_Civil War a Crime._--The terms describing civil war, employed by
Roman writers, implicate _both sides_ in its guilt and dishonor.
Such phrases as the following occur in the "Pharsalia" of Lucan:
"_civile nefas_" (Lib. IV. 172); "_civilis Erinnys_" (IV. 187);
"_crimen civile_" (VII. 398). Eutropius says: "Hinc jam _bellum
civile_ successit, _exsecrandum et lacrimabile_." (Brev. Hist.
Rom., Lib. VI. c. 19.) Of the war between Sulla and Marius Florus
says: "Hoc deerat unum populi Romani malis, jam ut ipse intra se
_parricidale bellum_ domi stringeret, et in urbe media ac foro,
quasi harena, cives cum civibus suis gladiatorio more concurrerent.
Æquiore animo utcumque ferrem, si plebeii duces, aut si nobiles,
mali saltem, ducatum _sceleri_ præbuissent; cum vero, _pro
facinus_! qui viri! qui imperatores! decora et ornamenta sæculi
sui, Marius et Sulla, _pessimo facinori_ suam etiam dignitatem
præbuerunt." (Epit. Rerum Rom., Lib. III. c. 21.) The condemnation
of the historian is aroused, not because of the wickedness of
a contest among fellow-_men_, but among fellow-_citizens_, and
because illustrious personages joined in it. But he is impartial
in condemning _both sides_. Marius and Sulla alike are treated as
criminals. The same judgment seems to be expressed with regard to
Cæsar and Pompey. "_Cæsaris furor atque Pompeii_ urbem, Italiam,
gentes, nationes, totum denique qua patebat imperium, quodam quasi
diluvio et inflammatione corripuit; adeo ut non recte tantum
_civile_ dicatur, ac ne sociale quidem, sed nec externum, sed
potius commune quoddam ex omnibus, et plus quam bellum." (Ibid.,
Lib. IV. c. 2.) His description of what was called the Social War
contains a principle which must condemn equally all strife among
cognate nations or states: "Sociale bellum vocetur licet, ut
extenuemus invidiam; si verum tamen volumus, illud civile bellum
fuit. Quippe cum populus Romanus Etruscos, Latinos. Sabinosque
miscuerit, et unum ex omnibus sanguinem ducat, corpus fecit ex
membris, et ex omnibus unus est. _Nec minore flagitio socii intra
Italiam, quam intra urbem cives rebellabant._" (Ibid., Lib. III. c.
18.)
* * * * *
_No triumph, thanksgiving, or holiday for a conqueror in Civil
War._--Valerius Maximus, in his chapter on _Triumphs_, shows how
the victories of civil war were regarded in Rome. "Although," he
says, "any one should perform illustrious and highly useful acts
to the Republic in civil war, he was not on this account hailed
as Imperator; nor were any _thanksgivings_ decreed; nor did he
enjoy a _triumph_ or _oration_: because, _howsoever necessary
these victories might be, they were always regarded as mournful_,
inasmuch as they were obtained, not by _foreign_, but by _domestic_
blood. Therefore Nasica and Opimius _sorrowfully_ slew, the one
the faction of Tiberius Gracchus, and the other that of Caius
Gracchus. Quintus Catulus, after overthrowing his colleague, Marcus
Lepidus, with all his seditious forces, returned to the city,
_showing only a moderated joy_. Even Caius Antonius, the conqueror
of Catiline, made his soldiers wipe their swords before taking them
back to the camp. Lucius Cinna and Caius Marius, after eagerly
draining the blood of citizens, _did not proceed immediately to the
temples and altars of the gods_. So, too, Lucius Sulla, who waged
many civil wars, and whose successes were most cruel and insolent,
at his triumph, on the establishment of his power, carried in his
procession the representations of many Greek and Asiatic cities,
_but of no town occupied by Roman citizens_. It were grievous and
wearisome to dwell longer on the wounds of the Republic. _The
Senate never gave the laurel to any one, nor did any one ever
desire that it should be given to himself, while a part of the
state was in tears._" These last words deserve to be repeated in
the original text: "Lauream nec Senatus cuiquam dedit, nec quisquam
sibi dari desideravit, civitatis parte lacrimante." (Valerius
Maximus, Lib. II. c. 8, § 7.) Florus, at the close of his chapter
on the War with Sertorius, says, that the victorious leaders wished
this to be regarded as a _foreign_ rather than a _civil_ war, _in
order that they might triumph_: "Victores duces _externum_ id magis
quam _civile_ bellum videri voluerunt, _ut triumpharent_." (Epit.
