MY DEAR ANDREW,--You can hardly have forgotten that our last
conversation on the national questions of the day had an abrupt, if not
angry, termination. I very much fear that we both lost temper, and that
our discussion degenerated into a species of political sparring. You
will certainly agree with me that the great issues now agitating the
country are too grave to be treated in the flippant style of bar-room
debate. When the stake for which we are contending with immense armies
in the field and powerful navies on the ocean is nothing less than the
existence of our Union and the life of our nation, it ill becomes
intelligent and thoughtful men to descend to personal abuse, or to be
blinded for one moment by prejudice or passion to the cardinal principle
on which the whole controversy turns.
In view of these considerations, therefore, as our previous discussions
have left some vital questions untouched, and as our past experience
seems to have proved that we cannot, with mutual profit, compare our
opinions upon these subjects orally, I have decided to embody my
sentiments on the general points of difference between us in the form of
a letter. Knowing my personal regard for you, I am sure that you will
not believe me guilty of intentional discourtesy in anything I may say,
while you certainly will not be surprised, if I occasionally express
myself with a degree of warmth which finds its full justification in the
urgent importance of the questions to be considered.
I have not the vanity to believe that anything I can say on subjects
that have so long engrossed the attention of thoughtful Americans will
have the charm of novelty. And yet, in view of the unwelcome fact, that
there exists to some extent a decided difference at the North about
questions in regard to which it is essential that there should be a
community of feeling, it certainly can do no harm to make an attempt,
however feeble, to enlist in the cause of constitutional liberty and
good government at least one man who may have been led astray by a too
zealous obedience to the dictates of his party. As the success of our
republican institutions must depend on the morality and intelligence of
the citizens composing the nation, no honest appeal to that morality and
that intelligence can be productive of serious evil.
Permit me, then, at the outset, to remind you of what, from first to
last, has formed the key-note of all your opposition to the war-policy
of the Administration. You say that you have no heart in this struggle,
because Abolitionists have caused the war,--always adding, that
Abolitionists may carry it on, if they please: at any rate, they shall
have no support, direct or indirect, from you. I have carefully
considered all the arguments which you have employed to convince me that
the solemn responsibility of involving the nation in this sanguinary
conflict rests upon Abolitionists, and these arguments seem to me to be
summed up in the following proposition: Before Abolitionists began to
disseminate their dangerous doctrines, we had no war; therefore
Abolitionists caused the war. I might, perhaps, disarm you with your own
weapons, by saying that before Slavery existed in this country we had no
Abolitionists; but I prefer to meet your argument in another manner.
Not to spend time in considering any aspect of the question about which
we do not substantially differ, let us at once ascertain how far we can
agree. I presume you will not deny that this nation is, and since the
twelfth of April, 1861, has been, in a state of civil war; that the
actively contending parties are the North and the South; and that on the
part of the South the war was commenced and is still waged in the
interest of Slavery. We should probably differ _toto coelo_ as to the
causes which led to the conflict; but, my excellent Andrew, I think
there are certain facts which after more than two years' hard fighting
may be considered fairly established. Whatever may be your own
conclusions, as you read our recent history in the light of your ancient
and I had almost said absurd prejudices, I believe that the vast
majority of thinking men at the North have made up their minds that a
deliberate conspiracy to overturn this government has existed in the
South for at least a quarter of a century; that the proofs of such a
conspiracy have been daily growing more and move palpable, until any
additional evidence has become simply cumulative; that the election of
Abraham Lincoln was not the cause, but only marked the culmination of
the treason, and furnished the shallow pretext for its first overt acts.
That you are not prepared to admit all this is, I am forced to believe,
mainly because you dislike the conclusions which must inevitably follow
from such an admission. I say this, because, passing over for the
present the undoubted fact, that this nation would have elected a
Democratic President in 1860 but for the division of the Democratic
party, and the further fact, equally indisputable, that Southern
politicians wilfully created this division, I think you will hardly
venture to deny that even after the election of Abraham Lincoln the
South controlled the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the House of
Representatives. And to come down to a still later period, you can have
no treasonable doubt that the passage of the Corwin Amendment disarmed
the South of any cause for hostilities, based on the danger of
Congressional interference with Slavery wherever existing by force of
State laws. There remains, then, only one conceivable excuse for the
aggressive policy of the South, and that is found in the alleged
apprehension that the slaves would be incited to open rebellion against
their masters. But, I ask, can any intelligent and fair-minded man
believe, to-day, that slaveholders were forced into this war by the fear
that the anti-slavery sentiment of the North would lead to a general
slave-insurrection? Nine-tenths of the able-bodied Southern population
have been in arms for more than two years, far away from their
plantations, and unable to render any assistance to the old men, women,
and children remaining at home. The President's Emancipation
Proclamation was made public nearly a year ago, and subsequent
circumstances have conspired to give it a very wide circulation through
the South. And yet there has not been a single slave-insurrection of any
magnitude, and not one that has not been speedily suppressed and
promptly punished. This fact would seem to be a tolerably conclusive
answer to all apologies for the wicked authors of this Rebellion, drawn
from their alarm for their own safety and the safety of their families.
But the persistent Peace Democrat has infinite resources at command in
defence of the conduct of his Southern allies.
"Destroy his web of sophistry in vain,
The creature's at his dirty work again."
