of frightful evil, to be abhorred as “the gates of hell.” It

is, unhappily, an evil of party always, even in its best estate, that

it tends to dominate over its members, so as to create an oligarchical

power, a sort of _imperium in imperio_, which may overshadow the

Government itself. This influence becomes disastrous beyond measure,

when bad men obtain control or bad ideas prevail. Then must all who are

not ready to forget their country consider carefully the consequences

of their conduct. Adherence to party may leave but one step to treason.

* * * * *

Fellow-citizens, I address you as patriots who love their country and

would not willingly see it suffer, who rejoice in its triumphs and

long to behold its flag furled in peace. But it is the nature of true

patriotism to love country most when it is most in peril. As dangers

thicken and skies darken, the patriot soul is roused by internal fire

so that no sacrifice seems too great. And now, when the national life

is assailed by traitors at home, while foreign powers look on with

wicked sympathy, I begin by asking that you should forget “party” and

all its watchwords. Think only of country.

* * * * *

There is much misconception, even among well-meaning persons, with

regard to the object of the war, while partisans do not tire of

misrepresenting it. A plain statement will show the truth as it is.

It is often said that the object of the war on our part is simply

to restore the Constitution, and much mystification is employed with

regard to the essential limits of such a contest. Mr. Crittenden’s

resolution, adopted by both Houses of Congress, declared that the war

was “not waged on our part in any spirit of oppression, or for any

purpose of conquest or subjugation, _or purpose of overthrowing or

interfering with the rights or established institutions of the Southern

States_,--but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution,

and to preserve the Union, _with all the dignity, equality, and rights

of the several States unimpaired_.”[372] I rejoice to remember that I

did not vote for this resolution. It was unsatisfactory to me at the

time, and is more unsatisfactory now. While plausible in form, it was

in the nature of a snare.

Again, it is said that the object of the war is to abolish Slavery.

This, also, is a mistake, although it is generally urged by those who

seek occasion to criticize the war, and therefore it is in the nature

of misrepresentation. At the beginning of the war, and during its

early stages, Slavery was left untouched, in the enjoyment of peculiar

immunity, such as was accorded to no other Rebel interest. If this

peculiar immunity has been discontinued, it is only because Slavery is

at last seen in its true character, and because its absolute identity

with the Rebellion has come to be recognized.

Not, then, to restore the Constitution, not to abolish Slavery, do we

go forth to battle,--for neither of these,--but simply _to put down

the Rebellion_. It is this, and nothing more. Never in history was

there a war with an object so manifest. If, in the process of putting

down the Rebellion, the Constitution shall be completely restored or

Slavery shall be completely abolished, the war will still be the same

in essential object.

From its origin you will see its true character beyond question.

Certain slave-masters, after long years of conspiracy, rose against

the Republic and struck at its life. The reason assigned for this

parricide was strange as the deed. It was simply because the people

of the United States, by constitutional majority, according to

prescribed forms of law, had elected Abraham Lincoln as President. On

this alleged reason, and to defeat his administration, Rebellion was

organized. You are familiar with the succession of parricidal blows

that ensued. State after State, beginning with South Carolina, always

traitorous, undertook to withdraw from the Union. Their Senators

and Representatives in Congress actually withdrew from the National

Capitol, leaving behind menaces of war. Custom-houses, post-offices,

mints, arsenals, forts, all possessions of the National Government, one

after another, were seized by the Rebel slave-masters. As early as the

1st of January, 1861, while James Buchanan was President, the palmetto

flag was hoisted over the custom-house and post-office at Charleston.

Already it had been hoisted over Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie in

the harbor of Charleston, while the national force allowed in these

fortresses surrendered to Rebel slave-masters. This was followed by

the seizure of Fort Pulaski at Savannah, Fort Morgan at Mobile, Fort

Jackson and Fort St. Philip at New Orleans, Fort Barrancas and Fort

McRae with the navy-yard at Pensacola. Throughout that whole Rebel

region two fortresses only remained to the National Government: these

were Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens. The steamer Star of the West,

bearing reinforcements to the small garrison cooped in Fort Sumter,

was fired at in the harbor of Charleston, and compelled to put back

discomfited. This was war. Meanwhile the Rebel States had taken the

form of a confederacy, with Slavery as corner-stone, and proceeded to

organize an immense military force in the service of the Rebellion. At

last, after long-continued preparations, the Rebel batteries opened

upon Fort Sumter, which, after a defence of thirty-four hours, was

compelled to surrender. There was rejoicing at the Rebel capital,

and the Rebel Secretary of War, addressing an immense audience, let

drop words which reveal the true character of the war. “No man,” said

he, “can tell where the war this day commenced will end; but I will

prophesy that the flag which now flaunts the breeze here will float

over the dome of the old Capitol at Washington before the 1st of May.

Let them try _Southern chivalry_ and test the extent of Southern

resources, and it may float eventually over Faneuil Hall itself.”[373]

It was already the 12th of April, and the Rebel flag was to float over

the National Capitol before the 1st of May. It was time that something

should be done in self-defence. Not only the National Capitol, but

Faneuil Hall, was menaced, while the boast of “Southern chivalry” went

forth.

Thus far the National Government had done nothing, absolutely nothing.

It had received blow after blow; it had seen its possessions, one

after another, wrested from its control; it had seen State after

State assume the front of Rebellion; it had seen the whole combined

in a pseudo-confederacy, with a Rebel President surrounded by a Rebel

Cabinet and a Rebel Congress; and it had bent under a storm of shot and

shell from Rebel batteries. At last it spoke, calling the country to

arms. Search history, and you can find no instance of equal audacity on

the part of rebels, and no instance of equal forbearance on the part of

Government.

The country was called to arms. Nobody can forget that day, when the

people everywhere, inspired by patriotic ardor, rose in _necessary

self-defence_ to save the National Capitol and Faneuil Hall, already

menaced. For the Rebellion the war had begun long before; but for the

country it began only at that great uprising, when all seemed filled

with one generous purpose, and nobody hesitated. Men calling themselves

Democrats vied with Republicans. Daniel S. Dickinson and Benjamin

F. Butler made haste to join their country. Party differences were

forgotten as the tocsin sounded.

It was the tocsin summoning the country to defend itself. The war then

and there recognized was, on our part, a war of national defence,

and its simple object was to put down the Rebellion. You confuse

yourself, if you say that it was to restore the Constitution; and you

misrepresent the fact, if you say that it was to abolish Slavery. It

was for the suppression of the Rebellion,--nor more, nor less.

* * * * *

Here, then, fellow-citizens, it becomes important to know and

comprehend the Rebellion, and especially its animating impulse, or

soul. From the beginning, its diagnosis has been essential to the

right conduct of the war; and if at any time the war seems to fail,

or foreign powers seem to lower, it is because our Government has

not recognized the true character of the Rebellion. “Give me to

see,” is the exclamation of every patriot, that our blows may not

fail. To all familiar with history it was obvious, at once, that

this Rebellion stood out in bad eminence, unlike any other of which

we have authentic record; that it was not a dynastic struggle, as in

the adventurous expeditions of the British Pretender; that it was not

a religious struggle, as in the French wars of the League; that it

was not a struggle against a conqueror, as in the repeated outbreaks

of Ireland; that it was not a struggle for Freedom, like that of

Switzerland against Austria, of Holland against Spain, of our fathers

against England, of the Spanish-American States against Spain, and

of Greece against Turkey; that it had in it none of these elements,

whether dynasty, religion, or freedom: for it was simply a struggle for

Slavery, and so completely had Slavery entered into and possessed it

that the Rebellion was changed to itself. If you would find a parallel

to this transcendent wickedness, you must pass “the flaming bounds of

place and time,” and look on that earliest Rebellion, when Satan strove

against the Almighty Throne to establish the supremacy of Sin, even

as now this insensate Rebellion strives to establish the supremacy of

Slavery. It is because partisans have failed to see the true character

of the Rebellion, or been unwilling to recognize it, that they do not

feel how absurd it is to say that the war on our part has been changed,

when nothing has been done but to recognize the identity between

Slavery and the Rebellion. There has been no change. It is still a war

to put down the Rebellion; but we are in earnest, and are determined

that the Rebellion shall not save itself by skulking under the _alias_

of Slavery. Call it Rebellion or call it Slavery, it is one and the

same.

A glance at the immediate origin of this war is enough for the present

occasion. But to dispel all darkness, and to determine our duty, let

me take you, for a few moments, back to the distant origin of the two

elemental forces now in deadly conflict.

Looking at the question abstractly, these two elemental forces are

nothing but Slavery and Liberty. It is superfluous to add that these

are natural enemies, and cannot exist together. Where Slavery is, there

Liberty cannot be; and where Liberty is, there Slavery cannot be. To

uphold Slavery, there must be uncompromising denial of Liberty; to

uphold Liberty, there must be uncompromising denial of Slavery. Each,

in self-defence, must stifle the other. Therefore between the two

is constant hostility and undying hate. This eternal warfare is not

peculiar to our country. It belongs to the nature of universal man. If

it fails to show itself anywhere, it is because Slavery has won its

most detestable triumph, and blotted out the Heaven-born sentiment of

Freedom. Circumstances among us, going back to our earliest history,

have given unprecedented activity to these two incompatible principles,

and have at last brought them into bloody battle, face to face. But it

is only part of the universal conflict which must endure so long as a

single slave shall wear a chain. Slavery itself is _a state of war_,

ready to burst forth in blood, whenever the slave reclaims that liberty

which is his right, or whenever mankind refuses to sanction its inhuman

pretensions.

Go back to the earliest days of Colonial history, and you will find

the conflict already preparing. It was in 1620 that twenty slaves were

landed at Jamestown, in Virginia,--the first that ever pressed the soil

of our country. In that same year the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth.

Those two cargoes contained the hostile germs which have ripened in

our time. They fitly symbolize our gigantic strife. On one side is the

slave-ship, and on the other is the Mayflower. Early events derive

importance as we learn to recognize their undoubted consequences, and

these two ships will be regarded with additional interest when it is

seen that in them were the beginnings of the present war.

Perhaps, in all the romantic legends of the sea, there is nothing more

striking than the contrast of these two vessels. Each had ventured upon

an untried and perilous ocean to find an unknown and distant coast. In

this they were alike; but in all else how unlike! One was freighted

with human beings forcibly torn from their own country, and hurried

away in chains to be sold as slaves: the other was filled with good

men, who had voluntarily turned their backs upon their own country,

to seek other homes, where at least they might be free. One was heavy

with curses and with sorrow: the other was lifted with anthem and with

prayer. And thus, at the same time, beneath the same sun, over the same

waves, each found its solitary way. By no effort of imagination do we

see on one Slavery and on the other Liberty, traversing the ocean to

continue here, on this broad continent, their perpetual, immitigable

war.

I am not alone in homage to the Mayflower. Others have delighted to

picture her, and none with more of that consummate art which makes

us see the petty craft transfigured by the divine cargo than an

illustrious contemporary.

“Hail to thee, poor little ship Mayflower, of Delft-Haven!

poor, common-looking ship, hired by common charter-party for

coined dollars; calked with mere oakum and tar; provisioned

with vulgarest biscuit and bacon: yet what ship Argo, or

miraculous epic ship built by the Sea-Gods, was other than

a foolish bumbarge in comparison? Golden fleeces, or the

like, these sailed for, with or without effect: thou, little

Mayflower, hadst in thee a veritable Promethean spark, the

life-spark of the largest nation on our earth,--so we may

already name the Transatlantic Saxon Nation.”[374]

There is no record of what passed on board the slave-ship, before

the landing of the slaves. The wail of Slavery, the clank of chains,

and the voice of the master counting his cargo, there must have been.