Rerum Rom., Lib. III. c. 22.) Cæsar did not triumph over Pompey,
although at a later day he shocked his fellow-citizens by a triumph
over the sons of that leader. "_All the world_," says Plutarch, in
his Life of Cæsar, "_condemned his triumphing in the calamities of
his country, and rejoicing in things which nothing could excuse,
either before the gods or men, but extreme necessity._ And it
was the more obvious to condemn it, because, before this, he had
never sent any messenger or letter to acquaint the public with any
victory he had gained in the civil wars, _but was rather ashamed of
such advantages_." (Lives, tr. Langhorne, Vol. IV. p. 387.)
A similar judgment of contests and battles _between citizens_
appears in other writers. Appian, speaking of Caius Gracchus,
says, that "all averted their countenances from him, as _a man
polluted with the blood of a citizen_." (De Bellis Civilibus, Lib.
I. c. 25.) The same author, in describing the triumphs of Cæsar
on his return from Africa, says, that "he took care that there
should be no triumphal inscription of his victories over Romans,
his fellow-citizens, _as both unbecoming himself, and shameful
and of evil omen to the Roman people_." (Ibid., Lib. II. c. 101.)
We may follow this sentiment in the History of Dion Cassius.
After describing the victory over Catiline, he says, "The victors
themselves greatly bewailed the loss to the Commonwealth of such
and so many men, citizens and allies, _although justly slain_."
(Hist. Rom., Lib. XXXVII. c. 40.) Thus the _justice_ of the
war did not make it a source of glory. Dion says, that Pompey,
after his success over Cæsar at Dyrrachium, "did not speak of it
boastfully, _nor did he wreathe his fasces with laurel, feeling a
repugnance to doing anything of this sort on account of a victory
over citizens_." (Ibid., Lib. XLI. c. 52.) The manner in which he
refers to Cæsar's conduct, also, after the battle of Pharsalia, is
in harmony with that of the other classical writers. "Cæsar," he
says, "sent no announcement of it to the people, _being unwilling
to appear to rejoice publicly over such a victory_; wherefore he
did not celebrate any triumph on account of it." (Ibid., Lib.
XLII. c. 18.) But he pursued a different course with regard to
his victory over the _foreigner_ Pharnaces, which he announced in
that famous epigrammatic epistle, "_Veni, vidi, vici._" Dion says,
"Cæsar was prouder of this than of any other of his victories,
although it was not very splendid." (Ibid., Lib. XLII. c. 48.) The
same historian alludes to his triumph over the sons of Pompey,
"having conquered no _foreign enemy_, but destroyed so large a
number of _citizens_." (Ibid., Lib. XLIII. c. 42.) Crowns and
public thanksgivings were decreed to Octavius Cæsar, after his
victories over Antony; "but," says Dion, "they did not expressly
name Antony, and the other Romans conquered with him, either at
first or then, _as though it were right to celebrate festivities
over them_." (Ibid., Lib. LI. c. 19.)
"The Tatler," in considering the Roman triumph, notices that
"it was not allowed in a civil war, lest one part should be in
tears, while the other was making acclamations." (No. LXIII.) And
Hudibras, in a most suggestive passage, uses language applicable to
all civil war:--
"What towns, what garrisons, might you
With hazard of this blood subdue,
Which now ye're bent to throw away
_In vain untriumphable fray_!"
Part I. Canto II. 499-502.
_International War criminal, and as little worthy of honor as Civil
War._--Erasmus dealt a blow at the distinction, still preserved
among Christians, between _civil_ war and _foreign_ war. "_Plato
civile bellum esse putat, quod Græci gerunt adversus Græcos. At
Christianus Christiano propius junctus est quam civis civi, quam
frater fratri._" (Erasmi Epist., Lib. XXII. Ep. 16.) The same idea
is found in the Byzantine Gregoras: "Indecorum esse Christianis
tanta cum acerbitate inter se armis certare, cum rationes sint
conveniendi ad pacem et communes vires in impios vertendi."
(Gregoras, Lib. X., De Alexandro Bulgaro, quoted by Grotius, De
Jure Belli ac Pacis, Lib. II. cap. 23, §8, No. 3, note.) Even here
it is rather the Brotherhood of Christians than the Brotherhood
of Man that is recognized. Assuming the latter, international war
becomes criminal, and as little worthy of honor as civil war. It
is a war among brothers.