We are now told that the obedient and unresisting submission of the
slaves proves that they are satisfied with their condition, and have no
desire to be free. And we are asked to admit, therefore, that Slavery is
not a curse, but an absolute blessing, to those whom it affects most
nearly! Or we are pointed to the multitude of slaves daily seeking the
protection of the United States flag, and are informed that slaveholders
are contending for the right to retain their property. As if the
Fugitive-Slave Law--of which Mr. Douglas said, in one of his latest
speeches, that not one of the Federal statutes had ever been more
implicitly obeyed--did not afford the South most ample protection, so
long as it remained in the Union!
Another grievance of which you bitterly complain, another count in the
long indictment which you have drawn up against the Administration, is
what you denominate its anti-slavery policy. You disapprove of the
Emancipation Proclamation, you denounce the employment of armed negroes;
and therefore you have no stomach for the fight.
But has not the President published to the world that the Proclamation
was a measure of military necessity? and has he not also said that its
constitutionality is to be decided and the extent and duration of its
privileges and penalties are to be defined by the Supreme Court of the
United States? If, as you are accustomed to assert, the Proclamation is
a dead letter, it certainly need not give you very serious discomfort.
If it exercises a powerful influence in crippling the energies of the
South, it surely is not among Northern men that we should look for its
opponents. As to its future efficacy and binding force, shall we not do
well to leave this question, and all similar and at present purely
speculative inquiries, till that time--which may Heaven hasten!--when
this war shall terminate in the restoration of the Union and the
acknowledged supremacy of the Constitution?
And now a word about that formidable bugbear, the enlistment of negro
soldiers. For my own part, I candidly confess that I am utterly unable
to comprehend your unmeasured abuse of this expedient. If slaves are
chattels, I can conceive of no good reason why we may not confiscate
them as Rebel property, useful to the Rebels in their armed resistance
to Federal authority, precisely as we appropriate their corn and cattle.
And when once confiscated, why should they not be employed in whatever
manner will make them most serviceable to us? But you insist that they
shall not be armed. You might with equal show of reason contend that the
mules which we have taken from the Rebels may be rightfully used in
ambulances, but must not be used in ammunition-wagons.
But if slaves are not chattels, they are human beings, with brains and
muscles,--brains at least intelligent enough to comprehend the stake
they have in this controversy, and muscles strong enough to do good
service in the cause of constitutional liberty and republican
institutions. Is it wise to reject their offered assistance. Will not
our foes have good cause to despise our folly, if we leave in their
hands this most efficient element of their power? You have friends and
relatives fighting in the Union armies. If you give the subject a
moment's reflection, you must see that all slaves labouring on the
plantations of their masters not only are feeding the traitors who are
doing their utmost to destroy our country, but by relieving thousands
upon thousands of Southern men from the necessity of remaining at home
and cultivating the soil, are, to all practical purposes, as directly
imperilling the lives of our Union soldiers as if these same slaves with
sword or musket were serving in the Rebel ranks. And again, while you
object to the enlistment of negroes, you are unwilling that any member
of your family should leave your household and expose himself to the
many hazards of war. Now is it not too plain for argument, that every
negro who is enrolled in our army prevents, by just that unit, the
necessity of sending one Northern soldier into the field?
But will the slaves consent to enlist? Let the thousands who have forced
their way to Union camps,
"Over hill, over dale,
Thorough bush, thorough brier,
Over park, over pale,
Thorough flood, thorough fire,"
tracked by blood-hounds, and by their inhuman oppressors more savage
than blood-hounds, answer the insulting inquiry. Are they brave? Will
they fight for the cause which they have dared so many dangers to
espouse? I point you to the bloody records of Vicksburg, Million's
Bend, Port Hudson, and Fort Wagner; I appeal to the testimony of every
Union officer under whom black soldiers have fought, as the most fitting
reply to such questions. Shame on the miserable sneer, that we are
spending the money and shedding the blood of white men to fight the
battles of the negro! Blush for your own unmanly and ungenerous
prejudices, and ask yourself whether future history will not pronounce
the black man, morally, not only your equal, but your superior, when it
is found recorded, that, denied the rights of citizenship, long
proscribed, persecuted, and enslaved, he was yet willing, and even
eager, to save the life of your brother on the battle-field, and to
preserve you in the peaceable enjoyment of your property at home. Is the
efficient aid of such men to be rejected? Is their noble self-sacrifice
to be slighted? Shall we, under the contemptible pretext, that this war
must be waged--if waged at all--for the benefit of the white race,
deprive negroes of an opportunity to risk their lives to maintain a
government which has never protected them, and a Constitution which has
been practically interpreted in such a manner as to recognize and
sanction their servitude? Do not, I implore you, answer these inquiries
by that easy, but infamous taunt, so constantly on the lips of
unscrupulous politicians in your party,--"Here comes the inevitable
nigger again!" It is precisely because the awful and too long unavenged
sufferings of the slave must be inevitable, while Slavery exists, that
these questions must sooner or later be asked and answered, and that
your political upholding of such a system becomes a monstrous crime
against humanity.