But the cabin of the Mayflower witnessed another scene, of which

there is authentic record, as the whole company, by solemn compact,

deliberately constituted themselves a body politic, and set the

grand example of a Christian Commonwealth,[375]--thus indicating the

character which they had claimed for themselves, as “knit together as

a body in a most strict and sacred bond and covenant of the Lord, of

the violation whereof we make great conscience, and by virtue whereof

we do hold ourselves straitly tied to all care of each other’s good,

and of the whole by every one, and so mutually.”[376] And so these two

voyages closed; but the two cargoes have endured, surviving successive

generations.

The early social life of the two warring sections attests the

prevailing influence. Virginia continued to be supplied with slaves,

so that Slavery became part of herself. On the other hand, New England

always set her face against Slavery. To her great honor, in an age when

Slavery was less condemned than now, the Legislature of Massachusetts

censured a ship-master who had “fraudulently and injuriously taken and

brought a negro from Guinea,” and by solemn vote resolved that the

negro should be “sent back without delay”;[377] and not long after

enacted the law of Exodus, “If any man stealeth a man or man-kind,

he shall surely be put to death.”[378] Thus at that early day stood

Virginia and New England: for such, at that time, was the designation

of the two provinces which divided British America by a line of

demarcation very nearly coïncident with the recent slave-line of our

Republic.

The contrast appears equally in the opposite character of their

respective settlers. Like seeks like, and the Pilgrims of the Mayflower

were followed by others of similar virtues, whose first labors on

landing were to build churches and schools. Many of them had the best

education of England; some were men of substance, and there was no

poverty among them that could cause a blush; while all were most exact

and exemplary in conduct. They were a branch from that grand Puritan

stock, to which, according to the reluctant confession of Hume, “the

English owe the whole freedom of their Constitution.”[379] We are told

by Burke that there is a sacred veil to be drawn over the beginnings

of all governments, and that, where this is not happily supplied by

time, it must be found in a discreet silence. But no veil is needed

for the Puritan settlers of New England. It is very different with the

early settlers of Virginia, recruited from the castaways and shirks of

Old England, and mostly needy men, of desperate fortunes and dissolute

lives, who cared nothing for churches or schools. Such naturally became

slave-lords. I should not lift the veil which charity would kindly

draw, if a just knowledge of their character had not become important

in illustrating the origin of our troubles.

* * * * *

It is a common boast of these slave-lords that they constitute a

modern “chivalry,” derived from the “Cavaliers” of England, and

reinforced by the “ennobling” influences of African Slavery.[380]

This boast has been so often repeated, that it has obtained a certain

acceptance among those not familiar with our early history, and even

well-informed persons allow themselves to say that the conflict in

which we are now engaged is a continuance of the old war between

Cavalier and Roundhead. So far as it is intended to say that the war is

part of the ever-recurring conflict between Slavery and Liberty, there

is no objection to this illustration. But if it be intended that the

Rebels are cavaliers, or descendants of cavaliers, there is just ground

of objection. I know not if the armies of the Union, now fighting

the world’s greatest battle for Human Rights, may not be called

“Roundheads”; but I am sure that Rebels now fighting for Slavery cannot

be called “Cavaliers” in any sense. They are not so in character, as

their barbarism attests; and they are as little so historically.

The whole pretension is a preposterous absurdity, by which the country

has been too much deceived. It is not creditable to the general

intelligence that such a folly should play such a part. Unquestionably

there were settlers in Virginia, as there were also in New England,

connected with aristocratic families. But in each colony they were too

few to modify essentially the prevailing population, which took its

character from the mass rather than from any individual. The origin of

Virginia is so well authenticated as to leave little doubt with regard

to its population, unless you reject all the concurrent testimony of

contemporaries and all the concurrent admissions of historians. There

is nothing in our early history with regard to which authorities are

so various and so clear. From their very abundance, it is difficult to

choose.

The original “Cavaliers” were English; but it is an historical fact

that the Rebel colonies were not settled exclusively from England.

The blood of Scotch, Irish, Dutch, Germans, Swiss, French, and Jews

commingled there, all of which is amply attested. Huguenots of France,

cruelly banished by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, found a

home in both the Carolinas. William Gilmore Simms, the novelist of

South Carolina, in a history of his native State, after mentioning the

arrival of the Huguenots, says: “Emigrants followed, though slowly,

from Switzerland, Germany, and Holland; and the Santee, the Congaree,

the Wateree, and Edisto now listened to the strange voices of several

nations, who in the Old World had scarcely known each other, except

as foes.”[381] From Hewit’s “Historical Account of South Carolina,”

published in 1779, we have details of settlement by Dutch, French,

Swiss, Scotch, and Germans, followed by the remark, “But of all other

countries none has furnished the province with so many inhabitants as

Ireland.”[382] A similar story is told of North Carolina.[383] Here

is nothing of the boasted “chivalry”; and if we search the testimony

with regard to the character and condition of these early settlers,

the whole “cavalier” pretension becomes still more improbable, if not

impossible.[384]

Even before English colonization had begun, and before Sir Walter

Raleigh or Captain John Smith had landed on our coasts, the “temperate

and fertile parts of America” had been proposed as a substitute for the

prison and gibbet. I quote from a Dedicatory Epistle of Richard Hakluyt

“to the right worshipful and most virtuous Gentleman, Master Philip

Sydney, Esquire.”

“Yea, if we would behold with the eye of pity how all our

prisons are pestered and filled with able men to serve their

country, which for small robberies are daily hanged up in great

numbers, even twenty at a clap out of one jail (as was seen at

the last assizes at Rochester), we would hasten and further,

every man to his power, the deducting of some colonies of our

superfluous people into those temperate and fertile parts of

America, which, being within six weeks’ sailing of England, are

yet unpossessed by any Christians, and seem to offer themselves

unto us, stretching nearer unto her Majesty’s dominions than to

any other part of Europe. We read that the bees, when they grow

to be too many in their own hives at home, are wont to be led

out by their captains to swarm abroad, and seek themselves a

new dwelling-place.”[385]

This recommendation, associated with the names of Hakluyt and Sydney,

was followed,--with what success you shall know.

* * * * *

I begin with the early patron of Virginia, Lord Delaware, who, after

visiting the colony, described the people there, in a letter dated at

Jamestown, July 7, 1610, as “men of distempered bodies and infected

minds, whom no examples daily before their eyes, either of goodness or

punishment, can deter from their habitual impieties or terrify from a

shameful death.”[386] Little of chivalry here!

The colony, which began with bad men, was increased by worse. In

November, 1619, King James wrote to the Virginia Company, “commanding

them forthwith to send away to Virginia an hundred dissolute persons,

which Sir Edward Zouch, the Knight Marshal, would deliver to

them.”[387] Thus by royal command was this colony made a Botany Bay.

The Company, not content with the “hundred dissolute persons” supplied

by the king’s order, entreated for more, until Captain John Smith, the

hero of Virginia, was moved to express his disgust. He testified to the

evil, when he wrote in 1622: “Since I came from thence, the Honorable

Company have been humble suitors to his Majesty _to get vagabond and

condemned men_ to go thither; nay, so much scorned was the name of

Virginia, _some did choose to be hanged, ere they would go thither, and

were_.”[388] This was bad enough.

But the Virginia Company was insensible to the shame of such a

settlement. Its agents and orators vindicated the utility of the

colony. In a work entitled “_Nova Britannia_, offering most Excellent

Fruits by Planting in Virginia,” published in London in 1609, and

dedicated to “one of his Majesty’s Council for Virginia,” it was

openly argued, that, unless “swarms of idle persons in lewd and

naughty practices” were sent abroad, “we must provide shortly _more

prisons and corrections_ for their bad conditions”; and that it was

“most profitable for our state to rid our multitudes of such as lie

at home, pestering the land with pestilence and penury, and infecting

one another with vice and villany, worse than the plague itself.”[389]

Dr. Donne, Dean of St. Paul’s, poet also, in a sermon “preached to

the Honorable Company of the Virginian Plantation, November 30th,

1622,” thus sets forth the merits of the colony: “The plantation shall

redeem many a wretch from the jaws of death, from the hands of the

executioner.… _It shall sweep your streets and wash your doors from

idle persons_ and the children of idle persons, and employ them.”[390]

Such were the puffs by which recruits were gained for Virginia.

History records the unquestionable result, and here authorities

multiply. Sir Josiah Child, in his “Discourse of Trade,” published in

1694, says: “_Virginia_ and Barbadoes were _first peopled_ by a sort

of loose, vagrant people, vicious, and destitute of means to live at

home, … such as, had there been no English foreign plantation in the

world, could probably never have lived at home to do service to their

country, but must have come to be hanged or starved, or died untimely

of some of those miserable diseases that proceed from want and vice,

or else have sold themselves for soldiers, to be knocked on the head

or starved in the quarrels of our neighbors.”[391] Dr. Douglass, in

his “British Settlements in North America,” printed in 1749, is very

positive, saying, “Virginia and Maryland have been for many years,

and continue to be, a sink for transported criminals.”[392] “Our

plantations in America, _New England excepted_, have been generally

settled, (1.) by malcontents with the Administrations from time to

time; (2.) by fraudulent debtors, as a refuge from their creditors;

(3.) and by convicts or criminals, who chose transportation rather

than death.”[393] Grahame, the Scotch historian, who has written so

conscientiously of our country, speaking of the first settlers, says

of Virginia: “A great proportion of the new emigrants consisted of

profligate and licentious youths, sent from England by their friends,

with the hope of changing their destinies, or for the purpose of

screening them from the justice or contempt of their country, … with

others like these, more likely to corrupt and prey upon an infant

commonwealth than to improve or sustain it.”[394] The historian of

Virginia, William Stith, whose work was published at Williamsburg in

the last century, is not less explicit. “I cannot but remark,” he

says, “how early that custom arose of transporting loose and dissolute

persons to Virginia, as a place of punishment and disgrace, which,

although originally designed for the advancement and increase of the

colony, yet has certainly proved a great prejudice and hindrance to

its growth; for it hath laid one of the finest countries in British

America under the unjust scandal of being _a mere hell upon earth_,

another Siberia, and only fit for the reception of malefactors and the

vilest of the people; so that few people, at least few large bodies of

people, have been induced willingly to transport themselves to such a

place, and our younger sisters, the Northern Colonies, have accordingly

profited thereby.”[395] But this is not all. Another historian of

Virginia, of our own day, whose work was published at Richmond in 1848,

while showing that pride in his State which would change every settler

into a “cavalier,” is compelled to make the following most rueful

confession: “Gentlemen, reduced to poverty by gaming and extravagance,

too proud to beg, too lazy to dig; broken tradesmen, with some stigma

of fraud yet clinging to their names; footmen, who had expended in the

mother country the last shred of honest reputation they had ever held;

rakes, consumed with disease and shattered in the service of impurity;

libertines, whose race of sin was yet to run; and unruly sparks, packed

off by their friends to escape worse destinies at home: these were the

men who came to aid in founding a nation, and to transmit to posterity

their own immaculate impress.”[396] And this same historian confesses

that social life in Virginia, beginning in such baseness, after more

than a century, had developed “an aristocracy neither of talent nor

learning nor moral worth, but of landed and slave interest.”[397] So

much for the testimony of history, even when written and printed in

Virginia. In harmony with this testimony was the honest exclamation

of a Virginian in 1751: “In what can Britain show a more sovereign

contempt for us than by emptying their jails into our settlements,

unless they would likewise empty their jakes on our tables?”[398]

I know not the number of desperate persons shipped to Virginia; but

there were enough to leave an indelible impress on the colony, and

to give it a name in the literature of the time. It was this colony

which suggested to Bacon the most pregnant words of one of his Essays,

which furnished to De Foe several striking passages in one of his

romances, which furnished a confirmatory article in the Dictionary of

Postlethwayt, and which provoked Massinger to a dialogue in one of his

dramas. Glance for a moment at these illustrations.