Who can think of that contest between the two brothers Eteocles and
Polynices without abhorrence? Who would think of awarding glory to
Abel, if, in self-defence, he had succeeded in slaying his hostile
brother, Cain? There is a play of Beaumont and Fletcher where two
brothers are represented as drawing swords upon each other. When
finally separated, they are addressed in words applicable to the
contests of nations:--
"Clashing of swords
So near my house! Brother opposed to brother!
.. .. .. . Hold! hold!
Charles! Eustace!
.. .. . But these unnatural jars,
Arising between brothers, _should you prosper,
Would shame your victory_"
_The Elder Brother_, Act V. Sc. 1.
The unreasonableness of any True Glory in such a contest is felt
by all at the present day, though there have been monsters or
barbarians who _gloried_ even in a kinsman's blood. Massinger, in
his play of "The Unnatural Combat," has portrayed such a character.
A father and son fight with each other. The father is victorious.
His exultation in the death of his son is not unlike that which
often attends the victories of Christian nations:--
"Were a new life hid in each mangled limb,
I would search and find it; and howe'er to some
I may seem cruel thus to tyrannize
Upon this senseless flesh, I _glory_ in it,
.. .. . my falling _glories_
Being made up again, and cemented
With a son's blood."
_The Unnatural Combat_, Act II. Sc. 1.
The father, whose hands are wet with a son's blood, is thus
addressed:--
"The conqueror that survives
_Must reap the harvest of his bloody labor_.
_Sound all loud instruments of joy and triumph._"
_Ibid._
The soul revolts from such a triumph; but how does this differ from
the triumphs of war? The enlightened morality of our age will yet
confess that it is equally wrong to commemorate by thanksgiving
or holiday any bloody success, even in a _just_ contest, over our
_brother man_.
NECESSITY OF POLITICAL ACTION AGAINST THE SLAVE POWER AND THE EXTENSION
OF SLAVERY.
SPEECH IN THE WHIG STATE CONVENTION OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT
SPRINGFIELD, SEPTEMBER 29, 1847.
MR. SUMNER persevered in opposition to the Mexican War, as unjust
in character, and waged for the sake of Slavery. At a Whig meeting
in Boston, assembled in Washingtonian Hall, September 15, for the
choice of delegates to the Annual State Convention, he introduced the
following Resolutions.
"_Resolved_, That a war of aggression, conquest, and robbery is
a national crime of unquestionable atrocity, which good citizens
should strive by unceasing exertion to prevent and arrest.
"_Resolved_, That such a war becomes doubly hateful, when the lust
of conquest is inflamed and stimulated by the passion to extend
Slavery and to strengthen the Slave Power.
"_Resolved_, That the present war with Mexico is unconstitutional
in origin, unjust in character, and detestable in object, and
that a regard for the Constitution, which is outraged, for the
Union, which is endangered, for the lives of innocent men vainly
sacrificed, for the principles of justice wantonly violated, and
for the true honor of the country tarnished, should animate us
to oppose with uncompromising earnestness the further waste of
national treasure for purposes of aggression, and to call for the
withdrawal of our troops within the acknowledged limits of the
United States.
"_Resolved_, That we are unchangeably opposed to the annexation
of any territory to this Union, either directly by conquest, or
indirectly as payment for expenses of the war; but if additional
territory be forced upon us, or be acquired by purchase, or in
any other way, then we will demand that there shall be neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude therein, otherwise than for the
punishment of crime."
Mr. Sumner, Hon. C.F. Adams, and J.S. Eldridge, Esq., spoke in favor
of the Resolutions; Hon. James T. Austin and William Harden, Esq.,
against them. They were finally laid on the table. The Whigs of Boston
would not commit themselves to these principles. Mr. Sumner's name was
placed at the head of the large delegation appointed by the meeting.
The Convention assembled at Springfield, September 29, 1847, and
organized with the following officers: Hon. George Ashmun, of
Springfield, President; John C. Gray, of Boston, Thomas Emerson,
of South Reading, James H. Duncan, of Haverhill, J.T. Buckingham,
of Cambridge, Samuel Wood, of Grafton, James White, of Northfield,
Theodore Hinsdale, of Litchfield, William Porter, of Lee, Truman
Clark, of Walpole, John A. Shaw, of Bridgewater, and Samuel Osborn,
of Edgartown. Vice-Presidents; John P. Putnam, of Boston, Linus B.
Comins, of Roxbury, Charles R. Train, of Framingham, and S.H. Davis, of
Westfield, Secretaries.