After all, my dear Andrew, why are you so sensitive on the subject of
Slavery? You certainly can have no personal interest in the peculiar and
patriarchal institution. You are too skilful a financier ever to have
invested a single dollar in that fugacious wealth which so often takes
to its legs and runs away. Nor does your unwillingness to listen to any
expression of anti-slavery sentiment arise from affection for or real
sympathy with Slavery, on moral grounds. Indeed, I have more than once
been exceedingly refreshed in spirit at observing the sincere and hearty
contempt with which you have treated what is blasphemously called the
Biblical argument in favor of human bondage. The pleading precedent of
Abraham has not seduced you, nor has the happy lot of the more modern
Onesimus quieted all your conscientious scruples. You have never failed,
in private conversation, to condemn the advocates of Slavery on whatever
grounds they have rested its defence, nor have you ever ceased to
deplore its existence in our country.
At the same time I must admit that you have invariably resisted all
attempts to apply any practical check or remedy to the great and growing
evil, stoutly maintaining that it was a local institution, and that we
of the North had no right to meddle with it. I am well aware that you
have stigmatized every effort to awaken public attention to its nature
and tendency, or to point out methods, more or less available, of
abolishing the system, as unconstitutional, incendiary, and quixotic. I
concede that your indignation has always been in the abstract, and your
zeal eminently conservative. Yet, as a moral man, with a New-England
training, and a general disposition to indorse those principles which
have made New England what she is, you will not deny, that, in a
harmless and inoffensive way, you have been anti-slavery in your
opinions.
But, once more, my friend, have you any reason to be attached to Slavery
on political grounds? You have always been an earnest and uncompromising
Democrat. You have always professed to believe in the omnipotence of
political conventions and the sacred obligation of political platforms.
You have never failed to repudiate any effort to influence party action
by moral considerations. Indeed, I have sometimes thought that you must
have selected as your model that sturdy old Democratic deacon in New
Hampshire, who said that "politics was one thing, and religion was
another." You have never hesitated to support any candidate, or to
uphold any measure, dictated by the wisdom or the wickedness of your
party. Although you must have observed, that, with occasional and
infrequent eddies of opinion, the current of its political progress has
been steadily carrying the Northern Democracy farther and farther away
from the example and the doctrines of Jefferson, you have surrendered
yourself to the evil influence without a twinge of remorse or a sigh of
regret. You have submitted to the insolent demands of Southern
politicians with such prompt and easy acquiescence, that many of your
oldest friends have mourned over your lost manhood, and sadly abandoned
you to the worship of your ugly and obscene idol. A Northern man,
descended from the best Puritan stock, surrounded from childhood by
institutions really free, breathing the atmosphere of free thought,
enjoying the luxury of free speech, you have deliberately allied
yourself to a party which has owed its long-continued political
supremacy to the practical denial of these inestimable privileges. Yet,
on the whole, Andrew, what have you gained by it? Undoubtedly, the seed
thus sown in dishonor soon ripened into an abundant harvest of fat
offices and rapid promotions. But winter--the winter of your
discontent--has followed this harvest. Circumstances quite beyond your
control have utterly demolished the political combination which was once
your peculiar pride. You have lived to see the Dagon before which you
and your friends have for so many years cheerfully prostrated yourselves
fall to the ground, and lie a helpless, hopeless ruin on the very
threshold of the temple where it lately stood defiant and dominant.
Have you ever had the curiosity to investigate the causes of this
disaster? It is a curiosity which can be easily gratified. The
Democratic party was killed in cold blood by Southern traitors. There
never was a more causeless, malicious, or malignant murder. The fool in
the fable who gained an unenviable notoriety by killing the goose which
laid golden eggs, Balaam, who, but for angelic interposition, would have
slain his faithful ass, were praiseworthy in comparison. Well might any
one of the Northern victims of this cruel outrage have exclaimed, in the
language of Balaam's long-eared servant, "Am not I thine ass, upon which
thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto to this day? was I ever
wont to do so unto thee?" And the modern, like the ancient Balaam, must
have answered, "Nay."
But, alas for Northern manhood, alas for human nature corrupted by long
possession of political power, after a short-lived, though, let us hope,
sincere outburst of indignation, followed by protests and remonstrances,
growing daily milder and more moderate, the Northern Democracy now begs
permission to return once more to its former servitude, and would gladly
peril the permanence of the Union, to hug again the fetters which it has
so patiently and so profitably worn.
Lay aside party prejudice, for one moment, my dear Andrew, and tell me
if the world ever saw a more humiliating spectacle. Slighted, spurned,
spit upon by their ancient allies, compelled to bear the odium of an
aggressive and offensive pro-slavery policy, tamely consenting to a
denial of the dearest human rights and the plainest principles of
natural justice, rewarded only by a share in the Federal offices, and
punished by the contempt of all who, at home or abroad, intelligently
and unselfishly studied the problem of our republican institutions, the
Northern Democracy found themselves, at the most critical period of our
national history, abandoned by the masters whom they had faithfully
served, and whom many were willing to follow to a depth of degradation
which could have no lower deep. And yet, when thus freed from their long
slavery by the voluntary act of their oppressors, we hear them to-day
clamoring for the privilege of wearing anew the accustomed yoke, and
feeling again the familiar lash! Are these white men, with Anglo-Saxon
blood in their veins, and the fair fame of this country in their
keeping? Why, if the most abject slave that ever toiled on a Southern
plantation, cast off by his master and compelled to claim the rights of
a freeman, should, of his own deliberate choice, elect to return to his
miserable vassalage, who would not pronounce him unfit to enjoy the
priceless boon of liberty? who would hesitate to say that natural
stupidity, or the acquired imbecility of long enslavement, had doomed
him to remain, to the day of his death, a hewer of wood and a drawer of
water?