It is in the Essay on “Plantations” that Bacon thus brands the early

settlement of Virginia: “It is a shameful and unblessed thing to take

_the scum of people and wicked condemned men_ to be the people with

whom you plant; and not only so, but it _spoileth the plantation_, for

they will ever live like rogues.” Surely there is nothing in this out

of which to construct a “cavalier.”

In the narrative of Moll Flanders, the author of “Robinson Crusoe,”

who gives to all his sketches such life-like character that they seem

to be sun-pictures, exhibits this same colony. Here is a glimpse. “The

greatest part of the inhabitants of that colony came thither in very

indifferent circumstances from England. Generally speaking, they were

of two sorts: either, first, such as were brought over by masters of

ships to be sold as servants; or, second, such as are transported,

after having been found guilty of crimes punishable with death. When

they come here, we make no difference; the planters buy them, and

they work together in the field till their time is out.… Hence many a

Newgate bird becomes a great man; and we have several justices of the

peace, officers of the trained bands, and magistrates of the towns they

live in, that have been burnt in the hand.… Some of the best men in

the country are burnt in the hand, and they are not ashamed to own it.

There’s Major ----, he was an eminent pickpocket; there’s Justice

Ba----r, was a shoplifter; and both of them were burnt in the hand; and

I could name you several such as they are.”[399] Nothing is said here

of “cavaliers.”

The author of the “Dictionary of Commerce,” quoted often in courts,

confirms the testimony of Moll Flanders, when he says: “Even your

transported felons, sent to Virginia instead of Tyburn, thousands

of them, if we are not misinformed, have, by turning their hands to

industry and improvement, and, which is best of all, to honesty, become

rich, substantial planters and merchants, settled large families,

and been famous in the country; nay, we have seen many of them made

magistrates, officers of militia, captains of good ships, and masters

of good estates.”[400] Here, again, is nothing said of “cavaliers.”

Another writer, who travelled through the colonies in 1742-3, says, in

the same vein, that “several of the best planters, or their ancestors,

have in the two colonies [Virginia and Maryland] been originally of the

convict class, and therefore are much to be praised and esteemed for

forsaking their old courses.”[401]

While all this cumulative evidence shows that the settlers did better

in Virginia than in England, it fails to support the Rebel pretension

of to-day.

I have referred to Massinger. Here is a curious bit from a grave comedy

of that poet dramatist.

“_Luke._ It is but to Virginia.

“_Lady Frugal._ How? Virginia?

High Heaven forbid! Remember, Sir, I beseech you,

What creatures are shipped thither.

“_Anne._ Condemned wretches,

Forfeited to the law.

“_Mary._ For the abomination of their life,

Spewed out of their own country.”[402]

Thus from every quarter the testimony accumulates. And yet, in face of

these impartial and unimpeachable authorities, we are constantly told

that Virginia was settled by “cavaliers.”

The territory now occupied by South Carolina originally constituted

part of Virginia. Out of Virginia it was carved into a separate colony.

Although differing in some respects, the populations seem to have

been kindred in character. Ramsay, the historian of the State, in a

work published at Charleston in 1809, says that “the emigrants were a

medley of different nations and principles,” and that among them were

persons “who took refuge from the frowns of Fortune and the rigor of

creditors,” “young men reduced to misery by folly and excess,” and

“restless spirits, fond of roving.” To these were added Huguenots from

France.[403] But Grahame tells us that “not a trace of the existence

of an order of clergymen is to be found in the laws of Carolina during

the first twenty years of its history.”[404] And another historian says

that “the inhabitants, far from living in friendship and harmony among

themselves, have been seditious and ungovernable.”[405] Such a people

were naturally insensible to moral distinctions, so that, according to

Hewit, pirates “were treated with great civility and friendship,” and

“by bribery and corruption they often found favor with the provincial

juries, and by this means escaped the hands of justice.” All of which

is declared by the historian to be “evidences of the licentious spirit

which prevailed in the colony.”[406] Grahame uses still stronger

language, when he says, “The governor, the proprietary deputies, and

the principal inhabitants degraded themselves to a level with the

vilest of mankind by abetting the crimes of pirates, and willingly

purchasing their nefarious acquisitions.”[407] Such is the testimony

with regard to South Carolina. To call such a people “cavaliers” is an

abuse of terms.

I hope I do not take too much time in exposing a vainglorious

pretension, which has helped to give the Rebellion a character of

respectability it does not deserve. I dismiss it to general contempt,

as one of the lies by which Slavery, the greatest lie of all, is

recommended to the weak who can be deceived by names. But you will not

fail to remark how naturally Slavery flourished among such a congenial

people. Convicts and wretches who had set at nought all rights of

property and all decency were the very people to set up the revolting

pretension “of property in man.” If these were called “cavaliers,” and

if their conduct was called “chivalry,” it was only under the ancient

rule of opposites, because they were in no respect “cavaliers,” nor had

they even the semblance of “chivalry.”

Not in Slavery or its battles is “chivalry” found, not in vain

pretension, not in any indignity to the poor and lowly. From one who

has studied it in its deeds, we learn that it is “that general spirit

or state of mind which disposes men to heroic and generous actions, and

keeps them conversant with all that is beautiful and sublime in the

intellectual and moral world.”[408] How little of this in our Rebel

slave-masters!

* * * * *

I come back to the postulate with which I began, that the present

war is simply a conflict between Slavery and Liberty. This is a plain

statement, which will defy contradiction. To my mind it is more

satisfactory than that other statement, often made, that it is a

conflict between Aristocracy and Democracy. This in a certain sense

is true; but from its generality it is less effective than the more

precise and restricted statement. It does not disclose the whole truth;

for it does not exhibit the unique and exceptional character of the

pretension which we combat. For centuries there has been a conflict

between Aristocracy and Democracy, or, in other words, the few on one

side have been perpetually striving to rule and oppress the many. But

now, for the first time in the world’s annals, a people professing

civilization has commenced war to uphold the intolerable pretension of

_compulsory labor without wages_, and that most disgusting coïncident,

the whipping of women and the selling of children. Call these

pretenders aristocrats or oligarchs, if you will; but be assured that

their aristocracy or oligarchy is the least respectable ever attempted,

and is so entirely modern that it is antedated by the Durham bull

Hubbuck, short-horn progenitor of the oligarchy of cattle, and by the

stallion Godolphin, Arabian progenitor of the oligarchy of horses, each

of which may be traced to the middle of the last century. And also

know, that, if you would find a prototype in brutality, you must turn

your back upon civilized history, and repair to those distant islands

which witnessed an oligarchy of cannibals, or go to barbarous Africa,

which has been kept in barbarism by an oligarchy of men-stealers.

Thus it stands. The conflict is directly between Slavery and Liberty.

But because Slavery aims at the life of the Republic, the issue

involves our national existence; and because our national death would

be the despair of Liberty everywhere, it involves this great cause

throughout the world. And so I would not for one moment lose sight of

the special enemy; for our energies can be properly directed only when

we are able to confront him. “Give me to see!” said the old Greek; and

this must be our exclamation now.

* * * * *

Slavery, from the beginning, has been a disturber, as it is now a

red-handed traitor. I do not travel back before the Revolution, but,

starting from that great event, I show you Slavery always offensive,

and forever thrusting itself in the path of national peace and honor.

The Declaration of Independence, as originally prepared by Jefferson,

contained a vigorous passage denouncing King George for patronage of

the slave-trade. The slave-masters insisted upon striking it out, and

it was struck out; and here was their first victory. At the adoption

of the National Constitution, they insisted upon recognition of the

slave-trade as a condition of Union; and here was another victory. In

the earliest Congress under the Constitution they commenced the menace

of disunion, and this menace was continued at every turn of public

affairs, especially at every proposition or even petition touching

Slavery, until it triumphed signally in that atrocious Fugitive Slave

Bill which made all the Free States a hunting-ground for slaves.

Throughout these contests Slavery was vulgar, brutal, savage, while its

braggart orators and chaplains heralded its claims. Hogarth, in his

famous picture of Bruin, painted Slavery, when he portrayed an immense

grizzly bear hugging, as if he loved it, an enormous gnarled bludgeon,

with a brand of infamy labelled on every knot, such as _Lie Twelve_,

_Lie Fifteen_, and about his throat a clerical band, torn, crumpled,

and awry. In the States where it flourished speech and press were both

despoiled of freedom, and the whole country seemed to be fast sinking

under its degrading tyranny. Everything in science, or history, or

church, or state, was bent to its support. There was a new political

economy, teaching the superiority of slave labor,--a new ethnology,

excluding the slave from the family of man,--a new heraldry, admitting

the slavemonger to the list of nobles,--a new morality, vindicating

the rightfulness of Slavery,--a new religion, recognizing Slavery as

a missionary enterprise,--a new theodicy, placing Slavery under the

sanctions of Divine benevolence,--and a new Constitution, installing

Slavery in the very citadel of Liberty. By such strange inventions

the giant felony fortified itself. At last it struck the pioneers of

Liberty in Kansas. There was its first battle. The next was when it

took up arms against the National Government, and rallied all its

forces in bloody rebellion. Thus is this Rebellion, by unquestionable

pedigree, derived from Slavery, and the parent lives in the offspring.

Therefore, if you are in earnest against the Rebellion, you must be

in earnest, also, against Slavery; for the two are synonymous, or

convertible terms. The Rebellion is nothing but belligerent Slavery. It

is Slavery armed and equipped in deadly grapple with Liberty.

Only when we see the Rebellion _as it is_, in its true light, face to

face, do we see our whole duty. Then must the patriot, whatever his

personal prejudices or party associations, insist, at all hazards, that

Slavery shall not be suffered to escape from that righteous judgment

which is the doom of the Rebellion. No false tenderness, no casuistry

of politics, must intrude to save it anywhere; for you cannot save

Slavery anywhere without just to that extent saving the Rebellion. Show

me anywhere a sympathiser with Slavery, and I show you a sympathiser

with the Rebellion.

Our duty is clear. In the sacred service of patriotism nothing can be

allowed to stand in the way. Fortress, camp, citadel, each and all,

must be overcome; but the animating soul of every fortress, camp, or

citadel throughout the Rebellion is Slavery. Surely, when the country

is in danger, there can be no hesitation. And as the greater contains

the less, so this greatest charity of country embraces for the time all

other charities.

In striking at Slavery, there is another advantage not to be forgotten.

Such a blow is in strict obedience to the laws of Nature; and we

are reminded by the great master of thought, Lord Bacon, that only

through such obedience can victory be won,--_vincit parendo_. It is in

conformity, also, with all the attributes of God; so that His Almighty

arm will give strength to the blow. Thus do we bring our efforts in

harmony with the sublime laws, physical and moral, which govern the

universe, while every good influence, every breath of Heaven, and every

prayer of man, is on our side. We also bring ourselves in harmony with

our own Declaration of Independence, so that all its early promises

become a living letter, and our country is at last saved from that

practical inconsistency which has been a heavy burden in her history.

