THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY, AS IT AFFECTED SECESSION.
Great pains have been taken, by the North, to make it appear to the world,
that the war was a sort of moral, and religious crusade against slavery.
Such was not the fact. The people of the North were, indeed, opposed to
slavery, but merely because they thought it stood in the way of their
struggle for empire. I think it safe to affirm, that if the question had
stood upon moral, and religious grounds alone, the institution would never
have been interfered with.
The Republican party, which finally brought on the war, took its rise, as
is well known, on the question of extending slavery to the
Territories--those inchoate States, which were finally to decide the vexed
question of the balance of power, between the two sections. It did not
propose to disturb the institution in the States; in fact, the institution
could do no harm there, for the States, in which it existed, were already
in a hopeless minority. The fat, Southern goose could not resist being
plucked, as things stood, but it was feared that if slavery was permitted
to go into the Territories, the goose might become strong enough to resist
being plucked. If proof were wanted of this, we have it, in the resolution
passed by the Federal Congress, after the first battle of Manassas, in the
first year of the war, as follows: "_Resolved_, That the war is not waged
on our part, in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest,
or for interfering with the rights, or _established institutions of these
States_, but to defend, and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution,
and to preserve the Union, _with all the dignity and rights of the several
States unimpaired_."
In 1820, in the admission of Missouri into the Union, the North and the
South had entered into a compromise, which provided, that slavery should
not be carried into any of the Territories, north of a given geographical
line. This compromise was clearly violative of the rights of the South,
for the Territories were common property, which had been acquired, by the
blood, and treasure, of the North and the South alike, and no
discrimination could justly be made between the sections, as to emigration
to those Territories; but discrimination would be made, if the Northern
man could emigrate to all of them, and the Southern man to those of them
only that lay South of the given line. By the passage of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, introduced into the House of Representatives, in
1854 by Mr. Stephen A. Douglas, this unjust compromise was repealed; the
repealing clause declaring, that the Missouri Compromise "being
inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention, by Congress, with
slavery in the States, and Territories, as recognized by the legislation
of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared
inoperative, and void; it being the true intent, and meaning of this act,
not to legislate slavery into any Territory, or State, nor to exclude it
therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form, and
regulate their domestic institutions, subject only to the Constitution of
the United States."
Nothing would seem more just, than the passage of this act, which removed
the restriction which had been put upon a portion of the States, threw
open the Territories to immigration from all the States, alike, and left
the question of local government, the question of slavery included, to be
decided by the inhabitants of the Territories themselves. But this act of
justice, which Mr. Douglas had had the address and ability to cause to be
passed, was highly distasteful to the Northern people. It was not
consistent with their views of empire that there should be any more
Southern Slave States admitted into the Union. The Republican party,
which, up to that time, had made but little headway, now suddenly sprang
into importance, and at the next elections in the North, swept every thing
before it. The Northern Democratic members of Congress who had voted for
the hated measure, were beaten by overwhelming majorities, and Republicans
sent in their places; and the Republican Convention which assembled at
Chicago in 1860, to nominate a candidate for the Presidency, adopted as
one of the "planks of its platform"--to use a slang political phrase of
the day--the principle that slavery should thereafter be excluded from the
Territories; not only from the Territories North of the geographical line,
of the Missouri Compromise, but from all the Territories! The gauntlet of
defiance was thus boldly thrown at the feet of the Southern States.
From 1816 to 1860, these States had been plundered by tariffs, which had
enriched the North, and now they were told without any circumlocution,
that they should no longer have any share in the Territories. I have said
that this controversy, on the subject of slavery, did not rest, in the
North, on any question of morals or religion. The end aimed at, in
restricting slavery to the States, was purely political; but this end was
to be accomplished by means, and the Northern leaders had the sagacity to
see, that it was all-important to mix up the controversy, _as a means_,
with moral, and religious questions. Hence they enlisted the clergy in
their crusade against the South; the pulpit becoming a rostrum, from which
to inflame the Northern mind against the un-Godly slave-holder; religious
papers were established, which fulminated their weekly diatribes against
the institution; magazine literature, fiction, lectures, by paid
itinerants, were all employed, with powerful effect, in a community where
every man sets himself up as a teacher, and considers himself responsible
for the morals of his neighbor. The contumely and insult thus heaped upon
the South were, of themselves, almost past endurance, to say nothing of
the wrongs, under which she suffered. The sectional animosity which was
engendered by these means, in the North, soon became intense, and hurried
on the catastrophe with railroad speed.
Whilst the dispute about slavery in the Territories was drawing to a
focus, another, and if possible, a still more exciting question, had been
occupying the public mind--the rendition of fugitive slaves to their
owners. Our ancestors, in the Convention of 1787, foreseeing the
difficulty that was likely to arise on this subject, insisted that the
following positive provision, for their protection, should be inserted in
the Constitution: "No person held to service, or labor, in one State,
under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of
any law, or regulation therein, be discharged from such service, or labor;
but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service, or
labor may be due."