But, as if to render the humiliation of these Democratic leaders still
more fruitless and gratuitous, mark how their overtures are received by
their Southern brethren. Having sold their birthright, let us see what
prospect our Northern Esaus have of gaining their mess of pottage.
Perhaps no better illustration can be given of the state of feeling
among the chiefs of the Southern Rebellion than is found in a letter
from Colonel R.C. Hill to the Richmond "Sentinel," dated September 13th,
1863. It had been stated by a correspondent of the New York "Tribune,"
that, during a recent interview between General Custer (Union) and
Colonel Hill (Confederate), at Fredericksburg, Virginia, Colonel Hill
had assured General Custer that "there would soon be peace." After
giving an explicit and emphatic denial to this statement, Colonel Hill
(who, it would seem, commands the Forty-Eighth North-Carolina
Volunteers) closes by saying, "I am opposed to any terms short of a
submission of the Federals to such terms as we may dictate, which, in my
opinion, should be, Mason and Dixon's line a boundary; the exclusive
navigation of the Mississippi below Cairo; full indemnification for all
the negroes stolen and destroyed; and the restoration of Fortress
Monroe, Jefferson, Key West, and all other strongholds which may have
fallen into their possession during the war. If they are unwilling to
accede to these terms, I propose an indefinite continuance of the war
until the now existing fragment of the old Union breaks to pieces from
mere rottenness and want of cohesion, when we will step in, as the only
first-class power on the Western Hemisphere, and take possession of the
pieces as subjugated and conquered provinces."
To the same effect is a letter from Robert Toombs, who had been charged
with a leaning towards a reconstruction of the Union. A short extract
will suffice to show the spirit of the whole communication. "I can
conceive of no extremity to which my country can be reduced in which I
would, for a single moment, entertain any proposition for any union with
the North on any terms whatever. When all else is lost, I prefer to
unite with the thousands of our own countrymen who have found honorable
deaths, if not graves, on the battle-field." And the recently elected
Governor of Alabama puts to rest all doubts as to his desire for
Southern independence, by saying, "If I had the power, I would build up
a wall of fire between Yankeedom and the Confederate States, there to
burn for ages."
The tone and temper of these extracts--and similar quotations might be
made indefinitely--are exactly in keeping with everything that comes
from the pens or the lips of the leaders of this Rebellion. And even
those Southern statesmen who at the outset were opposed to Secession,
and have never ceased to deplore the fruitless civil war into which the
South has plunged the nation, are compelled to admit, with a
distinguished citizen of Georgia, that "the war, with all its afflictive
train of suffering, privation, and death, has served to eradicate all
idea of reconstruction, even with those who made it the basis of their
arguments in favor of disunion."
Rely upon it, this tone and temper will never be changed so long as the
Rebels have any considerable armed force in the field ready for
service. Unless we are willing to consent to a divided country, a
dissevered Union, and the recognition of a Southern Confederacy,--in a
word, unless we are prepared to acquiesce in all the demands of our
enemies, we have no alternative but a vigorous prosecution of the war.
Fernando Wood and his followers ask for an armistice. An armistice to
whom, and for what purpose? The Rebels, represented by their Government,
ask for no armistice, except upon their own terms, and what those terms
are we have already seen. It is idle to say that there are men at the
South who crave peace and a restoration of the Union. Assume the
statement to be true, and you have made no progress towards a
satisfactory result. Such men are powerless in the hands of the guiding
and governing minds of the conspiracy. The treason is of such magnitude,
its leaders so completely control the active forces of the whole
community, that the passive strength of Union sentiment cannot now be
taken into the account. It would be a farce too absurd to be gravely
considered, to treat with men who, whatever their disposition or numbers
may be, are utterly helpless, unable to make any promise which they can
fulfil, or to give any pledge which can bind any but themselves.
We must deal with an armed and powerful rebellion; and so long as it is
effectively armed, and powerful enough to hold in subjection the whole
Southern population, it is moral, if not legal, treason for a Northern
man to talk of peace. What avails it to talk of the blessings of peace
and the horrors of war? It is a fearful thing to take the life of a
human being; but we can easily conceive of circumstances when homicide
is not only justifiable, but highly commendable.
Permit me here to quote, as most pertinent to this view of the subject,
an extract from a speech of Mr. Pitt in 1797, defending his refusal to
offer terms of peace to the Directory of France. Alluding to some
remarks of Sir John Sinclair, in the House of Commons, deprecating war
as a great evil, and calling on ministers to propose an immediate peace,
Mr. Pitt says,--"He began with deploring the calamities of war, on the
general topic that all war is calamitous. Do I object to that sentiment?
No. But is it our business, at a moment when we feel that the
continuance of that war is owing to the animosity, the implacable
animosity, of our enemy, to the inveterate and insatiable ambition of
the present frantic government of France,--not of the _people_ of
France, as the honorable baronet unjustly stated,--is it our business,
at that moment, to content ourselves with merely lamenting, in
commonplace terms, the calamities of war, and forgetting that it is part
of the duty which, as representatives of the people, we owe to our
government and our country, to state that the continuance of those evils
upon ourselves, and upon France, too, is the fruit only of the conduct
of the enemy, that it is to be imputed to them and not to us?" Now does
not this correctly describe our position? We make no question about the
calamities of war; but how are these calamities to be avoided? This war
has been forced upon us, and we must wage it to the end, or submit to
the dismemberment of the Union, and acknowledge, in flat contradiction
of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the right of Secession.