To do all this seems so natural and so entirely according to the

dictates of patriotism, that we may well be astonished that it

should meet opposition. But there is a wide-spread political party,

which, true to its history, now comes forward to save belligerent

Slavery,--even at this last moment, when it is about to be trampled out

forever. Not to save the country, but to save belligerent Slavery, is

the object of the misnamed Democracy. Asserting the war, in which so

much has been done, to be a failure,--forgetting the vast spaces it has

already reclaimed, the rivers it has opened, the ports it has secured,

and the people it has redeemed,--handing over to contempt officers and

men, living and dead, who have waged its innumerable battles,--this

political party openly offers surrender to the Rebellion. I do not use

too strong language. It is actual surrender and capitulation that are

offered, in one of two forms: (1.) by acknowledging the Rebel States,

so that they shall be treated as independent; or (2.) by acknowledging

Slavery, so that it shall be restored to its old supremacy over the

National Government, with additional guaranties. The different schemes

of opposition are all contained in one or the other of these two

propositions.

Examining these two propositions, we find them equally flagitious and

impracticable. Both allow the country to be sacrificed for the sake

of Slavery: one by breaking the Union in pieces, that a new Slave

Power may be created; and the other by continuing the Union, so that

the old Slave Power may enjoy its sway and masterdom. Both pivot on

Slavery. One acknowledges the Slave Power _out of the Union_; the other

acknowledges the Slave Power _in the Union_.

Glance, if you please, at these two different forms of surrender.

I.

_And, first, of surrender by acknowledging the Rebel States_, so that

they shall be independent. How futile to think that there can be any

consent to the establishment of a Slave Power taken from our Republic!

Such a surrender would begin in shame; but it would also begin,

continue, and end in troubles and sorrows which no imagination can

picture.

* * * * *

1. I do not dwell on the shame that would cover our Republic, but I

ask, on the threshold, how you would feel in abandoning to the tender

mercies of the Rebellion all those who, from sentiment or conviction

or condition, now look to the National Government as deliverer. This

topic, it seems to me, has not been sufficiently impressed upon the

country. Would that I could make it sink deep into your souls! There

are the Unionists, shut up within the confines of the Rebellion, and

unable to help themselves. They can do nothing, not even cry out, until

the military power of the Rebellion is crushed. Let this be done, let

the Rebel grip be unloosed, and you will hear their voices, as joyously

and reverently they hail the national flag. And there, also, are the

slaves, to whom the Rebellion is an immense, deep-moated, thick-walled,

heavy-bolted Bastile, where a whole race is blinded, manacled, and

outraged. But these, again, are powerless, so long as Rebel sentinels

keep watch and ward over them. To these two classes in the Rebel States

we have owed, from the beginning, a solemn duty, which can be performed

only by perseverance to the end. The patriot Unionists, who have kept

their loyalty in solitude and privation, like the early Christians

concealed in catacombs, and also the slaves, who have been compelled to

serve their cruel taskmasters, must not be sacrificed.

Perhaps there is no character in which the National Government may

exult more truly than that of Deliverer. Rarely in history has such a

duty, with its attendant glory, been so clearly imposed. The piety of

early ages found vent in the Crusades, those wonderful enterprises of

valor and travel, which exercised a transforming influence over modern

civilization. But our war is not less important. It is a crusade, not

to deliver the tomb, but to deliver the living temples of the Lord, and

it is destined to exercise a transforming influence beyond any crusade

in history.

* * * * *

2. If you agree to abandon patriots and slaves in the Rebel States,

you will only begin your infinite difficulties. How determine the

boundary-line to cleave this continent in twain? Where shall the god

Terminus plant his stone? What States shall be left at the North in

the light of Liberty? What States shall be consigned to the gloom

of Slavery? Surely no swiftness of surrender can make you abandon

Maryland, now redeemed by votes of citizen soldiers,--nor West

Virginia, received as a Free State,--nor Missouri, which has been made

the dark and bloody ground. And how about Kentucky, Tennessee, and

Louisiana? There also is the Mississippi, once more free from source

to sea. Surely this mighty river will not be compelled again to wear

chains.

These inquiries simply open the difficulties in this endeavor. If

there were any natural boundary, in itself a barrier and an altar, or

if during long generations any Chinese wall had been built for three

thousand miles across the continent, then perhaps there might be a

dividing line. But Nature and civilization, by solemn decree, have

fixed it otherwise, marking this broad land, from Northern lake to

Southern gulf, for one Country, with one Liberty, one Constitution, and

one Destiny.

* * * * *

3. If the boundary-line is settled, then will arise the many-headed

question of terms and conditions. On what terms and conditions can

peace be stipulated? Exulting Rebels, whose new empire is founded

on the corner-stone of Slavery, will naturally exact promises for

the rendition of fugitive slaves. Are you, who have just emancipated

yourselves from this obligation, ready to renew it, and to commit

again an inexpiable crime? If you do not, how can you expect peace?

Then it will remain to determine the commercial relations between the

two separate governments, with rights of transit and travel. If you

think that Rebels, flushed with success, and scorning their defeated

opponents, will come to any practical terms, any terms which will not

leave our commerce and all engaged in it victims of outrage, you place

trust in their moderation which circumstances thus far do not justify.

The whole idea is little better than an excursion to the moon in a car

drawn by geese, as described by the Spanish poet.

Long before the war, and especially in the discussions which preceded

it, these Rebels were fiery and most unscrupulous. War has not made

them less so. The moral sense which they wanted when it began has not

been enkindled since. With such a people there is no chance of terms

and conditions, except according to their lawless will. The first

surrender on our part will be the signal to a long line of surrenders,

each a catastrophe. Nothing too unreasonable or grinding. If our own

national debt is not repudiated, theirs at least must be assumed.

* * * * *

4. Suppose the shameful sacrifice consummated, the impossible

boundaries adjusted, and the illusive terms and conditions stipulated,

do you imagine that you have obtained peace? Alas, no! Nothing of the

sort. You may call it peace; but it will be war in disguise, ready to

break forth in perpetual, chronic, bloody battle. Such an extended

inland border, over which Slavery and Liberty scowl at each other, will

be a constant temptation, not only to enterprises of smuggling, but to

hostile incursions, so that our country will be obliged to sleep on its

arms, ready to spring forward in self-defence. Every frontier town will

be a St. Albans.[409] Military preparations, absorbing the resources of

the people, will become permanent instead of temporary, and the arts

of peace will yield to the arts of war. The national character will be

changed, and this hospitable continent, no longer the prosperous home

of the poor and friendless, thronging from the Old World, will become a

repulsive scene of confusion and strife, while “each new day a gash is

added to her wounds.”

Have we not war enough now? Are you so enamored of funerals, where

the order of Nature is reversed, and parents follow their children to

the grave, that you are willing to keep a constant carnival of Death?

Oh, no! You all desire peace. But there is only one way to secure it.

So conduct the present war, that, when once ended, there shall be no

remaining element of discord, no surviving principle of battle, out of

which future war can spring. Above all, belligerent Slavery must not

rear its crest as an independent power.

* * * * *

5. There is another consequence not to be omitted. War would not be

confined to the two governments representing respectively the two

hostile principles, Slavery and Liberty. It would rage with internecine

fury among ourselves. Admit that States may fly out of the Union, and

where will you stop? Other States must follow, in groups or singly,

until our mighty galaxy is broken into separate stars or dissolved into

the nebular compost of a people without form or name. Where then is

country? Where then those powerful States, the pride of civilization

and the hope of mankind? Handed over to ungovernable frenzy, without

check or control, until anarchy and chaos are supreme,--as with the

horses of the murdered Duncan, which, at the assassination of their

master,

“Beauteous and swift, the minions of their race,

Turned wild in nature, broke their stalls, flung out,

Contending ’gainst obedience, as they would make

War with mankind. ’Tis said they eat each other.”

The picture is terrible; but it hardly exaggerates the fearful

disorder. Already European enemies, looking to their desires for

conclusions, predict a general discord. Sometimes it is said that

there are to be four or five new nations,--that the Northwest is to

be a nation by itself, the Middle States another, the Pacific States

another, and our New England States still another, so that Rebel

Slavery will be the predominant power on this continent. But it is

useless to speculate on the number of these fractional governments.

If disunion is allowed to begin, it cannot be stopped. Misrule and

confusion will be everywhere. Our fathers saw this at the adoption of

the National Constitution, when, in a rude sketch of the time, they

pictured the Thirteen States as so many staves bound by the hoops into

a barrel. Let a single stave be taken out, and the whole barrel falls

to pieces. It is easy to see how this must occur with States. The

triumph of the Rebellion will be not only the triumph of belligerent

Slavery, but also the triumph of State Rights, to this extent,--first,

that any State, in the exercise of its own lawless will, may abandon

its place in the Union, and, secondly, that the constitutional verdict

of the majority, as in the election of Abraham Lincoln, is not binding.

With these two rules of conduct, in conformity with which the Rebellion

was organized, there can be no limit to disunion. Therefore, when you

consent to the independence of the Rebel States, you disband the whole

company of States, and blot our country from the map of the world.

II.

I have said enough of surrender by recognition of the Slave States,

or, in other words, of the Slave Power, _out of the Union_. It remains

now that I ask attention to that other form of surrender which proposes

_recognition of the Slave Power in the Union_. Each is surrender. The

first, as we have already seen, abandons part of the Union to the Slave

Power; the other subjects the whole Union to the Slave Power.

It is proposed that the Rebel States shall be tempted to lay down their

arms by recognition of Slavery in the Union, with new guaranties and

assurances of protection. _Slavery cannot exist, where it does not

govern._ Therefore must we beg Rebel slave-masters back to govern us.

Such, in plain terms, is the surrender proposed. For one, I will never

consent to any such intolerable rule.

The whole proposition is not less pernicious than that other form of

surrender; nor is it less shameful. It is insulting to reason, and

offensive to good morals.

* * * * *

1. I say nothing of the ignominy it would bring upon the Republic,

but call attention at once to its character as a Compromise. In the

dreary annals of Slavery it is by compromise that slave-masters have

succeeded in warding off the blows of Liberty. It was a compromise by

which that early condemnation of the slave-trade was excluded from the

Declaration of Independence; it was a compromise which surrounded the

slave-trade with protection in the National Constitution; it was a

compromise which secured the admission of Missouri as a Slave State;

and, without stopping to complete the list, it is enough to say that

it was a compromise by which the atrocious Fugitive Slave Bill was

fastened upon the country, and the Slave Power was installed in the

National Government. And now, after the overthrow of the Slave Power

at the ballot-box, followed by years of cruel war, another compromise,

greatest of all, is proposed, by which belligerent Slavery, dripping

with the blood of murdered fellow-citizens, shall be welcomed to

more than its ancient supremacy. Where is national virtue, that such

a surrender can be entertained? Where is national honor, that the

criminal pettifoggers are not indignantly rebuked?

The proposition is specious in form as baleful in substance. It is

said that Rebel slave-masters should have their “rights under the

Constitution.” To this plausible language is added that other phrase,

“the Constitution as it is.” All this means Slavery, and nothing else.

For Slavery men resort to this odious duplicity. Thank God, the game is

understood.

* * * * *

2. But any compromise recognizing Slavery in the Rebel States is

impossible, even if you are disposed to accept it. Slavery, by the

very act of rebellion, ceased to exist, legally or constitutionally.

