whig party has had none such this long time; the democratic party
pretends to none and acts on none; each represents an interest which can
be estimated in dollars; neither seems to see that behind questions of
political economy there is a question of political morality, and the
welfare of the nation depends on the answer we shall give! So long as
the abolitionists had nothing but an idea, and but few men had that,
there was no inducement for the common run of politicians to join them;
they could make nothing by it, so nothing of it. The guardians of
education, the trustees of the popular religion, did not like to invest
in such funds. But still the idea went on, spite of the most entire,
the most bitter, the most heartless and unrelenting opposition ever
known in America. No men were ever hated as the abolitionists; political
parties have joined to despise, and sectarian churches to curse them.
Yet the idea has gone on, till now all that is most pious in the sects,
most patriotic in the parties, all that is most Christian in modern
philanthropy, is on its side. It has some representative in almost every
family, save here and there one whose God is mammon alone, where the
parents are antediluvian and the children born old and conservative,
with no faculty but memory to bind them to mankind. It has its spokesmen
in the House and the Senate. The tide rises and swells, and the compact
wall of the whig party, the tall ramparts of the democrats, are
beginning to "cave in."
As the idea has gained ground, men have begun to see that an interest is
connected with it, and begun to look after that. One thing the North
knows well--the art of calculation, and of ciphering. So it begins to
ask questions as to the positive and comparative influence of the slave
power on the country. Who fought the Revolution? Why the North,
furnishing the money and the men, Massachusetts alone sending fourteen
thousand soldiers more than all the present slave States. Who pays the
national taxes? The North, for the slaves pay but a trifle. Who owns the
greater part of the property, the mills, the shops, the ships? The
North. Who writes the books--the histories, poems, philosophies, works
of science, even the sermons and commentaries on the Bible? Still the
North. Who sends their children to school and college? The North. Who
builds the churches, who founds the Bible societies, Education
societies, Missionary societies, the thousand-and-one institutions for
making men better and better off? Why the North. In a word, who is it
that in seventy years has made the nation great, rich, and famous for
her ideas and their success all over the world? The answer is, still the
North, the North.
Well, says the calculator, but who has the offices of the nation? The
South. Who has filled the Presidential chair forty-eight years out of
sixty? Nobody but slaveholders. Who has held the chief posts of honor?
The South. Who occupy the chief offices in the army and navy? The South.
Who increases the cost of the post-office and pays so little of its
expense?[50] The South. Who is most blustering and disposed to quarrel?
The South. Who made the Mexican war? The South. Who sets at nought the
Constitution? The South. Who would bring the greatest peril in case of
war with a strong enemy? Why the South, the South. But what is the South
most noted for abroad? For her three million slaves; and the North? for
her wealth, freedom, education, religion!
Then the calculator begins to remember past times--opens the
account-books and turns back to old charges: five slaves count the same
as three freemen, and the three million slaves, which at home are
nothing but property, entitle their owners to as many representatives in
Congress as are now sent by all the one million eight hundred thousand
freemen who make the entire population of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, and have created a vast amount of
property worth more than all the slave States put together! Then the
North must deliver up the fugitive slaves, and Ohio must play the
traitor, the kidnapper, the bloodhound, for Kentucky! The South wanted
to make two slave States out of Florida, and will out of Texas; she
makes slavery perpetual in both; she is always bragging as if she made
the Revolution, while she only laid the Embargo, and began the late war
with England,--but that is going further back than is needful. The South
imprisons our colored sailors in her ports, contrary to justice, and
even contrary to the Constitution. She drove our commissioners out of
South Carolina and Louisiana, when they were sent to look into the
matter and legally seek for redress. She affronts the world with a most
odious despotism, and tried to make the English return her runaway
slaves, making the nation a reproach before the world; she insists on
kidnapping men even in Boston; she declares that we shall not abolish
slavery in the capital of the Union; that she will extend it in spite of
us from sea to sea. She annexed Texas for a slave-pasture, and then made
the Mexican war to enlarge that pasture, but the North must pay for it;
she treads the Constitution under her feet, the North under her feet,
justice and the unalienable rights of man under her feet.