In 1793, a law, called the fugitive slave law, had been passed, for the
purpose of carrying out this provision of the Constitution. This law was
re-enacted, with some alterations, the better to secure the object in
question, in 1850. Neither of those laws was ever properly executed in the
North. It soon became unsafe, indeed, for a Southern man to venture into
the North, in pursuit of his fugitive slave. Mr. Webster sought, in vain,
in the latter part of his life, when he seemed to be actuated by a sense
of returning justice to the South, to induce his countrymen to execute
those laws, and he lost much of his popularity, in consequence. The laws
were not only positively disobeyed, but they were formally nullified by
the Legislatures of fourteen of the Northern States; and penalties were
annexed to any attempt to execute them. Mr. Webster, in speaking on this
subject, says: "These States passed acts defeating the law of Congress, as
far as it was in their power to defeat it. Those of them to whom I refer,
not all, but several, nullified the law of 1793. They said in effect, 'We
will not execute it. No runaway slave shall be restored.' Thus the law
became a dead letter. But here was the Constitution, and compact still
binding; here was the stipulation, as solemn as words could form it, and
which every member of Congress, every officer of the General Government,
every officer of the State government, from governors down to constables,
is sworn to support. It has been said in the States of New York,
Massachusetts, and Ohio, over and over again, that the law shall not be
executed. That was the language in conventions, in Worcester,
Massachusetts; in Syracuse, New York, and elsewhere. And for this they
pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors. Now,
gentlemen, these proceedings, I say it upon my professional reputation,
are distinctly treasonable. And the act of taking Shadrick [a fugitive
slave] from the public authorities, in Boston, and sending him off, was an
act of clear treason." Great outcry was raised against South Carolina when
she nullified the tariff law of 1830, passed in clear violation of the
spirit of the Constitution; here we see fourteen States nullifying an
act, passed to carry out an express provision of the same instrument,
about which there was not, and could not be any dispute.
Let us again put Mr. Webster on the witness stand, and hear what he says,
was the effect of this wholesale nullification by the Northern States of
this provision of the Constitution. "I do not hesitate," says he, "to say,
and repeat, that if the Northern States refuse wilfully, and deliberately
to carry into effect that part of the Constitution, which respects the
restoration of fugitive slaves, the South would be no longer bound to keep
the compact. _A bargain broken on one side is broken on all sides._" That
was spoken like Daniel Webster, the able jurist, and just man, and not
like the Daniel Webster, whom I have before quoted, in these pages, as the
casuist, and the sophist. The reader cannot fail to see what a full
recantation we have here, of Mr. Webster's heresy, of 1833, when he
contended that the Constitution had been "ordained and established," by
the people of the United States, in the aggregate, as one nation.
Mr. Webster now calls the States, the parties to the instrument, and
claims that the infraction of it, by some of the States, releases the
others from their obligations under it. It is then, after all, it seems, a
_federal compact_; and if it be such, we have the authority of Mr.
Webster, himself, for saying that the States may withdraw from it, at
pleasure, without waiting for an infringement of it, by their co-States.
But the Southern States did not desire to withdraw from it, without
reason. They were sincerely attached to the Union, and were willing to
suffer, and endure much rather than that it should be destroyed. They had
stood, shoulder to shoulder, with the North in two wars against the mother
country, and had freely spent their wealth, and shed their blood in
defence of the common rights. They had rushed to the defence of New
England, in the war of the Revolution, and had equally responded to her
call in 1812, in defence of her shipping interest.
Mr. Madison relied much upon these ties, as a common bond of union. When
Patrick Henry and other Southern patriots were warning their people
against the new alliance, proposed to them in the Federal Constitution,
he spoke the following fervid language in reply to them, in one of the
numbers of the "Federalist." "Hearken not to the unnatural voice, which
tells you, that the people of America, knit together, as they are, by so
many natural cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of
the same family; can no longer continue mutual guardians of their mutual
happiness. * * * No, my countrymen, shut your ears against this unhallowed
language. Shut your hearts against the poison which it conveys. The
kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled
blood which they have shed in defence of their sacred rights, consecrate
their union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens,
rivals, enemies." Much of this feeling still lingered in the bosoms of
Southern men. They were slow to awaken from this dream of delusion. A rude
and rough hand had been necessary to disenchant them. But they were
compelled, in spite of themselves, to realize the fact at last, that they
had been deceived, and betrayed into the federal compact, that they might
be made slaves. Like an unhappy bride, upon whose brow the orange-wreath
had been placed, by hands that promised tenderness, and protection, the
South had been rudely scorned, and repelled, and forced, in tears, and
bitter lamentation, to retract the faith which she had plighted. To carry
still further our simile; like the deceived, and betrayed bride, the least
show of relenting, and tenderness was sufficient to induce the South to
forgive, and to endeavor to forget.
