of them were Democrats in principle, and ardently attached to the
National Government--perhaps would have preferred the abolition of
slavery to the subversion of its jurisdiction. Another class, composing
a majority, though distrusting the National Government, connected as it
was and must be with a voting power representing twenty-six or seven
millions of free labor, yet more distrusted the attempt at revolution.
This class saw more danger in the proposed revolt than from continuing
in the Union. Another class were politically ambitious; had ventured
upon the revilement of the Democratic principle; had become
secessionists _per se_, and were the instruments and plotters of the
treason. This was substantially the condition of public opinion among
slaveholders at the time of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the
Presidency. These three classes, embracing the slaveholders and their
families, composed about one million five hundred thousand of the white
population of the South.
Of the seven millions non-slaveholding population South, a small portion
was engaged in trade and commerce, and naturally inclined to oppose
secession; but timid in its apprehensions as to protection, was ready to
acquiesce in the most extravagant opinions; in other words, like trade
and commerce every where, too much disposed to make merchandise of its
politics. The balance of the non-slaveholding population, if we except a
venal pulpit and press, had not even a specious motive, pecuniary or
political, moral or social, that should have drawn it into rebellion. It
was a part and portion of the great brother-hood of free labor, and could
not by any possibility raise up a plausible pretense of jealousy against
its natural ally--free labor in the North.
In estimating the strength of a cause, we are obliged to take into
account the actually existing reasons in favor of its support. Delusion,
founded on a fictitious cause of complaint, is but a weak basis for
revolution. It may have an apparent strength to precipitate revolt, but
has no power of endurance. There is a reflection that comes through
calamity and suffering that rises superior to sophistry in the most
common minds. If not already, this will soon be the case with the whole
Southern population. The slaveholder and the man of trade and commerce
who feared the tumult, and would have avoided it, will have seen their
apprehensions turned into the fulfillment of prophecy. The
non-slave-holding farmer, mechanic, or laborer, will be made to see
clearly that his interest did not lie on the side of treason. The
political adventurer who planned the conspiracy, is already brought to
see the fallacy of his dream. He may now consider the incongruous
materials of Southern population. He may view that population in
classes. He may contemplate it through the medium of its natural motives
of fidelity to the Government on the one hand, and of its artificial
delusion on the other. He may now go to the bottom of Southern society,
and find in its conflicting elements the antagonistic motives that
render the plans of treason abortive. These will be sure to continue,
and sure to strengthen on the side of fidelity to the National
Government. When the South is made a solid, compact unit in political
motive, it will become so, disarmed of all purposes of treason.
It has been repeatedly asserted that the South was a political unit on
the question of the attempted revolution. This declaration has been
reïterated by the Southern press, by travelers, and by all the
influences connected with the rebellion. It is not now necessary to
delineate the _quasi_ military organization of the Knights of the Golden
Circle, or their operations in cajoling and terrorizing the Southern
population into acquiescence. Much unanimity through this process was
made to appear on the surface; but it is more palpable to the analytic
mind acquainted with Southern society, that the very means employed to
enforce acquiescence afforded also the evidence that there was a strong
under-current of aversion. Willing apostasy from allegiance to the Union
needed no terrorizing from mobs or murders. The ruffianism of the South
had been fully armed in advance of the full disclosure of the plot to
secede. Loyalty had been as carefully disarmed by the same active
influences. It had nothing to oppose to arms but its unprotected
sentiments. As soon as the law of force was invoked by the conspirators,
the day of reasoning was wholly past. Flight or conformity became the
condition precedent of safety, even for life. The bulk of the Southern
population was as much conspired against as the Government at
Washington; and force against the same population was rigorously called
into requisition to consummate what fraud and political crime had
concocted. This was the boasted unity of the South.
The inquiry is often made: 'How was it possible to have inaugurated the
rebellion, without the bulk of the slaveholders, at least, acting in
concert?' This inquiry is not easily answered, unless its solution is
found in the fact that slaveholders, through jealousy, had parted with
their active loyalty to the National Government. This was generally the
case. Whilst the bulk of them hesitated for a little to take the fearful
step of revolt, their hesitation was more connected with apprehension of
its consequences than with any attachment to the Government. The
deceptive idea of peaceable secession first drew them within the lines
of the open traitor. The supposed probability of success made them
allies in rebellion. As a general sentiment, they made their imaginary
adieux to the Government of their fathers without apparent regret.
There has been much misapprehension as to the process of reasoning that
brought slaveholders in the main to repudiate their Government. They
were influenced by no apprehension of present danger to the institution
of slavery. It was something far beyond the power of any party to
stipulate against. Their apprehensions were connected with the laws of
population and subsistence and the certain motive to political
affiliation that underlies the platform of free-labor society. When
indulging in the belief of peaceable secession, they expressed their
sentiments truly in the declaration that 'they would not remain in the
Union, were a blank sheet of paper presented, and they permitted to
write their own terms.' This declaration merely characterized the
foregone conclusion. It was the evidence of a previous determination,
merely withheld for a season, in order to gain time.