The North has charged all these items and many more; now they are
brought up for settlement, and, if not cancelled, will not be forgot
till the Muse of History gives up the ghost; some Northern men have the
American sentiment, and the American idea, put the man before the
dollar, counting man the substance, property the accident. The sentiment
and idea of liberty are bottomed on Christianity, as that on human
nature; they are quite sure to prevail; the spirit of the nation is on
their side--the spirit of the age and the everlasting right.
It is instructive to see how the political parties have hitherto kept
clear of anti-slavery. It is "no part of the whig doctrine;" the
democrats abhor it. Mr. Webster, it is true, once claimed the Wilmot
Proviso as his thunder, but he cannot wield it, and so it slips out of
his hands, and runs round to the chair of his brother senator from New
Hampshire.[51] No leading politician in America has ever been a leader
against slavery. Even Mr. Adams only went as he was pushed. True, among
the whigs there are Giddings, Palfrey, Tuck, Mann, Root, and Julian;
among the democrats there is Hale--and a few others; but what are they
among so many? The members of the family of Truth are unpopular, they
make excellent servants but hard masters, while the members of the
family of Interest are all respectable, and are the best company in the
world; their livery is attractive; their motto, "The almighty dollar,"
is a passport everywhere. Now it happens that some of the more advanced
members of the family of Truth fight their way into "good society," and
make matrimonial alliances with some of the poor relations of the family
of Interest. Straightway they become respectable; the church publishes
the banns; the marriage is solemnized in the most Christian form; the
attorney declares it legal. So the gospel and law are satisfied, Truth
and Interest made one, and many persons after this alliance may be seen
in the company of Truth who before knew not of her existence.
The free soil party has grown out of the anti-slavery movement. It will
have no more slave territory, but does not touch slavery in the States,
or between them, and says nothing against the compromises of the
Constitution; the time has not come for that. The party has been
organized in haste, and is composed, as are all parties, of most
discordant materials, some of its members seeming hardly familiar with
the idea; some are not yet emancipated from old prejudices, old methods
of action, and old interests; but the greater part seem hostile to
slavery in all its forms. The immediate triumph of this new party is not
to be looked for; not desirable. In Massachusetts they have gained large
numbers in a very short period, and under every disadvantage. What their
future history is to be, we will not now attempt to conjecture; but this
is plain, that they cannot remain long in their present position; either
they will go back, and, after due penance, receive political absolution
from the church of the whigs, or the democrats,--and this seems
impossible,--or else they must go forward where the idea of justice
impels them. One day the motto "No more slave territory" will give place
to this, "No slavery in America." The revolution in ideas is not over
till that is done, nor the corresponding revolution in deeds while a
single slave remains in America. A man who studies the great movements
of mankind feels sure that that day is not far off; that no combination
of northern and southern interest, no declamation, no violence, no love
of money, no party zeal, no fraud and no lies, no compromise, can long
put off the time. Bad passions will ere long league with the holiest
love of right, and that wickedness may be put down with the strong hand
which might easily be ended at little cost and without any violence,
even of speech. One day the democratic party of the North will remember
the grievances which they have suffered from the South, and, if they
embrace the idea of freedom, no constitutional scruple will long hold
them from destroying the "peculiar institution." What slavery is in the
middle of the nineteenth century is quite plain; what it will be at the
beginning of the twentieth it is not difficult to foresee. The slave
power has gained a great victory: one more such will cost its life.
South Carolina did not forget her usual craft in voting for a northern
man that was devoted to slavery.
* * * * *
Let us now speak briefly of the conduct of the election. It has been
attended, at least in New England, with more intellectual action than
any election that I remember, and with less violence, denunciation, and
vulgar appeals to low passions and sordid interest. Massachusetts has
shown herself worthy of her best days; the free soil vote may be looked
on with pride, by men who conscientiously cast their ballot the other
way. Men of ability and integrity have been active on both sides, and
able speeches have been made, while the vulgarity that marked the
"Harrison campaign" has not been repeated.