Mr. Webster was present, and addressed the Convention, mainly on the
Mexican War. Among the Resolutions adopted by the Convention was one
recommending him as a candidate for President of the United States.
While the Resolutions were pending, the following was moved as an
amendment by Hon. John G. Palfrey.
"_Resolved_, That the Whigs of Massachusetts will support no men
for the offices of President and Vice-President but such as are
known by their acts or declared opinions to be opposed to the
extension of Slavery."
This Resolution was the result of a conference among the more earnest
Anti-Slavery members, with whom Mr. Sumner acted, in the hope of making
opposition to the extension of Slavery a political test at the next
Presidential election. It was sustained in speeches by Mr. Palfrey,
Hon. C. F. Adams, Mr. Sumner, Hon. William Dwight, and Hon. Charles
Allen, and was opposed by Hon. Robert C. Winthrop and Hon. John C.
Gray. On the question being taken, the Resolution was declared lost.
Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.
Mr. President,--It is late, and I am sorry to trespass on unwilling
attention. The importance of the cause is my apology. The question is,
How shall we express our opposition to the extension of Slavery? Here
it is satisfactory to know that there can be no embarrassment from
constitutional scruples. It is not proposed to interfere with Slavery
in any constitutional stronghold, or to touch any so-called compromise
of the Constitution. Adopting the principle, so often declared by our
Southern friends, that Slavery is a local institution, drawing its
vitality from the municipal laws of the States in which it exists, we
solemnly assert that the power of the Nation, of Congress, of the North
as well as the South, shall not be employed for its extension, and that
this curse shall not be planted in any territory hereafter acquired.
Is it not strange, Mr. President, that we, in this nineteenth century
of the Christian era, in a country whose heroic charter declares
that "all men are created equal," under a Constitution one of whose
express objects is to "secure the blessings of liberty,"--is it not
passing strange that we should be occupied now in considering how
best to prevent the opening of new markets for human flesh? Slavery,
already expelled from distant despotic states, seeks shelter here by
the altars of Freedom. Alone in the company of nations our country
assumes the championship of this hateful institution. Far away in
the East, at "the gateways of the day," by the sacred waters of the
Ganges, in effeminate India, Slavery is condemned; in Constantinople,
queenly seat of the most powerful Mahometan empire, where barbarism
still mingles with civilization, the Ottoman Sultan brands it with the
stigma of disapprobation; the Barbary States of Africa are changed
to Abolitionists; from the untutored ruler of Morocco comes the
declaration of his desire, stamped in the formal terms of a treaty,
that the very name of Slavery may perish from the minds of men; and
only recently from the Bey of Tunis has proceeded that noble act by
which, "for the glory of God, and to distinguish man from the brute
creation,"--I quote his own words,--he decreed its total abolition
throughout his dominions. Let Christian America be taught by these
despised Mahometans. God forbid that our Republic--"heir of all the
ages, in the foremost files of time"--should adopt anew the barbarism
and cruelty they have renounced or condemned!
The early conduct of our fathers, at the formation of the Constitution,
should be our guide now. On the original suggestion of Jefferson,
subsequently sustained and modified by others, a clause was introduced
into the fundamental law of the Northwest Territory by which Slavery
has been forever excluded from that extensive region. This act of
wisdom and justice is a source of prosperity and pride to the millions
living beneath its influence. And shall we be less true to Freedom than
the authors of that instrument? Their spirits encourage us in devotion
to this cause. With promptings from their example may properly mingle
the testimony given by that evangelist of Liberty, Lafayette, who,
though born on a foreign soil, is already, by earnest labors, by blood
shed in our cause, by the friendship of Washington, by the gratitude
of every American heart, enrolled among our patriots and fathers. His
opinions of Slavery are now newly revealed to the world. From the pen
of the philanthropist Clarkson we learn that his amiable nature was
specially aroused even at its mention. "He was a real gentleman," says
Clarkson, "and of soft and gentle manners. I have seen him put out of
temper, but never at any time except when Slavery was the subject." The
thought of it in the land he had helped to redeem troubled him so that
he exclaimed to Clarkson: "_I would never have drawn my sword in the
cause of America, if I could have conceived that thereby I was founding
a land of Slavery._" Shall we, whom his sword helped to free, now
found a new land of Slavery?
A proposal is made that the Missouri Compromise shall be applied to
any territory acquired from Mexico,--in other words, that all south of
the parallel of 36° 30' shall be devoted to Slavery. Are you aware,
Sir, that this line, so unhappily notorious in our history, is almost
precisely the parallel of Algiers, once the chief seat of White
Slavery? It is the proper parallel to mark a boundary so disgraceful.