But to come to a more definite delineation of the reasons that operated
to raise up the conspiracy. There was a partial feud that had long
existed in the mutual jealousies between the slaveholders and
non-slaveholding population. Nothing very remarkable, however, had
transpired to indicate an outbreak. Southern white labor was continually
annoyed with the appellation of 'white trash,' and other contemptuous
epithets; but still was obliged to toil on under the continuous insult.
The habits and usages of slaveholders and their families, indicated by
manners toward white labor, that white labor did not command their
respect. Too many of the accidental droppings of foolish and stupid
arrogance were let fall within the hearing of white labor to make it
fully reconciled to the pretended monopoly of respectability by
slaveholders. Under this corroded feeling, much of the white labor of
the South had emigrated to the free States. In 1850, seven hundred and
thirty-two thousand of these emigrants were living. Their communications
and intercourse showed to their old friends, relatives, and
acquaintances, that they had found homes and friendly treatment on
Northern soil; and in addition thereto, a much better and more
encouraging condition of society for the industrious white man. The
feeling reflected back from the free to the slave States was analogous
to that thrown back from the United States to Ireland. Its effect was
also the same. Under its influence, nearly two millions are now living
in the free States, who are the offshoot and increase of a Southern
extraction. Slaveholders merely complained of this flow of population,
on the ground that it contributed to overthrow the balance of political
power. It would not, perhaps, be amiss to conclude that they saw with
equal clearness the incentives that induced the emigration--a silent
logic of facts against slavery.
The census statistics, commencing with 1840, have contributed much to
play the mischief with the equanimity of slaveholders. They have always
known that thorough education in the South was mainly confined to their
own families. When, however, the discovery was made public that only one
in seven of the aggregate white population of the South was receiving
instruction during the year, the disclosure became alarming.[D] It stood
little better than the educational progress of the British Islands,
which had crept up, under the fight with Toryism, to the alarming
extent of one in eight. That one in four and a half of the aggregate
population of the free States was receiving school instruction, made the
contrast unpleasant to the mind of the slaveholder. He knew that the
fact was 'world--wide,' that slaveholders had always controlled the
policy of Southern legislation. He was aware that slaveholders had made
themselves responsible for this neglect of the children of the South;
and knew also that public opinion would visit the blame where it
legitimately belonged. Pro-slavery sagacity was quick-sighted in its
apprehensions that it could not dodge the inquiry, 'Whence comes this
disparity?'
The statistics of the two sections presented a still more obnoxious
comparison to the pro-slavery sensibilities, as it respects the physical
condition of the respective populations. The cotton States have mostly
been the advocates of '_free trade_,' some of them tenaciously so. They
deemed it impossible to introduce manufacturing, to much extent, into
sections where the yearly surpluses in production were wholly absorbed
by investment in land and negroes. The consequence has been, want of
diversified industry and want of profitable occupation for the poorer
classes. In the Northern and in some of the Border States, a different
industrial policy has been pursued. Diversified occupation has raised up
skilled labor in nearly every branch of industry. Notwithstanding the
greater rigor of climate, adult labor on the average, under full and
compensated employment, performs nearly three hundred solid days' work
in the year. The eight millions of white population in the South, in
consequence of this want of profitable occupation, perform much less,
perhaps not one hundred and fifty days' work on the average. The
following table, published in 1856-1857, by Mr. Guthrie, then Secretary
of the Treasury, discloses a condition of things very remarkable; but no
wise astonishing to those who have investigated the causes of the
disparity. The ratio of annual _per capita_ production to each man,
woman, and child, white and black, in the respective States, exclusive
of the gains or earnings of commerce, stood as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts, $166 60 | Indiana, $69 12
Rhode-Island, 164 61 | Wisconsin, 63 41
Connecticut, 156 05 | Mississippi, 67 50
California, 149 60 | Iowa, 65 47
New-Jersey, 120 82 | Louisiana, 65 30
New-Hampshire, 117 17 | Tennessee, 63 10
New-York, 112 00 | Georgia, 61 45
Pennsylvania, 99 80 | Virginia, 59 42
Vermont, 96 62 | South-Carolina, 56 91
Illinois, 89 94 | Alabama, 55 72
Missouri, 88 66 | Florida 54 77
Delaware, 85 27 | Arkansas, 52 04
Maryland, 83 85 | District of Columbia, 52 00
Ohio, 75 82 |
Michigan, 72 64 | Texas, 51 13
Kentucky, 71 82 | North-Carolina, 49 38
Maine, 71 11 |
-------------------------------------------------------
It is seen by this table that the income, or product of the
non-slaveholding population South, mainly disconnected as it is with
mechanical industry, is reduced to the extreme level of bare
subsistence, while the population of the States which have introduced
diversified industry stand on a high scale of production. Contrast
Massachusetts and South-Carolina, the two leading States in the
promulgation of opposite theories. These two States have often been
censured for the contumelious manner in which they have sometimes sought
to repel each other's arguments. The one is in favor of 'free trade.'