In this contest the democratic party made a good confession, and "owned
up" to the full extent of their conduct. They stated the question at
issue, fairly, clearly, and entirely; the point could not be mistaken.
The Baltimore Convention dealt honestly in declaring the political
opinions of the party; the opinions of their candidate on the great
party questions, and the subject of slavery, were made known with
exemplary clearness and fidelity. The party did not fight in the dark;
they had no dislike to holding slaves, and they pretended none. In all
parts of the land they went before the people with the same doctrines
and the same arguments; everywhere they "repudiated" the Wilmot Proviso.
This gave them an advantage over a party with a different policy. They
had a platform of doctrines; they knew what it was; the party stood on
the platform; the candidate stood on it.
The whig party have conducted differently; they did not publish their
confession of faith. We know what was the whig platform in 1840 and in
1844. But what is it in 1848? Particular men may publish their opinions,
but the doctrines of the party are "not communicated to the public." For
once in the history of America there was a whig convention which passed
no "Resolutions;" it was the Convention at Philadelphia. But on one
point, of the greatest importance too, it expressed the opinions of the
whigs: it rejected the Wilmot Proviso, and Mr. Webster's thunder, which
had fallen harmless and without lightning from his hands, was "kicked
out of the meeting!" As the party had no platform, so their candidate
had no political opinions. "What!" says one, "Choose a President who
does not declare his opinions,--then it must be because they are
perfectly well known!" Not at all: General Taylor is raw in politics,
and has not taken his first "drill!" "Then he must be a man of such
great political and moral ability, that his will may take the place of
reason!" Not at all: he is known only as a successful soldier, and his
reputation is scarcely three years old. Mr. Webster declared his
nomination "not fit to be made," and nobody has any authentic statement
of his political opinions; perhaps not even General Taylor himself.
In the electioneering campaign there has been a certain duplicity in the
supporters of General Taylor: at the North it was maintained that he was
not opposed to the Wilmot Proviso, while at the South quite uniformly
the opposite was maintained. This duplicity had the appearance of
dishonesty. In New England the whigs did not meet the facts and
arguments of the free soil party; in the beginning of the campaign the
attempt was made, but was afterwards comparatively abandoned; the
matter of slavery was left out of the case, and the old question of the
sub-treasury and the tariff was brought up again, and a stranger would
have thought, from some whig newspapers, that that was the only question
of any importance. Few men were prepared to see a man of the ability and
experience of Mr. Webster in his electioneering speeches pass wholly
over the subject of slavery. The nation is presently to decide whether
slavery is to extend over the new territory or not; even in a commercial
and financial point of view, this is far more important than the
question of banks and tariffs; but when its importance is estimated by
its relation to freedom, right, human welfare in general,--we beg the
pardon of American politicians for speaking of such things,--one is
amazed to find the whig party of the opinion that it is more important
to restore the tariff of 1842 than to prohibit slavery in a country as
large as the thirteen States which fought the Revolution! It might have
been expected of little, ephemeral men--minute politicians, who are the
pest of the State,--but when at such a crisis a great man rises,[52]
amid a sea of upturned faces, to instruct the lesser men, and forgets
right, forgets freedom, forgets man, and forgets God, talking only of
the tariff and of banks, why a stranger is amazed, till he remembers
the peculiar relation of the great man to the moneyed men,--that he is
their attorney, retained, paid, and pensioned to do the work of men
whose interest it is to keep the question of slavery out of sight. If
General Cavaignac had received a pension from the manufacturers of Lyons
and of Lisle, to the amount of half a million of francs, should we be
surprised if he forgot the needy millions of the land? Nay, only if he
did not forget them!
It was a little hardy to ask the anti-slavery men to vote for General
Taylor; it was like asking the members of a temperance society to choose
an eminent distiller for president of their association. Still, we know
that honest anti-slavery men did honestly vote for him. We know nothing
to impeach the political integrity of General Taylor; the simple fact
that he is a slaveholder, seems reason enough why he should not be
President of a nation who believe that "All men are created equal, and
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Men will be
astonished in the next century to learn that the "model republic," had
such an affection for slaveholders. Here is a remarkable document, which
we think should be preserved:
DEED OF SALE.