The true motto for the Government is precisely and preeminently the
motto of the State of Massachusetts, "_Ense petit placidam sub libertate
quietem_," which, freely, but faithfully, translated, means, "We must
conquer a just and abiding peace."
And now, my dear Andrew, I am curious to know what answer you will make
to the general views which I have advanced on these vital questions.
Will you say that I have misrepresented the record of the Northern
Democratic party? that I have charged them with a submission and
subserviency to the dictates of their Southern allies, which truthful
history will not confirm? You surely remember the uncontradicted
assertion of Mr. Hammond, Senator from South Carolina, made on the floor
of the Senate in 1856, at a time when fears were entertained by the
Democracy that Mr. Fremont might be elected:--"The South has now ruled
the country for sixty years." Do you believe that this rule could have
been maintained for so many years without the connivance and coöperation
of Northern Democrats? Will you venture to say that Texas could have
been annexed, the Fugitive-Slave Law passed, the Missouri Compromise
Bill repealed, without the consent and active assistance of Northern
Democrats? In fact, my friend, when, in our frequent conversations, you
have repeatedly charged Southern Democrats with ingratitude and want of
good faith, have you not intended to assert, that, having complied with
all the demands of the South, you looked upon their deliberate
destruction of the Democratic party as a wanton act of political
treachery?
Do you deny that I have presented a truthful picture of the present
position of your party? Can there be any doubt about the issue now
offered to the North by Peace Democrats? I say _Peace_ Democrats,
because all War Democrats are acting heartily and zealously with the
Administration. Is not the policy which the Peace Democracy support in
their papers, platforms, and public addresses, an immediate cessation of
hostilities on the part of the North? And do they not select, as the
exponents of this policy, men who have, from the commencement of the
war, sympathized with the South, and denounced the military measures of
the Government as unjustifiable, oppressive, and iniquitous? Open any
newspaper of "Copperhead" complexion, and tell me, candidly, if you can
approve of the manner in which the all-engrossing questions of the day
are discussed.
You know, in advance, as well as I know, that you will find both open
and insidious attacks upon whatever feature of the war-policy of the
Administration chances at the moment to be uppermost in the public mind,
a liberal collection of incidents illustrating the horrors of war,
abundant abuse of army-contractors, appalling estimates of our probable
national debt, enthusiastic commendation of the skill of Southern
officers and the bravery of Southern soldiers, extravagant laudation of
some Federal commander who has disobeyed the orders of his superior and
conducted a campaign in such a manner as not to annoy or alarm the
enemy, eloquent denunciation of all attempts to fetter free speech or
limit the liberty of the press, indignant complaint that the rights of
the citizen are disregarded, an ostentatious parade of historical
parallels to prove that an earnest and united people fighting for
independence has never been subjugated, a bitter paragraph attributing
to Abolitionists all the evils of the existing controversy, the
inevitable sneer at negro soldiers in spite of the bloody baptism which
they have so heroically borne,--all this, but (mark the significant
circumstance!) not one word in condemnation of Southern treason, not a
single sentiment that can by possibility alienate old friends, or can
ever be quoted as evidence that the editor had dared to assert his
manhood. Is this loyalty to the Constitution and the Union? Is this the
allegiance which a citizen owes to his country? Away with the
mischievous sophistry, that the Government is not the country, and does
not represent the people! Can any sane man doubt that an Administration
legally chosen, and rightfully in power, and receiving the emphatic
indorsement of decisive majorities in Congress, does, during its
constitutional term of office, and while so supported, speak the mind
and embody the will of the nation? Is there any show of reason for
saying that such an Administration is an irresponsible despotism,
governing the country without the moral countenance of its citizens, and
in defiance of their declared sentiments?
But the views of Peace Democrats are not to be ascertained alone by
consulting the newspapers which are their acknowledged organs. Listen to
the speeches of their prominent leaders. I will not stop to call your
attention to their bold treason after a Union reverse, or their
non-committal platitudes after a Union victory. Let me rather ask you to
consider the prevailing tone of their public addresses. Remember,
meanwhile, that our Government is grappling with an active and resolute
enemy, whose avowed and persistent purpose is to divide the Union, and
by means unconstitutional and treasonable to erect on the ruins of our
once happy Republic an independent and necessarily hostile power. Bear
in mind that this enemy, with an intense and inflexible determination
which would be most commendable in a better cause, is summoning all its
strength to accomplish its wicked designs, and tell me if it does not
find among Peace Democrats most efficient allies and adherents.