Let it be called the Algerine line. At the present time there can be
no compromises. Compromise with Slavery is treason to Freedom and
to Humanity. It is treason to the Constitution also. With every new
extension of Slavery, fresh strength is imparted to that political
influence, monstrous offspring of Slavery, known as the Slave Power.
This influence, beyond any other under our government, has deranged our
institutions. To it the greater evils which have afflicted the country,
the different perils to the Constitution, may all be traced. The
Missouri Compromise, the annexation of Texas, the war with Mexico, are
only specimens of trouble from the Slave Power. It is an ancient fable
that the eruptions of Etna were produced by the restless movements of
the giant Enceladus imprisoned beneath.[235] As the giant turned on
his side, or stretched his limbs, or struggled, the conscious mountain
belched forth flames, red-hot cinders, and fiery lava, carrying
destruction and dismay to those who dwelt upon its fertile slopes.
The Slave Power is the Imprisoned Giant of our Constitution. It is
there confined and bound. But its constant and strenuous struggles
have caused, and ever will cause, eruptions of evil, in comparison
with which flames, red-hot cinders, and fiery lava are trivial and
transitory. The face of Nature may be blasted, the land may be struck
with sterility, villages may be swept by floods of flame, and whole
families entombed alive in its burning sepulchre; but all these evils
are small, compared with the deep, abiding, unutterable curse from an
act of national wrong.
[235]
"Et fessum quoties mutat latus, intremere omnem
Murmure Trinacriam, et coelum subtexere fumo."
_Æneid_, III. 581, 582.
Let us, then, pledge ourselves, in solemn form, by united exertion,
to restrain this destructive influence, at least within its original
constitutional bounds. Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of
Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power. Our opposition must keep
right on, and not look back:--
"Like to the Pontic sea,
Whose icy current and compulsive course
Ne'er feels retiring ebb, but keeps due on
To the Propontic and the Hellespont."
In this contest, we may borrow from the ancient Greek, who, when his
hands were cut off, fought with his stumps, and even with his teeth. We
may borrow from our party in its defence of the Tariff. We may borrow
from the slaveholders themselves, who are united and uncompromising
in their unholy cause. Let us struggle for Freedom as they struggle
for Slavery. Let us rally under our white pavilion, with its trophies
of Justice, Freedom, and Humanity, as enthusiastically as they troop
together beneath their black flag pictured over with whips, chains, and
manacles.
This brings me directly to the point, How shall we make our opposition
felt? How shall it become vital and palpable? On the present occasion
we can only declare our course. But this should be in language sternly
expressive of our _determination_. It will not be enough merely to put
forth _opinions_ in well-couched phrase, and add yet other resolutions
to the hollow words which have passed into the limbo of things lost
on earth. We must give to our opinions that edge and force which they
can have only from the declared determination to abide by them at all
times. We must carry them to the ballot-box, and bring our candidates
to their standard. The recent constitution of Louisiana, to discourage
duelling, disqualifies all engaged in a duel from holding any civil
office. The Whigs of Massachusetts, so far as in them lies, must
pronounce a similar sentence of disqualification upon all not known to
be against the extension of Slavery.
It is distinctly proclaimed by the Slave Power, that no person can
receive its support who is known to be against the extension of
Slavery. The issue here offered we must join. This is due to our
character for sincerity. It will show that we are in earnest, and,
so doing, we help to check that tyrannical spirit which has thus far
intimidated the politicians--I will not say the people--of the Free
States. To those now too ready for the part of Grand Compromiser, on
a question which admits of no compromise, it will be a warning that
they can expect no support for high office from us. Our motto must be,
"Principles, and those _only_ who will maintain them."
I urge this course, at the present moment, from deep conviction of
its importance. And be assured, Sir, whatever the final determination
of this Convention, there are many here to-day who will never yield
support to any candidate, for Presidency or Vice-Presidency, who is
not known to be against the extension of Slavery, even though he have
freshly received the sacramental unction of a "regular nomination." We
cannot say, with detestable morality, "Our party, _right or wrong_."
The time has gone by when gentlemen can expect to introduce among us
the discipline of the camp. Loyalty to principle is higher than loyalty
to party. The first is a heavenly sentiment, from God: the other is a
device of this world. Far above any flickering light or battle-lantern
of party is the everlasting sun of Truth, in whose beams are the duties
of men.