"JOHN HAGARD, SR. TO ZACHARIAH TAYLOR.
"_Received for Record, 18th Feb., 1843._
"_This Indenture_, made this twenty-first day of April,
eighteen hundred and forty-two, between John Hagard, Sr., of
the City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, of one part,
and Zachariah Taylor, of the other part, _Witnesseth_, that
the said John Hagard, Sr., for and in consideration of the
sum of _Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars_ to him in hand paid,
and secured to be paid, as hereafter stated by the said
Zachariah Taylor, at and before the sealing and delivering
of these presents, has this day bargained, sold, and
delivered, conveyed, and confirmed, and by these Presents
does bargain, sell, deliver, and confirm unto the said
Zachariah Taylor, his heirs and assigns, forever, all that
plantation and tract of land:...
"ALSO, all the following Slaves--Nelson, Milley, Peldea,
Mason, Willis, Rachel, Caroline, Lucinda, Ramdall, Wirman,
Carson, Little Ann, Winna, Jane, Tom, Sally, Gracia, Big
Jane, Louisa, Maria, Charles, Barnard, Mira, Sally, Carson,
Paul, Sansford, Mansfield, Harry Oden, Harry Horley, Carter,
Henrietta, Ben, Charlotte, Wood, Dick, Harrietta, Clarissa,
Ben, Anthony, Jacob, Hamby, Jim, Gabriel, Emeline, Armstead,
George, Wilson, Cherry, Peggy, Walker, Jane, Wallace,
Bartlett, Martha, Letitia, Barbara, Matilda, Lucy, John,
Sarah, Bigg Ann, Allen, Tom, George, John, Dick, Fielding,
Nelson, or Isom, Winna, Shellod, Lidney, Little Cherry,
Puck, Sam, Hannah or Anna, Mary, Ellen, Henrietta, and two
small children:--Also, all the Horses, Mules, Cattle, Hogs,
Farming Utensils, and Tools, now on said
Plantation--together with all and singular, the
hereditaments, appurtenances, privileges, and advantages
unto the said Land and Slaves belonging or appertaining. _To
have and to hold_ the said Plantation and tract of Land and
Slaves, and other property above described, unto the said
Zachariah Taylor, his heirs and assigns, for ever, and to
his and to their only proper use, benefits, and behoof, for
ever. And the said John Hagard, Sr., for himself, his heirs,
executors, and administrators, does covenant, promise, and
agree to and with said Zachariah Taylor, his heirs and
assigns, that the aforesaid Plantation and tract of Land and
Slaves, and other property, with the appurtenances, unto the
said Zachariah Taylor, his heirs, and assigns against the
claim or claims of all persons whomsoever claiming or to
claim the same, or any part or parcel thereof, shall and
will warrant, and by these Presents for ever defend.
"_In Testimony Whereof_, the said John Hagard, Sr., has
hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and year first above
written."
If this document had been discovered among some Egyptian papyri, with
the date 1848 before Christ, it would have been remarkable as a sign of
the times. In a republic, nearly four thousand years later, it has a
meaning which some future historian will appreciate.
The free soil party have been plain and explicit as the democrats; they
published their creed in the celebrated Buffalo platform. The questions
of sub-treasury and tariff are set aside; "No more slave territory" is
the watchword. In part they represent an interest, for slavery is an
injury to the North in many ways, and to a certain extent puts the North
into the hands of the South; but chiefly an idea. Nobody thought they
would elect their candidate, whosoever he might be; they could only
arrest public attention and call men to the great questions at issue,
and so, perhaps, prevent the evil which the South was bent on
accomplishing. This they have done, and done well. The result has been
highly gratifying. It was pleasant and encouraging to see men ready to
sacrifice their old party attachments and their private interests,
oftentimes, for the sake of a moral principle. I do not mean to say
that there was no moral principle in the other parties--I know better.