It ceased to exist according to principles of public law, and also

according to just interpretation of the Constitution; and having once

ceased to exist, it cannot be revived.[410]

When I say that it ceased to exist _legally_, I found myself on an

unquestionable principle of public law, that Slavery is a peculiar

local institution, without origin in natural right, and deriving

support exclusively from the local government; but if this be

true,--and it cannot be denied,--then Slavery must have fallen with

that local government.

When I say that it ceased to exist _constitutionally_, I found myself

on the principle that Slavery is of such a character that it cannot

exist within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitution, as, for

instance, in the National territories, and that therefore it died

constitutionally, when, through disappearance of the local government,

it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitution.

The consequences of these two principles are most important. Taken in

conjunction with the rule, “Once free, always free,” they establish the

impossibility of any surrender to belligerent Slavery _in the Union_.

* * * * *

3. If, in the zeal of surrender, you reject solemn principles of public

law and Constitution, then let me remind you of the Proclamation of

Emancipation, where the President, by virtue of the power vested in

him as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

ordered that the slaves in the Rebel States “are and henceforward shall

be free,” and the Executive Government, including the military and

naval authorities, are pledged to “recognize and maintain the freedom

of said persons.” By the terms of this instrument, it is applicable

to all slaves in the Rebel States,--not merely to those within the

military lines of the United States, but to all. Even if the President

were not in simple honesty bound to maintain this Proclamation

according to the letter, he has not the power to undo it. The President

may make a freeman, but he cannot make a slave. Therefore must he

reject all surrender inconsistent with this Act of Emancipation.

It is sometimes said that the Court will set aside the Proclamation.

Do not believe it. The Court will do no such thing. It will recognize

this act precisely as it recognizes other political and military acts,

without presuming to interpose any unconstitutional _veto_,--and it

will recognize this act to the full extent, as was intended, according

to its letter, so that every slave in the Rebel States will be free.

Even if the Court should hesitate, there can be no hesitation with the

President, or with the people, bound in sacred honor to the freedom

of every slave in the Rebel States. Therefore against every effort of

surrender the Proclamation presents an insuperable barrier.

* * * * *

4. If you are willing to descend deep down to the fathomless infamy

of renouncing the Proclamation, then in the name of peace do I

protest against any such surrender. So long as Slavery exists in the

Union, there can be no peace. The fires which seem to be extinguished

will only be covered by treacherous ashes, out of which another

conflagration will spring to wrap the country in war. This must never

be.

It is because Slavery is not yet understood, that any are willing to

tolerate it. See it as it is, and there can be no question. Slavery

is guilty of every crime. The slave-master is burglar, for by night

he enters forcibly into the house of another; he is highway robber,

for he stops another on the road, and compels him to deliver or die;

he is pickpocket, for he picks the pocket of his slave; he is sneak,

for there is no pettiness of petty larceny he does not employ; he is

horse-stealer, for he takes from his slave the horse that is his; he

is adulterer, for he takes from the slave the wife that is his; he is

receiver of stolen goods on the grandest scale, for the human being

stolen from Africa he foolishly calls his own. When I describe the

slave-master, it is simply as he describes himself in the code he

sanctions. All crime is in Slavery, and so every criminal is reproduced

in the slave-master. And yet it is proposed to bestow upon this whole

class not only new license for their crimes, but a new lease of their

power. Such surrender would be only the beginning of long-continued,

unutterable troubles, breaking forth in bloodshed and sorrow without

end.

* * * * *

5. Lastly, this surrender cannot be made without surrender to the

Rebellion. Already I have exhibited the identity between Slavery and

the Rebellion; and yet it is proposed to recognize Slavery in the

Union, when such recognition will be plain recognition of the Rebellion.

The whole thing is impossible, and not to be tolerated. Alas! too much

blood has been shed, and too much treasure lavished, for this war to

close with any such national stultification. The Rebellion must be

crushed, whether in the guise of war or under the _alias_ of Slavery.

It must be trampled out, so that it can never show itself again, or

prolong itself into another generation. Not to do this completely is

not to do it at all. Others may act as they please, but I wash my hands

of this great responsibility. History will not hold such surrender

blameless.

“An orphan’s curse would drag to hell

A spirit from on high”;

but the orphans of this war must heap curses heaven-high upon the man

who consents to see its blood and treasure end in nought.

Such are the grounds for the repudiation of all surrender to Slavery

_in the Union_. I have also shown that there can be no surrender

to Slavery _out of the Union_. In either alternative surrender is

impossible; but even if possible, it would be most perilous and

degrading.

Thus far I have said nothing of platforms or candidates. I desired

to present the issue of principle, so that the patriot could choose

without embarrassment from party association. Pardon me now, if for one

moment I bring platforms and candidates to the touch-stone.

There is the Baltimore platform, with Abraham Lincoln as candidate. No

surrender here. In one resolution it is declared that the war must be

prosecuted “with the utmost possible vigor to _the complete suppression

of the Rebellion_.” In another it is declared, “that, as Slavery was

the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and

as it must be always and everywhere hostile to the principles of

republican government, _justice and the national safety demand its

utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic_.”[411]

There is salvation in these words, pronouncing the doom of Slavery in

the name of justice and the national safety. The candidate has solemnly

accepted them, not only when he accepted his nomination, but yet again,

when, in the discharge of official duties, he said briefly, “to whom

it may concern,” that there could be no terms of peace, except on the

condition of “the integrity of the whole Union and the abandonment of

Slavery.”[412] In this letter of the President, unquestionably the

best he ever wrote, it is practically declared, in conformity with the

Baltimore platform, that there can be no surrender to Slavery in the

Union or out of the Union.

Turn to the Chicago platform and its candidate, and what a contrast!

There is surrender in both forms. The platform surrenders to Slavery

_out of the Union_, and, in proposing a “cessation of hostilities,”

prepares the way for recognition of the Rebel States. The candidate,

in a letter accepting the nomination, surrenders to Slavery _in the

Union_. The platform plainly looks to disunion. The letter seemingly

looks to union; but whether looking to union or not, it plainly

surrenders to Slavery.

There is still another surrender in the Chicago platform. While

professing formal devotion to the Union, it declines to insist upon

“National unity,” or “a union on the basis of the Constitution of the

United States.” No such terms are employed; but we are invited to seek

peace “on the basis of the Federal Union of the States”: so that,

according to this platform, it is not the National Union, that union of

the people accepted by Washington and defended by Webster, which we are

to have, but a “Federal Union of the States,” where State Sovereignty,

as accepted by John C. Calhoun and defended by Jefferson Davis, will be

supreme; and all this simply for the sake of Slavery.

Look at the Chicago platform or candidate as you will, and you are

constantly brought back to Slavery as the animating impulse. Look at

the Baltimore platform or candidate, and you are constantly brought

back to Liberty as the animating impulse. And thus again Slavery and

Liberty stand face to face,--the slave-ship against the Mayflower.

There is another contrast between the two platforms, which ought

not to be forgotten. That of Chicago, while saying nothing against

the Rebellion, uses ambiguous language, interpreted differently by

different persons; while that of Baltimore is so plain and unequivocal

that it leaves no room for question. This contrast is greater still,

when we turn to the two candidates. Perhaps never between two

candidates was it presented to the same extent. The Chicago candidate

has written a subtle letter, which is interpreted according to the

desires of its readers,--some finding peace, and others finding war.

And this double-faced proceeding is his bid for the Presidency. I

need not remind you that our candidate has never uttered a word of

duplicity, and that his speeches and letters can be interpreted only in

one way. And these are the two representatives of Slavery and Liberty.

* * * * *

Fellow-citizens, such is the issue of principle, such are the platforms

and candidates. And now, I ask frankly, Are you for Slavery, or are you

for Liberty? Or, changing the form of the question, Are you for the

Rebellion, or are you for your country? For this is the question you

must answer by your votes. In your answer, do not forget, I entreat

you, its infinite, far-reaching, many-sided importance. This is no

ordinary election. It is a battle-field of the war; and victory at

the polls will assure victory everywhere. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan,

Farragut, all are watching for it. Their trumpets are ready to echo

back our election bells.

In every aspect the contest is vast. It is vast in its relations to

our own country,--vaster still in its relations to other countries.

Overthrow Slavery here, and you overthrow it everywhere,--in Cuba,

Brazil, and wherever a slave clanks his chain. The whole execrable

pretension of “property in men,” wherever it now shows its audacious

front, will be driven back into kindred night. Nor is this all.

Overthrow Slavery here, and our Republic ascends to untold heights of

power and grandeur. Thus far its natural influence has been diminished

by Slavery. Let this shameful obscuration cease, and our example

will be the day-star of the world. Liberty, everywhere, in all her

struggles, will be animated anew, and the down-trodden in distant lands

will hail the day of deliverance. But let Slavery prevail, and our

Republic will drop from its transcendent career, while the cause of

liberal institutions in all lands is darkened. There have been great

battles in the past, on which Human Progress has been staked. There was

Marathon, when the Persian hosts were driven back from Greece; there

was Tours, when the Saracens were arrested midway in victorious career

by Charles Martel; there was Lepanto, when the Turks were brought to

a stand in their conquests; there was Waterloo. But our contest is

grander. We are fighting for national life, assailed by belligerent

Slavery; yet such is the solidarity of nations, and so are mankind knit

together, that our battle now is for the liberty of the world. The

voice of victory here will resound through the ages.

Never was grander cause or sublimer conflict. Never holier sacrifice.

Who is not saddened at the thought of precious lives given to Liberty’s

defence? The soil of the Rebellion is soaked with patriot blood, its

turf is bursting with patriot dead. Surely they have not died in vain.

The flag they upheld will continue to advance. But this depends upon

your votes. Therefore, for the sake of that flag, and for the sake of

the brave men that bore it, now sleeping where no trumpet of battle can

wake them, stand by the flag.

Tell me not of “failure.” There can be but one failure, and that

is the failure to make an end of Slavery; for on this righteous

consummation all else depends. Let Liberty be with us, and no power can

prevail against us. Let Slavery be acknowledged, and there is no power

which will not mock and insult us. Such is the teaching of history,

in one of its greatest examples. Napoleon, when compelled to exchange

his empire for a narrow island prison, exclaimed in bitterness of

spirit, “It is not the Coalition which has dethroned me, but liberal

ideas.” Not the European Coalition, marshalling its forces from the

Don to the Orkneys, toppled the Man of Destiny from his lofty throne;

but that Liberty which he had offended. He saw and confessed the

terrible antagonist, when he cried out, “I cannot reëstablish myself;

I have shocked the people; I have sinned against _liberal ideas_, and

I perish.” Memorable words of instruction and warning! Ideas rule the

world, and, unlike batteries and battalions, they cannot be destroyed

or cut in pieces. May we so press this contest as not to shock mankind

or sin against Liberty! May we so close this contest as to win God’s

favor! Nature has placed the eye in the front, that man shall look

_forward and upward_; and it is only by contortion that he is able

to look behind. Therefore, in looking forward and upward, we follow

Nature. An ancient adventurer, escaping from the realms of Death,

looked behind, and he failed. We, too, shall fail, if we look behind.

Forward, not backward, is the word,--firmly, courageously, faithfully.