Can you discover in the speeches of your political friends one sentence
that would give a future student of the history of this struggle a
correct idea of the principles for which we are contending? Would not
such a student, accepting these speeches as authentic, reasonably infer
that the Central Government, invested by a sad accident with supreme
power, was using its accidental authority for the sole and sinister
purpose of abridging the constitutional rights of the citizen, by
withholding the privilege of free speech, and preventing the expression
of popular sentiment at the polls? And yet, methinks, an intelligent
posterity will somewhat wonder how such speeches could be made with
impunity, and such candidates receive unchallenged votes, in the face of
such unscrupulous tyranny. In fact, was there ever so wicked a farce as
this "Copperhead" complaint about the denial of the right of free speech
and free votes, from the lips of men whose daily exemption from
punishment proves the falsity of their appeals to popular prejudice? Do
they not say what they please, and vote as they choose, without
molestation or hindrance? Why, a many-wived Mormon, surrounded by the
beauties of his harem, inveighing against the laws of the United States
which prohibit polygamy,--a Roman Catholic priest, openly and safely
carnivorous during Lent, denouncing that regulation of his church which
denies him the luxury of meat during the forty days immediately
preceding Easter,--a cannibal, with a tender morsel of young missionary
in his mouth, complaining that he cannot gratify his appetite for human
flesh,--these would be models of reason and common sense, compared with
the factious demagogues whose conduct we are considering.
In point of fact, their real unhappiness arises from their impunity.
They are gasping for a substantial grievance. Their highest ambition is
to become political martyrs. Now and then one of them, like
Vallandigham, deliberately transcends the bounds of a wise forbearance,
and receives from the Government a very mild rebuke. Straightway he is
placed on the bad eminence to which he has so long aspired. Already dead
to all feeling of patriotism, he is canonized for his crimes, with rites
and ceremonies appropriate to such a priesthood. And, unhappily, he
finds but too many followers weak enough or wicked enough to recognize
his saintship and accept his creed. To all true and loyal men, he
resembles rather the veiled prophet of Khorassan, concealing behind the
fair mask of a zealous regard for free speech and a free press the
hideous features of Secession and civil war, despising the dupes whom he
is leading to certain and swift destruction, and clinging fondly to the
hope of involving in a common ruin, not only the party which he
represents, but the country which he has dishonored.
That such political monsters are possible in the Free States, at such a
time as this, sufficiently demonstrates towards what an abyss of
degradation we were drifting when this war began. They are the
legitimate and necessary fruits of the numerous compromises by which
well-meaning men have sought to avert a crisis which could only be
postponed. The North has been diligently educated to connive at
injustice and wink at oppression for the sake of peace, until there was
good reason to fear that the public sense of right was blunted, and the
public conscience seared as with a hot iron. While the South kept always
clearly in view the single object on which it had staked everything, the
North was daily growing more and more absorbed in the accumulation of
wealth, and more and more callous to all considerations of humanity and
all claims of natural justice. The feeblest remonstrance against the
increasing insolence of Southern demands was rudely dismissed as
fanatical, and any attempt to awaken attention to the disloyal
sentiments of Southern politicians was believed to be fully met
and conclusively answered by the cry of "Abolitionist" and
"Negro-Worshipper."
It must be confessed that for a time these expedients were successful.
Like another Cassandra predicting the coming disasters of another Troy,
the statesman who foresaw and foretold the perils which threatened the
nation addressed a careless or contemptuous public. It was in vain to
say that the South was determined to rule or ruin the country, in vain
to point out the constantly recurring illustrations of the aggressive
spirit of Slavery, in vain to urge that every year of delay was but
adding to the difficulty of dealing with the gigantic evil. The merchant
feared a financial crisis, the repudiation of Southern debts and his own
consequent inability to maintain the social position which his easily
earned wealth had secured; the politician, who, at the great
auction-sales of Northern pride and principle held every four years, had
so often sought to outbid his rivals in baseness, that his party or
faction might win the Presidential prize, turned pale at the prospect of
losing Southern support; the divine could see no danger threatening his
country except from the alleged infidelity of a few leading radicals;
the timid citizen, with no fixed political opinions, was overawed by the
bluster of Southern bullies, shuddered at the sight of pistol and
dirk-knife, and only asked "to be let alone"; while the thoughtless
votary of fashion, readily accepting the lordly bearing and imperious
air of the planter as the highest evidence of genuine aristocracy,
reasoned, with the sort of logic which we should look for in such a
mind, that slaveholding was the normal condition of an American
gentleman.
I will not allude to the views entertained by those men whose ignorance
disqualified them from forming an intelligent opinion about our national
affairs, and whose votes were always at the service of the highest
bidders. You know perfectly well where they were sure to be found, and
they exercised no inconsiderable influence on our public policy from
year to year. Leaving this class out of the question, our peril arose
largely from the fact, that too many men, sensible on other subjects,
were fast settling into the conviction, that their wisest course was to
be conservative, and that to be conservative was to act with the party
which had longest held the reins of power. Their reasoning, practically,
but perhaps unconsciously, was this:--The object of a government is to
make a country prosperous and rich; this country has grown prosperous
and rich under the rule of the Democratic party; therefore why should we
not give it our support, and more especially as all sorts of dreadful
results are predicted, if the opposition party comes into power? Why
part with a present good, with the risk of incurring a future evil?
Above all things, let us discountenance the agitation of exciting
topics.--Profound philosophy! deserving to be compared with that of the
modern Cockney who does not want his after-dinner rest to be disturbed
by even a lively discussion. "I say, look here, why have row?
Excessively unpleasant to have row, when a fellow wants to be quiet! I
say, don't!"