But it seems to me that the free soilers committed a great error in
selecting Mr. Van Buren as their candidate. True, he is a man of
ability, who has held the highest offices and acquitted himself
honorably in all; but he had been the "Northern man, with Southern
principles;" had shown a degree of subserviency to the South, which was
remarkable, if not singular or strange: his promise, made and repeated
in the most solemn manner, to veto any act of Congress, abolishing
slavery in the capital, was an insult to the country, and a disgrace to
himself. He had a general reputation for instability, and want of
political firmness. It is true, he had opposed the annexation of Texas,
and lost his nomination in 1844 by that act; but it is also true that he
advised his party to vote for Mr. Polk, who was notoriously in favor of
annexation. His nomination, I must confess, was unfortunate; the Buffalo
Convention seems to have looked at his availability more than his
fitness, and, in their contest for a principle, began by making a
compromise of that very principle itself. It was thought he could
"carry" the State of New York; and so a man who was not a fair
representative of the idea, was set up. It was a bad beginning. It is
better to be defeated a thousand times, rather than seem to succeed by a
compromise of the principle contended for. Still, enough has been done,
to show the nation that the dollar is not almighty; that the South is
not always to insult the North, and rule the land, annexing, plundering,
and making slaves when she will; that the North has men who will not
abandon the great sentiment of freedom, which is the boast of the nation
and the age.
General Taylor is elected by a large popular vote; some voted for him on
account of his splendid military success; some because he is a
slaveholder, and true to the interests of the slave power; some because
he is a "Good whig," and wants a high tariff of duties. But we think
there are men who gave him their support, because he has never been
concerned in the intrigues of a party, is indebted to none for past
favors, is pledged to none, bribed by none, and intimidated by none;
because he seems to be an honest man, with a certain rustic
intelligence; a plain blunt man, that loves his country and mankind. We
hope this was a large class. If he is such a man, he will enter upon his
office under favorable auspices, and with the best wishes of all good
men.
But what shall the free soil party do next? they cannot go
back,--conscience waves behind them her glittering wings and bids them
on; they cannot stand still, for as yet their measures and their
watchword do not fully represent their idea. They must go forward, as
the early abolitionists went, with this for their motto: "No slavery in
America." "He that would lead men, must walk but one step before them;"
says somebody. Well, but he must think many steps before them, or they
will presently tread him under their feet. The present success of the
idea is doubtful; the interests of the South will demand the extension
of slavery;[53] the interests of the party now coming into power, will
demand their peculiar boon. So another compromise is to be feared, and
the extension of slavery yet further West. But the ultimate triumph of
the genius of freedom is certain. In Europe, it shakes the earth with
mighty tread; thrones fall before its conquering feet. While in the
eastern continent, kings, armies, emperors, are impotent before that
power, shall a hundred thousand slaveholders stay it here with a bit of
parchment?
FOOTNOTES:
[48] [Greek: Greek: Gignontai men oun hai staseis ou peri mikron all' ek
mikron, stasiazousi de peri megalon.]--Aristotle's _Polit._, Lib. V.
Chap. 4, Sec. 1.
[49] William Lloyd Garrison.
[50] The following table shows the facts of the case:--
Cost of post-office in slave States for
the year ending July 1st, 1847, $1,318,541
Receipts from post-office, 624,380
Cost of post-office in free States for the
year ending July 1st, 1847, $1,038,219
Receipts from post-office, 1,459,631
So the Southern post-office cost the nation $694,161, and the Northern
post-office paid the nation $421,412, making a difference of $1,115,573
against the South.
[51] Mr. John P. Hale.
[52] Hon. Daniel Webster.
[53] The following extract, from the _Charleston Mercury_, shows the
feeling of the South. "Pursuant to a call, a meeting of the citizens of
Orangeburg District was held to-day, 6th November, in the court-house,
which was well filled on the occasion.... Gen. D. F. Jamison then rose,
and moved the appointment of a committee of twenty-five, to take into
consideration the continued agitation by Congress of the question of
slavery;... the committee, through their chairman, Gen. Jamison, made
the following report:--