There must be no false sentiment or cowardice, no fear of “irritating”

Rebels. When the Almighty Power hurled Satan and his impious peers

“headlong flaming from the ethereal sky,

With hideous ruin and combustion, down

To bottomless perdition, there to dwell

In adamantine chains and penal fire,”

no Chicago platform proposed “a cessation of hostilities, with a view

to a convention or other peaceable means”; nor was there any attempt

to save the traitors from Divine vengeance. Personal injuries we

may forgive; but Government cannot always forgive. There are cases

where pardon is out of place. Society that has been outraged must

be protected. That beautiful land now degraded by Slavery must be

redeemed, while a generous statesmanship fixes forever its immutable

condition. If the chiefs of the Rebellion are compelled to abdicate in

favor of emigrants from the North and from Europe, swelling population,

creating new values, and opening new commerce,--if “poor whites”

are reïnstated in rights,--if a whole race is lifted to manhood and

womanhood,--if roads are extended,--if schools are planted,--there

will be nothing inconsistent with that just clemency which I rejoice

to consider a public duty. Liberty is the best cultivator, the truest

teacher, and the most enterprising merchant. The whole country

will confess the new-born power, and those commercial cities now

sympathizing so perversely with belligerent Slavery will be among the

earliest to enjoy the quickening change. Beyond all question, the

overthrow of this portentous crime, besides immeasurable contributions

to civilization everywhere, will accomplish two things of direct

material advantage: first, it will raise the fee-simple of the whole

South; and, secondly, it will enlarge the commerce of the whole North.

In this faith I turn in humble gratitude to God, as I behold my

country at last redeemed and fixed in history, the Columbus of Nations,

once in chains, now hailed as benefactor and discoverer, who gave a New

Liberty to mankind. Foreign powers watch the scene with awe; saints

and patriots from their home in the skies look down with delight; and

Washington, who set free his own slaves, exults that the Republic,

which revered him as Father, now follows his example.

FOOTNOTES

[1] _Ante_, Vol. VI. pp. 442, 502; Vol. VII. p. 152.

[2] _Ante_, Vol. IX. pp. 39-46.

[3] Acts 37th Cong. 2d Sess., Ch. CLXXXIX. Sec. 1: Statutes at Large,

Vol. XII. p. 588.

[4] Acts 1st Cong., Ch. XX. Sec. 29, 34: Ibid., Vol. I. pp. 88, 92.

[5] State _v._ Whitaker, 3 Harrington, R., 550.

[6] Ch. 52, § 12.

[7] Ch. 107, § 4.

[8] Ch. 52, § 12.

[9] Elliott _v._ Morgan, 3 Harrington, R., 317.

[10] State _v._ Whitaker, 3 Harrington, R., 549.

[11] State _v._ Cooper, Ibid., 571.

[12] State _v._ Jeans, 4 Ibid., 570.

[13] Redden _v._ Spruance et als., Ibid., 217.

[14] Webb _v._ Pindergrass, 4 Harrington, R., 439.

[15] State _v._ Bender, 3 Ibid., 572, note.

[16] Collins _v._ Hall, Ibid., 574, note.

[17] State _v._ Fisher, 1 Harris and Johnson, R., 750.

[18] Rusk _v._ Sowerwine, 3 Ibid., 97.

[19] Sprigg _v._ Negro Mary, Ibid., 491.

[20] Ch. 176, § 20.

[21] Winn _v._ Jones, 6 Leigh, R., 74.

[22] Johnson _v._ The Commonwealth, 2 Grattan, R., 581.

[23] Code of Virginia (1849), Ch. 215, § 9.

[24] Ch. 107, § 1. See Tumey _v._ Knox, 7 T. B. Monroe, R., 91.

[25] Page _v._ Carter, 8 B. Monroe, R., 192.

[26] Ch. 111, § 50; Act 1777, Ch. 115, § 42; Act 1821, Ch. 1123. See

State _v._ Ben, 1 Hawks, R., 434.

[27] State _v._ Chittem, 2 Devereux, R., 49.

[28] State _v._ Patton, 5 Iredell, Law Rep., 186.

[29] Williams _v._ Blincoe, 5 Littell, R., 171.

[30] Jones _v._ The State, Meigs, R., 121.

[31] Nicholson’s Supplement to the Statutes, 131.

[32] 7 Statutes at Large, 411.

[33] 2 De Bow, Industrial Resources, etc., of the Southern and Western

States, 279.

[34] 2 De Bow, 274.

[35] 7 Statutes at Large, 401, 402.

[36] 2 De Bow, 274.

[37] White _v._ Helmes, 1 McCord, R., 435.

[38] Groning _v._ Devana, 2 Bailey, R., 192.

[39] Heyward _v._ Glover, Riley, Chan. Rep., 53.

[40] Gage _v._ M’Ilwain, 1 Strobhart, R., 135.

[41] Section 10: Cobb’s Digest, 973.

[42] Cobb’s Digest, 988.

[43] Section 2276; see, also, Section 3596.

[44] Sections 110, 111: Hutchinson, Code, 861.

[45] Hutchinson, Code, 136. Harris _v._ Newman, 3 Smedes and Marshall,

R., 575, 576; Coleman _v._ Doe, 4 Ibid., 40.

[46] Thompson’s Digest, 542.

[47] Ch. 187, § 22.

[48] Meechum _v._ Judy, 4 Missouri Rep., 361.

[49] Ch. 158, § 25.

[50] Consol. and Rev. Stat., 556; Act of 1816, Ch. 146, §§ 1, 2.

[51] Art. 1584.

[52] Art. 2261; see, also, Art. 177.

[53] Hartley’s Digest, Art. 2586.

[54] Ovid, Metamorph., Lib. II. 13, 14.

[55] No allusion is made to Free States where exclusion on account of

color was recognized.

[56] Hawkins _v._ The State, 7 Missouri Rep., 192.

[57] Spencer _v._ The State, 20 Alabama Rep., 27.

[58] Potts et al. _v._ House, 6 Georgia Rep., 348.

[59] De Lacy _v._ Antoine et als., 7 Leigh, R., 438; Commonwealth _v._

Oldham, 1 Dana, R., 466; Williams _v._ Blincoe, 5 Littell, R., 171; 2

De Bow, 274.

[60] Commonwealth _v._ Oldham, 1 Dana, R., 467.

[61] Clancy _v._ Overman, 1 Devereux and Battle, R., 402.

[62] Biles _v._ Holmes et als., 11 Iredell, Law Rep., 21.

[63] Yeatman et al. _v._ Hart, 6 Humphreys, R., 377. See, also, Marr

_v._ Hill et al., 10 Missouri Rep., 320; M’Clintock _v._ Hunter,

Dudley, So. Car. Law Rep., 327; Brown _v._ Lester, Georgia Decisions,

Part I. p. 77.

[64] Roulhac _v._ White et al., 9 Iredell, Law Rep., 63; Jones _v._

White, 11 Humphreys, R., 268.

[65] Brownston _v._ Cropper, 1 Littell, R., 176.

[66] Biles _v._ Holmes et als., 11 Iredell, Law Rep., 20, 21. See,

also, Maddin _v._ Edmondson, 10 Missouri Rep., 643.

[67] 7 Statutes at Large, 411.

[68] Act 1740, § 46, 7 Statutes at Large, 413; Act 1800, § 5, Ibid.,

442; 3 McCord, R., 363.

[69] Act 1846, Ch. 87, § 12, Thompson’s Digest, 176; Act November 21,

1828, § 43, Ibid., 511.

[70] Act December 20, 1823, § 2, 2 Cobb’s Digest, 996; Act May 10,

1770, § 43, Ibid., p. 981.

[71] Act 1814, Ch. 32, §§ 1-3, Consol. and Rev. Stat., p. 525.

[72] Introductory View of the Rationale of Evidence, Ch. XIX.-XXII.;

Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Book IX.: Works (Edinburgh, 1843),

Vols. VI. pp. 86-116, VII. 335-563.

[73] An elaborate letter to Mr. Sumner from this distinguished

authority on the exclusion of colored testimony was annexed to this

Report,--Senate Reports, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 25, pp. 18-28.

[74] Pufendorf, Law of Nature and Nations, Book V. ch. 13, § 9.

[75] Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Book IX. ch. 3: Works (Edinburgh,

1843), Vol. VII. p. 339.

[76] History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. L.

[77] Tocqueville, L’Ancien Régime, Liv. III. ch. 5, (2me édit.,) p. 302.

[78] Essai Politique sur le Royaume de la Nouvelle-Espagne, Liv. II.

ch. 6.

[79] Charles Comte, Traité de Législation, (2me édit.,) Tom. IV. pp.

129, 445.

[80] Journey through Upper India, (London, 1829,) Vol. III. p. 355.

[81] “Scio me esse servum: nescio etiam id quod scio.”--PLAUTUS,

_Bacchides_, Act. IV. Sc. vii. 21 [Ritschl, 791].

[82] Smith, Dict. Greek and Roman Antiq., art. SERVUS and TORMENTUM.

[83] Notes on Virginia, Query XIV.: Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 385.

[84] Blair, Inquiry into the State of Slavery amongst the Romans, pp.

62-64.

[85] Voet, Commentarius ad Pandectas, Lib. XXII. Tit. 5, sec. 2. See,

also, Stephens, Slavery of the British West India Colonies, Vol. I. p.

171.

[86] Capitularia Regum Francorum, ed. Baluzius, Lib. VI. cap. 352, Lib.

VII. cap. 208.

[87] Potgiesser, De Statu Servorum, Lib. III. cap. 3, p. 612, note.

[88] Ibid., p. 611; Leg. Burgund., Tit. VI. § 3.

[89] Ibid., p. 612.

[90] Europe during the Middle Ages (London, 1846), Ch. II. Part 2, Vol.

I. p. 149, note.

[91] Coke upon Littleton, 122 b.; Brooke’s Abridgment, _Villenage_, 68;

Fitzherbert’s Abridgment, _Villenage_, 38, 39.

[92] Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, (7th edit.,) Book II. ch. 46, § 162

[45].

[93] Stephens, Slavery in the British West India Colonies, Vol. I. pp.

174, 175.

[94] Act 1705, § 31: 3 Hening, Statutes at Large, 298.

[95] Wheeler, Law of Slavery, p. 194, note.

[96] De Bow, Industrial Resources, &c., of the Southern and Western

States, Vol. II. p. 274.

[97] Lewis _v._ The State, 9 Smedes and Marshall, R., 120.

[98] See Rev. Code Del., Ch. 80, § 28, Ch. 130, § 1; 1 Dorsey, Laws

Md., 92, 777; Code Va., Ch. 194, § 1, Ch. 200. § 8; Rev. Stat. Ky., Ch.

93, art. 7, §§ 14, 15; Rev. Stat. N. C., Ch. 111, § 52; Car. and Nich.,

Comp. Tenn., 674; Thompson, Dig. Fa., 540. § 11; Cobb, Dig. Ga., 974, §

19, 987, § 63; Code Ala., §§ 3315, 3318; Hutchinson, Code Miss., 521, §

59.

[99] Tate, Dig., 338, § 3.

[100] 1 Dorsey, 92.

[101] Act of 1828, § 41: Thompson’s Digest, 540, § 11.

[102] Act of 1822, June 18, § 59.

[103] Rev. Stat., Ch. 74, art. 3, § 8.

[104] De Bow, Industrial Resources, Vol. II. p. 274.

[105] Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 1094-1096.

[106] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 226.

[107] Statutes at Large, Vol. XI. p. 55, Ch. 127, § 7.

[108] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIII. p. 139.

[109] Judges, v. 23.

[110] Martial, Epigr., Lib. II. 64.

[111] House Journal, February 18, 1807. Report on Petition of Merchants

of Charleston, S. C.: Reports, 9th Cong. 2d Sess., Vol. II.

[112] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., Vol. V., Doc. 102.

[113] See Appendix.

[114] Senate Reports, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 41, Appendix.