The other says: 'No State can flourish to much extent without
diversified industry.' The one says: 'Open every thing to free
competition.' The other replies: 'Are you aware that the interest on
manufacturing capital in Europe is much lower; that skilled labor there
is more abundant; and that it would dash to the ground most of the
manufacturing we have started into growth under protection through our
revenue laws?' 'Let it be so,' says Carolina; 'what right exists to
adopt a national policy that does not equally benefit all sections?'
'The very object of the policy,' replies Massachusetts, 'is, that it
_should_ benefit all sections; and the most desirable object of all, in
the eye of beneficence, would be, that it _should_ benefit the laboring
white population of the cotton States, as well as others.' 'But,' says
Carolina, 'this diversified industry can not be introduced, to much
extent, where slavery exists.' 'That is an argument by implication,'
says Massachusetts, 'that you more prize slavery than you do the
interests and welfare of the bulk of your white population.' 'Who set
you up to be a judge on the question of the welfare of any part of the
population South?' says Carolina. 'I assume to judge for myself,'
replies Massachusetts, 'as to that national policy which is designed to
affect beneficially the twenty-seven millions of people who are obliged
to obtain subsistence through personal industry; theirs is the great
cause of white humanity in its shirt-sleeves; and it behooves the
National Government to take care of that cause, and to foster it; and
not to submit to the narrow selfishness of a few slaveholders.'
It may readily be seen that this controversy, growing out of the
opposite theories of selfish slaveholders on the one hand, and a spirit
of beneficence, blended with the idea of a wide-spread advantage on the
other, not only involves directly the demerits of slavery, in its
prejudicial effect on the non-slaveholding population South, but also
the great question of raising up skilled labor in all the States. It is
thus clearly demonstrated that our national policy should be exempt from
the control of an arrogant and selfish class. Slaveholders have had
little sympathy with the great bulk of the white people in the Union; at
most, they have never manifested it. Few of them can be trusted
politically, where a broad industrial policy is concerned. No one is
better aware than the political slaveholder of the crushing effect of
slavery on the interests of the non-slaveholding population in the slave
States: hence their jealousy of this population as a voting, governing
power. The Southern political mind, connected with slaveholding, is
astute when sharpened by jealousy. There is no phase in political
economy, bearing on the disparity of classes in the South, that has not
been taken into the account and analyzed. The fear with slaveholders has
been, that the great majority, composed of the white laboring population
South, would become able to subject matters to the same scrutinizing
analysis.
It would be difficult to convince the American people that slavery is
not 'the skeleton in their closet.' Any one who has encountered for
years the pro-slavery spirit; who has watched it through its
unscrupulous deviations from rectitude, morally, socially, and
politically, will have been dull of comprehension not to have
appreciated its atrocious disposition. Its great instrumentality in the
management of Southern masses, consists not only of a disregard, but of
a positive interdict of the principles of civil liberty, in all matters
wherein the prejudicial effects of slavery might directly, or by
implication, be disclosed. It is true, people are permitted to adulate
slavery--so they are allowed to adulate kings, where kings reign. No one
in recent years has been allowed the open expression of opinion or
argument as to the bad effect of a pro-slavery policy on the great
majority of Southern white population. This would bring the offender
within the Southern definition of an 'incendiary,' and the offense would
be heinous. The pro-slavery spirit has always demanded sycophancy where
its strength was great enough to enforce it, and has ever been ready to
invoke the law of force where its theories were contradicted. Even the
fundamental law of the South, contained in Southern State Constitutions
in favor of the 'freedom of speech, and freedom of the press,' is mere
rhetorical flourish, where slavery is concerned. It means that you must
adulate slavery if you speak of it; and woe to the man that gives this
fundamental law any broader interpretation. In its amiable moods, the
pro-slavery spirit is often made to appear the gentleman. In its angry,
jealous moods, it is both a ruffian and an assassin. Mr. Sumner, of the
Senate, once sat for its picture--twice in his turn he drew it--each
portrait was a faithful resemblance.