In fact, this "conservatism" was only another and convenient name for a
most dangerous type of moral and political paralysis. Its immediate
effect was to discourage discussion, and to induce an alarming apathy as
to all the vital questions of the day among men whose abilities
qualified them to be of essential service to their country. Their
adhesion to the ranks of the Democratic party, while increasing the
average intelligence of that organisation, without improving its public
virtue or private morals, served simply to give it greater numerical
strength. It was still in the hands of unscrupulous leaders, who,
intoxicated with their previous triumphs, believed that the nation would
submit to any measure which they saw fit to recommend. And who shall say
that their confidence was unreasonable? Did not all their past
experience justify such confidence? When had any one of their schemes,
no matter how monstrous it might at first have appeared, ever failed of
final accomplishment? Had they not repeatedly tested the temper and
measured the _morale_ of the people? Had they not learned to anticipate
with absolute certainty the regular sequence of national emotions,--the
prompt recoil as from impending dishonor, the excited public meetings,
the indignant remonstrance embodied in eloquent resolutions, then the
sober, selfish second-thought, followed by the question, What if the
South should carry out its threats and dissolve the Union? then the
alarm of the mercantile and commercial interest, then a growing
indifference to the very features of the project which had caused the
early apprehension, and lastly the meek and cowardly acquiescence in the
enacted outrage? Would not these arch-conspirators North and South have
been wilfully blind, if they had not seen not only that the nation was
sinking in the scale of public virtue, but that it had acquired "a
strange alacrity in sinking"?
Meanwhile they had learned a lesson, the value and significance of which
they fully appreciated. He must have been an inattentive student of our
political history, who has not observed that the successful prosecution
of any political enterprise has too often dignified its author in the
eyes of the people, in spite of its intrinsic iniquity. The party
reaping the benefit of the measure has not withheld the expected reward,
and the originator and abettors of the accomplished wrong have found
that exalted official position covers a multitude of sins.
Wisely availing themselves of this national weakness, and most adroitly
using all the elements of political power with which long practice had
made them familiar, the leaders of the Democratic party had every reason
to believe that the duration of their political supremacy would be
coeval with the life of the Republic. In fact, the peril predicted more
than twenty years ago, by one of the purest and wisest men whom this
country has ever seen, with a sagacity which, in the light of subsequent
events, seems almost inspired, had wellnigh become an historical fact.
"The great danger to our institutions," said Dr. Channing, writing to a
friend in 1841, "is of a party organization so subtle and strong as to
make the Government the monopoly of a few leaders, and to insure the
transmission of the executive power from hand to hand almost as
regularly as in a monarchy."
But an overruling Providence, building better than we knew, had decreed
that the sway of this powerful party should be broken by means of the
very element of supposed strength on which it so confidently relied for
unlimited supremacy. Losing sight of those cardinal principles which the
far-reaching sagacity of Jefferson had enunciated, and faithfully
following which the Democracy had, during its early history, so
completely controlled the country, the modern leaders, intent only on
present success, had based all their political hopes on an intimate
alliance, offensive and defensive, with that institution which Jefferson
so eloquently denounced, and the existence of which awakened his most
lively fears for the future of his country. And what has been the
result of this ill-omened alliance? Precisely what might sooner or later
have been expected. Precisely what might have been predicted from the
attempt to unite the essentially incongruous ideas of Aristocracy and
Democracy. For the system of Slavery is confessedly the very essence of
an Aristocracy, while the genuine idea of a Democracy is the submission
of all to the expressed will of the majority. Take as one of the latest
illustrations of the irreconcilable difference between Aristocracy and
Democracy, the manner in which the South received the doctrine of
"Squatter Sovereignty." This doctrine, whatever its ultimate purpose
might have been, certainly embodied the idea of a democracy, pure and
simple, resting on the right of a people to enact their own laws and
adopt their own institutions. It was believed by many to be a movement
in the interest of Slavery, and on that ground met with fierce
opposition. Was it welcomed by slaveholders? Far from it. The Southern
Aristocracy, clear-sighted on every question affecting their peculiar
institution, applied their remorseless logic to the existing dilemma,
and promptly decided that to admit the correctness of the principle was
to endanger the existence of the system which was the corner-stone of
their faith. They looked beyond the result of the immediate election.
They foresaw the crisis which must ultimately arise. Indeed, they had
long appreciated the fact, that the "irrepressible conflict" in which we
are now involved was impending, and had been mustering all their forces
to meet the inevitable issue. The crisis came. But how? In an evil hour
for its own success, but a most-fortunate one for the welfare of the
Republic, Slavery, overestimating its inherent power, and underrating
the resources and virtue of the nation, committed the fatal error of
measuring its strength with a free North. From that moment it lost
forever all that it had ever gained by united action, by skilful
diplomacy, by dexterously playing upon the "fears of the wise and
follies of the brave," and by ingeniously masking its dark designs.
The new policy once inaugurated, however, the career of treason once
commenced, its authors can never recede. Their only safety lies in
complete success. They must conquer or die. They may in secret confess
to themselves that they have been guilty of a stupendous blunder, but
that they clearly comprehend and sternly accept their position is
abundantly evident. For, if anything is proved in the history of this
war, it is, that the chiefs in the Rebellion believe in no middle ground
between peace on their own terms and the utter annihilation of their
political power and military resources.