The history of our unhappy connection with the North is full of
compromises, and apparent reconciliations--prominent among which was the
compromise of 1833, growing out of the nullification of South Carolina, on
the tariff question; and the compromise of 1850, in which it was promised,
that Congress should not interfere with the question of slavery, either in
the States, or Territories. The South, like the too credulous bride,
accepted these evidences of returning tenderness, in good faith; the
North, like the coarse and brutal husband, whose selfishness was superior
to his sense of justice, withdrew them, almost as soon as made. The
obnoxious laws which had been modified, or repealed, under these
compromises, were re-enacted with additional provocations, and
restrictions.
So loth was the South to abandon the Union, that she made strenuous
efforts to remain in it, even after Mr. Lincoln had been elected
President, in 1860. In this election, that dreaded sectional line against
which President Washington had warned his countrymen, in his Farewell
Address, had at last been drawn; in it,--"the fire-bell of the
night,"--which had so disturbed the last days of Jefferson, had been
sounded. There had, at last, arisen a united North, against a united
South. Mr. Lincoln had been placed by the Chicago Convention on a platform
so purely sectional, that no Southern State voted, or could vote for him.
His election was purely geographical; it was tantamount to a denial of the
co-equality of the Southern States, with the Northern States, in the
Union, since it drove the former out of the common Territories. This had
not been a mere party squabble--the questions involved had been _federal_,
and _fundamental_. Notwithstanding which, some of the Southern States were
not without hope, that the North might be induced to revoke its verdict.
Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, introduced into the Senate, a series of
resolutions, which he hoped would have the effect of restoring harmony;
the chief feature of which was, the restoration of the Missouri
Compromise, giving the Southern States access to the Territories south of
a geographical line. Although this compromise was a partial abandonment of
the rights of the South, many of the ablest, and most influential
statesmen of that section, gave in their adhesion to it; among others, Mr.
Jefferson Davis. The measure failed.
Various other resolutions, looking to pacification, were introduced into
both houses of Congress; but they failed, in like manner. The border Slave
States aroused to a sense of their danger--for by this time, several of
the Gulf States had seceded--called a Convention in the city of
Washington, to endeavor to allay the storm. A full representation
attended, composed of men, venerable for their years, and renowned for
their patriotic services, but their labors ended also in failure; Congress
scarcely deigned to notice them. In both houses of Congress the Northern
faction, which had so recently triumphed in the election of their
President, was arrayed in a solid phalanx of hostility to the South, and
could not be moved an inch. The Puritan leaven had at last "leavened the
whole loaf," and the descendants of those immigrants who had come over to
America, in the _May Flower_, feeling that they had the power to crush a
race of men, who had dared to differ with them in opinion, and to have
interests separate and apart from them, were resolved to use that power in
a way to do no discredit to their ancestry. Rebels, when in a minority,
they had become tyrants, now that they were in a majority.
Nothing remained to the South, but to raise the gantlet which had been
thrown at her feet. The Federal Government which had been established by
our ancestors had failed of its object. Instead of binding the States
together, in peace, and amity, it had, in the hands of one portion of the
States, become an engine of oppression of the other portion. It so
happened, that the slavery question was the issue which finally tore them
asunder, but, as the reader has seen, this question was a mere means, to
an end. The end was empire, and we were about to repeat, in this
hemisphere, the drama which had so often been enacted in the other, of a
more powerful nation crushing out a weaker.
The war of the American sections was but the prototype of many other wars,
which had occurred among the human race. It had its origin in the
unregenerated nature of man, who is only an intellectual wild beast, whose
rapacity has never yet been restrained, by a sense of justice. The
American people thought, when they framed the Constitution, that they were
to be an exception to mankind, in general. History had instructed them
that all other peoples, who had gone before them, had torn up paper
governments, when paper was the only bulwark that protected such
governments, but then they were the _American_ people, and no such fate
could await them. The events which I have recorded, and am about to
record, have taught them, that they are no better--and perhaps they are no
worse--than other people. It is to be hoped that they will profit by their
dear-bought experience, and that when they shall have come to their
senses, and undertake to lay the foundation of a new government, they
will, if they design to essay another republic, eliminate all discordant
materials. The experiment of trusting to human honesty having failed, they
must next trust to human interests--the great regulator, as all philosophy
teaches, of human nature. They must listen rather to the philosophy of
Patrick Henry, than to that of James Madison, and never attempt again to
bind up in one sheaf, with a withe of straw, materials so discordant as
were the people of the North, and the people of the South.