[115] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 249.

[116] French Minister of Foreign Affairs to Mr. Morris, Oct. 14, 1793:

Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 70.

[117] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 43.

[118] Ibid., p. 217.

[119] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 253.

[120] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 263.

[121] Ibid., p. 77.

[122] Ibid., pp. 77, 78.

[123] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 683.

[124] Ibid., p. 469.

[125] Ibid., p. 747.

[126] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 149.

[127] Report of the Secretary of State, Jan. 18, 1799: Ibid., p. 434.

[128] Ibid., pp. 434, 435.

[129] Ibid., p. 435.

[130] Ibid., p. 163.

[131] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 471.

[132] Ibid., p. 377.

[133] Ibid., p. 484.

[134] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, pp. 454, 455.

[135] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. II. p. 163.

[136] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 487.

[137] Garden, Traités de Paix, Tom. VI. p. 120.

[138] Adams’s Works, Vol. I. p. 553.

[139] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, pp. 562, 575.

[140] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 430.

[141] Ibid., pp. 580, 581.

[142] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 581.

[143] Ibid., p. 582.

[144] Ibid., p. 583.

[145] Ibid., p. 609.

[146] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 490.

[147] To the President of Congress, December 23, 1777: Writings, ed.

Sparks, Vol. V. p. 197.

[148] Treaty of Alliance, Art. XI.: U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII.

p. 10.

[149] Treaty of Alliance, Art. XII.: U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol.

VIII. p. 10.

[150] Message to Parliament, January 28, 1793: Hansard, Parliamentary

History, Vol. XXX. col. 239.

[151] Speech on the King’s Message, February 1, 1793: Hansard, XXX. 307.

[152] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 457.

[153] Articles VI., VII.: United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII.

p. 16.

[154] Article XVII.: United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII., p. 22.

[155] Article XXII.: Ibid., p. 24.

[156] Article VIII.: Ibid., p. 112.

[157] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 347.

[158] Ibid.

[159] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 6, § 94.

[160] Report of Mr. Livingston on the French Spoliations, February 22,

1830: Senate Documents, 21st Cong. 1st Sess., No. 68, p. 5.

[161] Gebhardt’s American and French State Papers, Vol. I. pp. 9, 10.

[162] Letter to Mr. Jefferson, September 18, 1793: American State

Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. pp. 173, 174.

[163] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 193.

[164] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 199.

[165] Ibid., p. 231.

[166] Ibid., pp. 78, 79.

[167] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 84.

[168] Ibid., pp. 86, 87.

[169] Alison, History of Europe (Edinburgh, 1844), Vol. II. p. 767, Ch.

16.

[170] Commission of Guadeloupe to the Congress of the United States,

November 6, 1793: American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p.

326.

[171] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. p. 688.

[172] Writings, Vol. IV. pp. 102, 103.

[173] American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I. pp. 658, 659.

[174] Mr. Monroe to the Secretary of State, February 20, 1796: Ibid.,

p. 731.

[175] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 150.

[176] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, pp. 354, 367.

[177] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 163.

[178] Ibid., pp. 430, 457, 458.

[179] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 529.

[180] Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. XII. pp. 230-232.

[181] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 581.

[182] Ibid., p. 587.

[183] Ibid., p. 591.

[184] Ibid., p. 607.

[185] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, pp. 616-618.

[186] Ibid., p. 625.

[187] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, pp. 627, 628.

[188] Ibid., p. 629.

[189] Ibid., p. 630.

[190] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 631.

[191] Journal of American Plenipotentiaries, September 12, 1800: Ibid.,

p. 633.

[192] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 634.

[193] Ibid., pp. 635, 636.

[194] Letter to Secretary of State, October 4, 1800: Ibid., p. 644.

[195] Ibid., p. 637.

[196] United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 178.

[197] Mémoires du Roi Joseph (2me édit.), Tom. I. p. 94.

[198] Histoire du Consulat et de l’Empire, Tom. II. Liv. 7.

[199] United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 192.

[200] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 666.

[201] Ibid., p. 675.

[202] United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 194.

[203] United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 196.

[204] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 467.

[205] Circular, August 27, 1793: Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st

Sess., No. 102, p. 217.

[206] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. IV. ch. 2, § 12.

[207] Letter to James H. Causten: Speech of Hon. John M. Clayton in the

Senate of the United States, April 23 and 24, 1846, Appendix, No. 2:

Congressional Globe, 29th Cong. 1st Sess., Appendix, pp. 863, 864.

[208] William C. Preston to James H. Causten, January 29, 1844: Mr.

Clayton’s Speech, Appendix, No. 3: Ibid., p. 864.

[209] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 717.

[210] Ibid., p. 704.

[211] Ibid., p. 795.

[212] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 7.

[213] Report, February 22, 1830: Senate Documents, 21st Cong. 1st

Sess., No. 68, pp. 14, 15.

[214] Gourgaud’s Memoirs, Vol. II. p. 129.

[215] Statutes at Large, Vol. I. p. 561.

[216] Statutes at Large, Vol. I. p. 558.

[217] Ibid., pp. 565, 613.

[218] Ibid., p. 572.

[219] Ibid., p. 577.

[220] Ibid., p. 578.

[221] Ibid., p. 604.

[222] Ibid., p. 725.

[223] Ibid., p. 750.

[224] Statutes at Large, Vol. II. p. 7.

[225] Ibid., p. 85.

[226] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 561.

[227] Ibid., p. 583.

[228] Ibid., p. 452.

[229] Ibid., p. 633.

[230] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 616.

[231] Ibid., p. 559.

[232] Ibid., p. 649.

[233] Portiez, Code Diplomatique, Tom. I. pp. 39-57.

[234] United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 180.

[235] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 714.

[236] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 717.

[237] United States Statutes at Large, Vol. VIII. p. 430.

[238] Executive Documents, 22d Cong. 2d Sess., H. of R., No. 147, p.

165.

[239] Executive Documents, 24th Cong. 1st Sess., H. of R., No. 117, p.

4.

[240] Report of Secretary of State, April 25, 1846: Senate Documents,

29th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 313.

[241] Art. IV.

[242] Statutes at Large, Vol. I. p. 578.

[243] Report on the Tonnage Duty, January 18, 1791: Wait’s State

Papers, Vol. X. p. 73.

[244] Life of Washington, Vol. V., Appendix, Note II.

[245] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 609.

[246] Message, December 7, 1830.

[247] Hildreth, History of the United States, Vol. V. p. 400.

[248] Message, December 6, 1831.

[249] Calonne, as cited by Mr. Clayton, Speech in the Senate on French

Spoliations, April 23, 1846: Congressional Globe, 29th Cong. 1st Sess.,

Appendix, p. 856. A recent authority puts this item at 1,500,000,000

francs, or $300,000,000.--_Les Finances Françaises sous l’ancienne

Monarchie, la République, le Consulat et l’Empire_, par M. le Baron de

Nervo, Receveur-Général, (Paris, 1863,) Tom. II. p. 176.

[250] Iliad, tr. Pope, Book IX. 524-531.

[251] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, pp. 457, 458.

[252] Note to the French Plenipotentiaries, August 20, 1800: Ibid., p.

625.

[253] Note to the French Plenipotentiaries, August 20, 1800: Senate

Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 625.

[254] Note from the French Plenipotentiaries: Ibid., p. 630.

[255] Conference of American Plenipotentiaries with M. X., October 29,

1797: American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. II. p. 163.

[256] Senate Documents, 19th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 102, p. 430.

[257] Mr. Webster, in his careful speech of 12th January, 1835, says:

“So far as can be learned from official reports, there are something

more than six hundred vessels with their cargoes which are supposed to

form claims under this bill.”--_Works_, Vol. IV. p. 177.

[258] From a Review of the Veto Message of President Pierce, by James

H. Causten, pp. 21, 22.

[259] Institutes of Natural Law, Book I. ch. 17, § 5.

[260] De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Lib. II. cap. 17, § 4.

[261] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. II. ch. 18, § 342.

[262] Elements of International Law (ed. Lawrence), Part IV. ch. 1, § 3.

[263] The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheaton, R., 560.

[264] Hon. S. P. Chase.

[265] Favorable statement of facts, without coming to any conclusion.

[266] This bill was voted by the Senate, February 3, 1835, yeas 25,

nays 20.

[267] This bill was voted by the Senate June 8, 1846, yeas 27, nays 23.

[268] This bill (being Mr. Clayton’s bill as voted by the Senate) was

voted by the House August 4, 1846, yeas 94, nays 87. It thus passed

both houses, but was vetoed by President Polk as a Senate bill; and on

the veto the Senate voted yeas 27, nays 15,--no two thirds.

[269] This bill was voted by the Senate, January 24, 1851, without a

division.

[270] This bill was voted by the Senate, Feb. 15, 1854, yeas 27, nays

15.

[271] This bill was voted by the House, January 27, 1855, yeas 111,

nays 77, and by the Senate, February 6th, yeas 28, nays 17, but was

vetoed by President Pierce as a House bill; and the House vote on the

veto was yeas 113, nays 86,--not two thirds,--so the bill was lost.

[272] This bill was voted by the Senate, January 10, 1859, yeas 26,

nays 20.

[273] Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 1178, March 18,

1864. See, also, p. 1180.

[274] Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII.: Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 403.

[275] Elliot’s Debates (2d edit.), Vol. III. p. 442.

[276] Elliot’s Debates (2d edit.), Vol. III. p. 590.

[277] Works, Vol. X. pp. 377, 378.

[278] Notes on the Confederacy, April, 1787: Madison’s Letters and

other Writings, Vol. I. p. 322. Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d

Sess., p. 1808, April 24, 1862.

[279] Taylor _v._ Porter, 4 Hill, R., 146, 147.

[280] Elliot’s Debates (2d edit.), Vols. I. p. 334, III. p. 658, IV. p.

243.

[281] Letter to Egbert Benson, 1780: Life, by his Son, Vol. I. pp. 229,

230.

[282] Saadi: The Gulistan, tr. Gladwin, Chap. VII., Tale 16.

[283] The famous device of Paracelsus was a mediæval verse, _Alterius

non sit qui suus esse potest_,--meaning that no man who can be his own

should be another’s; which is good as far as it goes, but it does not

disclose the whole truth.

[284] Cochin, L’Abolition de l’Esclavage, Tom. II., 2me Partie, Liv. X.

ch. 2, 3.

[285] S. Gregorii Registrum Epistolarum, Lib. VI. Ep. 12: Opera Omnia,

(Edit. Benedict., Parisiis, 1705,) Tom. II. col. 800.

[286] Paradise Lost, Book XII. 64-71.

[287] Debates in the Federal Convention, August 25, 1787: Madison

Papers, Vol. III. pp. 1429, 1430.

[288] De Legibus, Lib. I. c. 16.

[289] “Ubi justitia vera non est, nec jus potest esse.”--_De Civitate

Dei_, Lib. XIX. c. 21, § 1.

[290] Speech in the Impeachment of Warren Hastings, February 16, 1788:

Works (London, 1822), Vol. XIII. pp. 168, 169.

[291] Speech on the Address of Thanks, January 9, 1770: Hansard’s

Parliamentary History, Vol. XVI. col. 661.

[292] De Soto, De Justitia et Jure, Lib. IV. Quæst. 2, Art. 2.

Mackintosh, quoting these words, declares, with proper exultation,

that “Philosophy and Religion appear by the hand of their faithful

minister to have thus smitten the monsters in their earliest

infancy.”--_Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy_, Sec.

III.: Miscellaneous Works (London, 1851), p. 24.