Thus, then, my dear Andrew, the insane ambition and wanton treachery of
the Southern wing of your party have delivered the North from the danger
of white slavery, and, by breaking up the Democratic party, have
delivered the nation from the despotism of an organization which had
become too powerful for its own good and for the best interests of the
country. Do you dare to complain of this deliverance? You ought rather
to go on your knees every day of your life, and devoutly thank the kind
Providence which gave you such an unexpected opportunity to escape from
so demoralizing a servitude.
Do not allow your attachment to party names and party associations to
warp your judgment or limit your patriotism. You need have no fear that
any one of the sound and beneficent ideas which the Democratic party has
ever impressed upon the mind of the nation will perish or be forgotten.
Whatever features of the organization, whatever principles which it has
labored to inculcate, are essential to the just development of our
intellectual activity or our material resources, will survive the
present struggle, perhaps to reappear in the creed and be promulgated by
the statesmen of some future party; or who shall say that the Democratic
party, freed from its corrupting associations, rejecting the leaders who
have been its worst enemies, and the political heresies which have
wrought its temporary ruin, may not again wield its former power, and
once more direct the destinies of the country?
But, returning to considerations of more immediate importance, what, I
ask, is the obvious duty of every true and loyal citizen in such a
crisis as this? You resent, as insulting, any imputation of disloyalty,
and therefore I have a right to infer that you are unwilling to be
ranked among the enemies of your country. But who are those enemies?
Clearly, those whose avowed intention or whose thinly disguised design
is, to divide the Union and to rend the Republic in twain. How are those
enemies to be overcome? Only by a hearty and earnest coöperation with
the measures devised by our legally constituted Government for the
suppression of the Rebellion. I can easily understand that you may not
be willing to give your cordial assent to all the measures and all the
appointments of the Administration. It is not the Administration which
you would have selected, or for which you voted. But, nevertheless, it
is our rightful government, and nothing else can save the nation from
absolute anarchy. Postpone, therefore, I beseech you, all merely
partisan prejudices, and remember only that the Union is in danger. You
are a Democrat. Adopt, then, during the continuance of this war, the
noble sentiments of a distinguished Western Democrat:[J]--"The whole
object of the Rebellion is to destroy the principle of Democracy. The
party which stands by the Government is the true Democracy. Every
soldier in the army is a true Democrat. Every man who lifts his head
above party trammels is a Democrat. And every man who permits old issues
to stand in the way of a vigorous prosecution of the war cannot, in my
opinion, have any claims on the party." By such men and such utterances
will the Democratic party secure the respect and admiration of mankind;
while those spurious Democrats, whose hearts are with the South while
their homes are in the North, whose voice is the voice of Jacob while
their hands are the hands of Esau, whose first slavish impulse is to
kiss the rod which smites them, and who long for nothing so much as the
triumph of their Southern masters, have earned, and will surely receive,
the contempt and detestation of all honest men, now and forever.
God forbid that I should suspect you of sympathizing with these
miscreants! But, my friend, there is still another class of Democrats
with whom I should exceedingly regret to see you associated. I mean
those who, without any love for Rebels or their cause, are yet so
fearful of being called Republicans that they refuse to support the
Government. Can you justify yourself in standing upon such a platform?
Is this a time in which to permit your old party animosities to render
you indifferent to the honor and welfare of the nation? Are you simply
in the position of a violent partisan out of office, eager to embarrass
the Administration, and keenly on the watch to discover how best to
inflame the prejudices of the populace against the Government? Is there
nothing more important just now than to devise means of reinstating your
party in power at the next Presidential election? Will it not be well
first to settle the question, whether, in the month of November, 1864,
we shall still be a free people, competent to elect the candidates of
any party? May you not be, nay, are you not sure to be, giving
substantial aid and comfort to the enemies of your country, while
seeking only to cripple the power of your political opponents? Are not
the dearest interests, and, indeed, the very life of the nation, of
necessity, so dependent upon a cordial and constant support of the
Government, that active hostility to its principal measures, or even
absolute neutrality, strengthens the hands and increases the confidence
of Rebels in arms?
Notwithstanding the notorious virulence of party feeling in this
country, it certainly would not seem to require a very large amount of
manly principle to rise superior to such a sordid sentiment in view of
our common peril. Patriotism, my friend, is an admirable and most
praiseworthy virtue. It is correctly classed among the noblest instincts
of human nature. It has in all ages been a fruitful theme of poetic
fervor; it has sustained the orator in his loftiest flights of
eloquence; it has nerved the arm of the warrior to perform deeds of
signal valor; it has transformed the timid matron and the shrinking
maiden into heroines whom history has delighted to honor. But when
patriotism is really synonymous with self-preservation, when small
sacrifices are demanded and overwhelming disasters are to be averted,
the love of country, although still highly commendable, does not,
perhaps, deserve very enthusiastic praise, while the want of it will be
sure to excite universal condemnation and scorn. I cannot believe that
you will consent to fasten upon yourself, and upon all who are dear to
you, the lasting stigma which will inevitably attach to the man who,
whether from a mean partisan jealousy or an ignoble indifference to the
honor of his country, has failed in an hour of sorest need to defend the
land which gave him birth, and the institutions which his fathers
suffered and sacrificed so much to establish.
Hoping that the vital importance of the subject which I have so
imperfectly considered will induce you to pardon the length of this
communication, I remain, as ever,
Very sincerely yours,
---- ----
* * * * *