Had we been exempt from slavery and its influences, it is difficult to
conceive what possible pretense could have been raised up for
revolution. What position could have been taken showing the necessity of
disenthrallment from oppressive government? There would have existed no
element of political discontent that could by any possibility have
culminated in rebellion, aside from the active, jealous, and
unscrupulous influence of slaveholders. Rebellion and treason required
the lead and direction of an ambitious and reckless class; a class
actuated by gross and selfish passions, in disconnection with sympathy
for the masses. It required a class stripped and bereft by habits of
thinking of the spirit of political beneficence, devoid of national
honor, national pride, and national fidelity. Nothing less unscrupulous
would have answered to plot, to carry forward, and to manage the
incidents of the attempted dismemberment of the Union. It required
something worse in its nature than Benedict Arnold susceptibility. His
might have been crime, springing from sudden resentment or imaginary
wrong. The other is the result of thirty years' concoction under adroit,
hypocritical, and unscrupulous leaders. The slaveholders' rebellion has
assumed a magnitude commensurate only with long contemplation of the
subject. Making all due allowance for the honorable exceptions, this is
substantially the phase of pro-slavery infidelity to the Union.
Were further argument needed to establish this position, it is found in
the fact that the seeds of rebellion are wanting in proportion to the
absence of slavery. There is no reason to believe that Kentucky or
Maryland, without slavery, would have been less loyal than Ohio. In
Eastern Kentucky, Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Western
North-Carolina, a small portion of Georgia, and Northern Alabama, the
Union cause finds a friend's country. These sections, in the main,
contain a population dependent upon its own labor for subsistence.
Schooled by diligent industry to habits of perseverance, and learning
independence and manhood by relying on itself, it has preserved its
patriotism and attachment to the Government under which it was born. It
saw no cause of complaint, imaginary or real. Six or seven per cent of
slave population has not proved sufficient as a slave interest, to
prostrate or corrupt its national fidelity, nor to undermine its
national pride. It still retains its representation in Congress against
the influences of surrounding treason. There is a cheering satisfaction
in the belief that this plateau of civil liberty and freedom, even
unassisted, could not have been permanently held in subjection by the
myrmidons of rebellion. The secessionists themselves bestow a high
compliment to the patriotism of this people, when they complain of its
'idolatrous attachment to the old Government.'
The time has come when the American people, from necessity, must analyze
to their root the whole aptitudes and incidents of slavery. They are now
obliged to deal with it, unbridled by the check-rein of its apologists.
Under the best behavior of slaveholders, the institution could not rise
above the point of bare toleration. There is so much inherent in the
system that will not bear analysis, so much of collateral mischief, so
much tending to overturn and discourage the principles of justice that
ought to be interwoven into the relationships of society, that it is
impossible for the ingenuous mind to advocate slavery _per se_. It is
not, however, to the bare dominion itself, that the objection is
exclusively raised up. It is the inevitable result of that dominion, in
connection with the worst cultivated passions of human nature, that the
exception is more broadly taken. The dominion of the master over the
slave involves in a great measure the necessary dominion over the
persons and interests of the balance of society where it exists. The
lust of power on the part of slaveholders, and on the part of the
privileged classes in Europe, in nature, is the same. The determination
through the artificial arrangements of power, to subsist on the toil of
others, is the same. The arrogant assumption of the right to maintain as
privilege what originated in atrocious wrong, is the same. The
disposition to crush by force any attempt to vindicate natural rights,
or to modify the status of society under the severity of oppression, is
the same; and no tyranny has yet been found so tenacious or
objectionable as the tyranny of a class held together by the 'bond of
iniquity.' Our forefathers had a just conception of the nature of the
case, on one hand, when they interdicted by fundamental law the
establishment of any order of nobility. Many of them were sorely
distressed at the contemplation of slavery on the other hand, in
connection with its probable results upon the national welfare. Our
calamity is but the fulfillment of their prophecies. They well knew the
nature of the evil we have to deal with.
It is matter of astonishment to most minds that slaveholders should have
contemplated the bold venture of subordinating the Democratic principle
in government. It will be less astonishing, however, when it is duly
considered that it is utterly impossible for Democracy and Slavery to
abide long together. The one or the other must ere long have been
prostrated under the laws of population, and it is not very likely that
the twenty-seven millions and their increase would consent to be
subordinated to the policy of three hundred and fifty thousand
slaveholders. Slavery must exist as the ruling political power, or it
can not long exist at all. This the slaveholders well knew; hence the
necessity of fortifying itself through some political arrangement
against the Democratic power of the masses.
The South-Carolina platform for a new government had close resemblance
to the ancient Roman--a patrician order of nobility, founded on the
interested motive to uphold slavery; but allowing plebeian
representation, to some extent, to the non-slaveholding classes. Others
in the South had preference for constitutional monarchy, with a class of
privileged legislators, and House of Commons, composing a government of
checks and balances, analogous to the English government. Whatever the
plan adopted, the leading idea was to institute a government that should
be impervious, through one branch, to the future influence of the
non-slaveholding majority.