[293] Paley’s Moral Philosophy, with Annotations by Richard Whately

(London, 1859): Annot., Book III. Part ii. ch. 3, _Slavery_, p. 178.

[294] Plutarch’s Lives, tr. Clough, Vol. IV. p. 565, Appendix. Diogenes

Laertius, De Clarorum Philosophorum Vitis, etc., Lib. IV. c. 2,

_Xenocrates_.

[295] Discorsi sopra la prima Deca di T. Livio, Lib. III. cap. 1.

[296] Essays: Of Honor and Reputation.

[297] Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay,

December 4, 1638, Vol. I. p. 246. Palfrey, History of New England, Vol.

I. p. 553.

[298] Collection des Constitutions, Chartes et Lois Fondamentales des

Peuples de l’Europe et des deux Amériques, par MM. P. A. Dufau, J. B.

Duvergier, et J. Guadet, (Paris, 1823,) Tom. I. pp. 97, 98.

[299] Ibid., p. 135.

[300]

“Les mortels sont égaux; leur masque est différent.

…

Avoir les mêmes droits à la félicité,

C’est pour nous la parfaite et seule égalité.”

_Discours en Vers sur l’Homme_; Discours I., _De l’Égalité des

Conditions_: Œuvres (Paris, 1833), Tom. XII. pp. 45, 47.

[301] Poëme sur la Loi Naturelle, 4me Partie: Ibid., p. 176.

[302] Collection des Constitutions, etc., par Dufau, Duvergier, et

Guadet, Tom. I. p. 256.

[303] Ibid., p. 247.

[304] Collection des Constitutions, etc., par Dufau, Duvergier, et

Guadet, Supplément, p. 212.

[305] Ibid., Tom. III. p. 122.

[306] Ibid., Tom. IV. p. 73.

[307] Ibid., Tom. II. p. 511.

[308] Ibid., Tom. I. p. 232.

[309] Ibid., Supplément, p. 188.

[310] Ibid., p. 41.

[311] Ibid., p. 155.

[312] Ibid., p. 74.

[313] Annuaire Historique Universel, 1831, Appendice, Documents

Historiques, p. 155.

[314] Ibid., 1849, Appendice, Documents Historiques, p. 134.

[315] British and Foreign State Papers, 1847-48, Vol. XXXVI. p. 890.

[316] Art. XXIV. Statuto Fondamentale del Regno: Annuario Diplomatico

del Regno d’Italia.

[317] History, Book III. c. 80. See, _ante_, Vol. II. p. 339.

[318] Hallam says of this scene, which occurred after the murder

of Smerdis the Magian, that it is “conceived in the spirit of

Corneille.”--_Middle Ages_ (London, 1853), Vol. II. p. 344, note, Ch.

VIII. Part 2.

[319] Discours de la Servitude Volontaire: Œuvres, ed. Feugère, (Paris,

1846,) pp. 26, 27.

[320] Ancient Law: its Connection with the Early History of Society,

and its Relation to Modern Ideas, by Henry Sumner Maine, (London,

1861,) pp. 92-96. In harmony with this English writer is M. Émile de

Girardin, the French journalist and publicist, who, in a work which

appeared in 1872, says, “A single line which follows resumes all the

Revolution of 1789”; and he then quotes in capitals, “Frenchmen are

equal before the law.”

[321] Collection des Constitutions, etc., par Dufau, Duvergier, et

Guadet, Tom. I. p. 150.

[322] Ibid., Supplément, p. 75.

[323] Ibid., Tom. II. p. 228.

[324] Ibid., p. 279.

[325] Annuaire Historique Universel, 1848, Appendice, Documents

Historiques, p. 41.

[326] Collection des Constitutions, etc., par Dufau, Duvergier, et

Guadet, Tom. V. p. 239.

[327] _Ante_, Vol. X. p. 338.

[328] Life and Letters of Joseph Story, edited by his Son, Vol. II. p.

396.

[329] Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 1873, April 26,

1864.

[330] Act to provide a National Currency, February 25, 1863, Sec. 17:

Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 669.

[331] Sonnet XVII.: To Sir Henry Vane the Younger.

[332] 4 Wheaton, R., 316.

[333] Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 1896, 1897, April

27, 1864. See, also, pp. 1900, 1955, 1956.

[334] Act to authorize the Issue of United States Notes, Sec. 2,

February 25, 1862: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 346.

[335] Rapport, p. 70.

[336] Statutes at Large, Vol. IV. p. 774.

[337] Politics, Book I. ch. 9.

[338] De la Baisse probable de l’Or, Sec. II. ch. 1.

[339] Wealth of Nations, Book I. Ch. 11, Part 2, (London, 1802,) Vol.

I. p. 269.

[340] Statutes at Large, Vol. V. pp. 137, 138.

[341] Acts, 1870-71, Ch. 114, Sec. 9: Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI. pp.

514, 515.

[342] 4 Devereux and Battle, R., 25.

[343] 5 Iredell, R., 253.

[344] _Post_, pp. 397, 398.

[345] America; Review of Seybert’s Statistical Annals: Edinburgh

Review, January, 1820: Works (London, 1840), Vol. I. p. 372.

[346] Acts 1861, Ch. III. Sec. 5: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 257.

[347] Acts 1861-2, Ch. LXXXI. Sec. 3: Ibid., p. 404.

[348] Acts 1861-2, Ch. XCVIII.: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. pp. 424,

425.

[349] Acts 1862-3, Ch. CXX.: Ibid., pp. 820, 821.

[350] Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 1863, Paper No. 28:

Executive Documents, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., H. of R., No. 3.

[351] Supplemental Report to the Secretary of War, by James McKaye,

Special Commissioner, pp. 28, 29.

[352] Speech of Judge Humphrey, at a Union meeting at Huntsville,

Alabama: McKaye’s Supplemental Report, p. 23.

[353] Speech in the House of Lords on the Immediate Emancipation of the

Negro Apprentices, February 20, 1838; Works (London and Glasgow, 1857),

Vol. X. pp. 276-279.

[354] Final Report of the American Freedmen’s Inquiry Commission:

Senate Documents, 38th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 53, p. 109.

[355] See, _ante_, pp. 487, 488.

[356] McKaye’s Supplemental Report to the Secretary of War, p. 24.

[357] Whitelocke, Notes upon the King’s Writ for choosing Members of

Parliament, Vol. II. p. 329. Cushing, Law and Practice of Legislative

Assemblies, p. 284.

[358] Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. p. 1262.

[359] Speeches, p. 455.

[360] American Insurance Company _v._ Canter, 1 Peters, S. C. R., 542.

[361] 7 Howard, R., 42.

[362] Commentaries on American Law (6th edit.), Vol. I. p. 92, note _a_.

[363] _Ante_, p. 296.

[364] _Ante_, p. 2.

[365] Speeches, Vol. I. p. 25.

[366] See, especially, Resolutions entitled “State Rebellion, State

Suicide; Emancipation and Reconstruction,” February 11, 1862,--_ante_,

Vol. VI. pp. 301-305.

[367] Mr. Hale and Mr. Sumner sat next to each other.

[368] Mr. Everett was one of the Republican Electors at Large.

[369] Note in reference to Peace Overtures at Niagara Falls, July 18,

1864. See Raymond’s Life of Lincoln, p. 580.

[370] Speech at Cleveland, May 20, 1863: Comments on the Policy

inaugurated by the President, p. 11.

[371] This Introduction, by the Committee of the Young Men’s Republican

Union, appeared as a “Prefatory Note” to the New York pamphlet edition.

[372] House Journal, 37th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1861, p. 123;

Senate Journal, July 25, 1861, p. 92. See, also, _ante_, Vol. V. p. 499.

[373] Duyckinck’s History of the War for the Union, Vol. I. p. 118. See

also Stephens’s Constitutional View of the late War between the States,

Vol. II. p. 415.

[374] Carlyle, Chartism, Ch. VIII.: New Eras, Fifth Excerpt from

“History of the Teuton Kindred,” by Herr Professor Sauerteig.

[375] Bradford’s History of Plymouth Plantation: Coll. Mass. Hist.

Soc., 4th Ser., Vol. III. pp. 89, 90.

[376] Letter of John Robinson and William Brewster to Sir Edwin Sandys,

Leyden, December 15, 1617; Ibid., pp. 32, 33.

[377] Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay,

Vol. II. p. 136, October 1, 1645.

[378] Capital Laws, 1649: General Laws and Liberties of the

Massachusetts Colony, revised and reprinted by order of the General

Court, 1672, p. 15.

[379] History of England (London, 1786), Vol. V. p. 183, Ch. XL.

[380] “We are the gentlemen of this country,” said Mr. Toombs in 1860.

He had already threatened to call the roll of his slaves on Bunker Hill.

[381] History of South Carolina, p. 60.

[382] Historical Account, Vol. II. p. 272.

[383] Martin, History of North Carolina, Vol. I. p. 218, _et passim_.

[384] I should not have deemed it necessary to make this inquiry, had

I seen the thorough pamphlet of Mr. William H. Whitmore, entitled “The

Cavalier Dismounted: an Essay on the Origin of the Founders of the

Thirteen Colonies,” which appeared contemporaneously with this speech.

[385] Divers Voyages touching the Discovery of America, and the Islands

adjacent unto the same, made first of all by our Englishmen, and

afterward by the Frenchmen and Britons, etc. [By Richard Hakluyt.]

Imprinted at London for Thomas Woodcock, 1582.

[386] Strachey’s History of Travel into Virginia Britannia:

Introduction, p. xxxii.

[387] Stith’s History of Virginia, p. 167.

[388] New England’s Trials, p. 16: Force’s Tracts, Vol. II.

[389] Nova Britannia, p. 19: Ibid., Vol. I.

[390] Sermon CLVI.: Works (London, 1839), Vol. VI. p. 232.

[391] A New Discourse of Trade (5th edit.), p. 138, Ch. X., _Concerning

Plantations_.

[392] Summary, Historical and Political, of the First Planting, etc.,

of the British Settlements in North America, (Boston, 1749,) Vol. I.

Part 1, p. 115.

[393] Ibid., Vol. I., Part 2, p. 490, note.

[394] History of the United States (Boston, 1845), Vol. I. pp. 53, 54.

[395] History of the First Discovery and Settlement of Virginia, p.

168. See, also, p. 103.

[396] Howison, History of Virginia, Vol. I. p. 169.

[397] Ibid., Vol. II. p. 201.

[398] London Magazine, July, 1751, Vol. XX. p. 293.

[399] Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders: Novels and

Miscellaneous Works of Daniel De Foe (Oxford, 1840), Vol. IV. pp. 87,

88.

[400] Postlethwayt, Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce,

(London, 1757), Vol. II. p. 319, Art. NAVAL STORES.

[401] Itinerant Observations in America: London Magazine, July, 1746,

Vol. XV. p. 326.

[402] The City Madam, Act V. Sc. 1.

[403] History of South Carolina, pp. 2-5.

[404] History of the United States, Vol. II. p. 82.

[405] Hewit, Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of South

Carolina and Georgia, Vol. I. p. 104.

[406] Ibid., pp. 92, 115.

[407] History of the United States, Vol. II. p. 120.

[408] Kenelm Henry Digby, Godefridus, p. 86.

[409] Only a short time before this speech, a Rebel incursion,

organized in Canada, had reached this place.

[410] See, _ante_, Vol. VIII. pp. 165, 169, 175.

[411] McPherson’s Political History of the United States during the

Great Rebellion, p. 406.

[412] Ibid., p. 301.