SHADOWS OF COMING TROUBLES
Though Maury emerged with victory perched upon his banners from his
bitter conflict with the “Retiring Board”, yet he was not to enjoy
again the peaceful pursuit of scientific and philosophical researches.
His mind was to be distracted by the consideration of a question which
was before long to rend the country in twain and incidentally cause the
wreck of his scientific ambitions.
Maury had always been distinctively a sympathizer in all the hopes
and ambitions of the South, but he had early recognized the dangerous
political potentialities in the slavery problem. As far back as 1850
he had set forth the free navigation of the Amazon River as a novel
remedy for the preservation of the Union. According to his plan, Brazil
was to become a country for the disposal of the surplus slaves of the
South, and he hoped that in time by act of law slavery and involuntary
servitude might be completely removed from the South. “The Southern
states”, he wrote, “may _emancipate_ just as New York, Massachusetts,
etc. emancipated their slaves—large numbers of them were not set free;
they, after the acts of prospective emancipation became laws, were
sold at the South; and so the South may sell to the Amazon and so get
clear of them. In no other way can I see a chance for it,—the slaves
of the South are worth about fifteen hundred million. Their value is
increasing at the rate of thirty or forty million a year. It is the
industrial capital of the South. Did ever a people consent to sink so
much industrial capital by emancipation or any other voluntary act?”
[Illustration:
_Courtesy of Dr. K. O. Bertling of the America-Institut of Berlin._
STATUE OF MAURY OVER THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE DEUTSCHE SEEWARTE
(METEOROLOGICAL STATION OF THE GERMAN ADMIRALTY) IN HAMBURG.]
With characteristic energy Maury pressed the question upon the notice
of the public. Lieutenant Lewis Herndon’s report of his exploration
of the Amazon Valley was submitted to Congress on January 26, 1853,
and soon afterwards there appeared in the _National Intelligencer_
and the _Union_ of Washington at irregular intervals seven articles
signed “Inca”, in which the commercial, mineral, and agricultural
potentialities of the Amazon region were painted in glowing colors.
The free navigation of the Amazon River was demanded of Brazil by
Maury in these “Inca” articles; and at the meeting of the Memphis
Convention in June of the same year resolutions were adopted urging the
same proposition. These resolutions were then reported to the House
of Representatives in the form of a “Memorial of Lieutenant Maury in
behalf of the Memphis Convention in favor of the free navigation of the
Amazon River”.
This propaganda made at first a very unfavorable impression on the
Brazilians, and caused them to suspect that a scheme of annexation by
the United States was the real reason for the insistence on the opening
of their great river to free navigation. One Brazilian newspaper
asserted that “this nation of pirates, like those of their race, wish
to displace all the people of America who are not Anglo-Saxon”. So
strong was the feeling thus aroused that the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs reported on February 23, 1855 that further action on the Maury
memorial was for the present inexpedient. However, at last, on December
7, 1866, an agreement was signed providing that after September 7 of
the following year the Amazon should be free to the merchant ships of
all nations, as far as the frontier of Brazil.
Later even the Brazilians themselves conceded the beneficial influence
of Maury in bringing this about. “After the publication in the _Correio
Mercantil_ of his (Maury’s) memorial”, wrote the Brazilian historian,
Joaquim Nabuco,[10] “and his description of the Amazon region, locked
up from the world by a policy more exclusive than Japan’s or Dr.
Francia’s, the cause of the freedom of navigation was triumphant.
Tavares Bastos himself received from the book by Maury the patriotic
impulse which converted him into a champion of this great cause”.
Events moved too swiftly, however, in the United States for the
development of the Amazon Valley to play any part in the settling of
the slavery question.
Although Maury was, to a certain degree, pro-slavery and a strong
States’ rights man, yet he was by no means dis-unionist. In fact,
during those critical months just preceding the outbreak of the War
between the States he used all the power and influence at his command
to keep the country united. As early as 1845 he referred in one of his
letters to the “tendencies toward disunion in the nation”, and as the
years went by there was a constantly increasing number of references
in his correspondence to the drifting of the ship of state toward the
breakers. In his opinions regarding the great question at issue, he
occupied a position in the middle ground and refused to permit himself
to be carried away by either the extremists at the North or those of
the South. He condemned with equal vigor the effort to precipitate
the acquisition of Cuba, and John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry. He
believed that the people as a whole, both of the North and of the
South, were not in sympathy with such schemes, but that such raids and
filibustering expeditions were fostered by the unwisely partisan press,
pulpit, and politicians.
He, therefore, suggested the calling of a council of _men out of
politics_, ex-governors and old judges, from different states of the
South to formulate some kind of a proposition to lay before the people
of the North. “It will never do”, he wrote, “to suffer this Union
to drift into dissolution”. With this end in view, he wrote to the
governors of the border states, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and
Delaware, to act as mediators.
His letter to Governor Packer of Pennsylvania will give an idea of what
he hoped to accomplish. “When the affairs of a nation are disturbed”,
he declared, “quiet people, however humble their station, may be
justified in stepping a little out of their usual way. In all exertions
of duty, something is to be hazarded; and I am sure you have only time
to hear what I wish to write—none to listen to apologies for venturing
to write you this letter. You recollect that, in the nullification
times of South Carolina, Virginia stepped forward as mediator, and sent
her commissioners to that state with the happiest results. But we are
now in the midst of a crisis, more alarming to the peace and integrity
of the Union than those memorable times. We have the people, in no
less than seven of those states, assembling or preparing to assemble
in their sovereign capacity to decide in the most solemn manner
known to them whether they will remain in the Union or no. The most
remarkable feature in the whole case is, it appears to me, this—that
here we have a national family of states that have lived together in
unity for nearly three score years and ten, and that a portion of them
are preparing to dissolve these family ties and break up the Union,
because—because of what, sir? Ask legislators, ask governors, ask whom
you will, and there are as many opinions as to the causes of discontent
and the measures of redress as there are leaves in the forest. At no
time have the people of any of the discontented states, acting in
their sovereign capacity, ever authorized a remonstrance to be made
to their sister states of the North against their course of action.
We have heard a great deal of this from politicians, partisans, and
others, but if the people of any one of the Southern states, acting in
their sovereign capacity, have ever remonstrated with the people of the
Northern states as to the causes of dissatisfaction and complaint, and
thus laid the matter formally before you of the North, I cannot call
it to mind. Neither has any Northern state so much as inquired of the
people of any Southern state, either as to the cause of their offense
or as to the terms and conditions upon which they would be willing to
remain in the Union.
“It does appear to me that in and out of Congress we are all at sea
with the troubles that are upon us; that the people, and the people
alone, are capable of extricating us. You, my dear sir, and your
state—not Congress—have it in your power to bring the people into
the ‘fair way’ of doing this. This brings me to the point of my
letter—then why will not the great state of Pennsylvania step forth as
mediator between the sections? Authorize your commissioner to pledge
the faith of his state that their ultimatum shall not only be laid
before the people of the Keystone State, assembled likewise in their
sovereign capacity, but that she will recommend it to her sister states
of the North, for like action on their part, and so let the people, and
not the politicians, decide whether this Union is to be broken up”.
No tangible results, however, came from this effort, and Maury began
to despair of the two sections’ being able to arrive at a peaceable
solution of the difficult problem. He had a clear conception of the
nature of this fundamental question dividing the sections. “The
disease”, he wrote, “the root of the thing, is not in cotton or
slavery, nor in the election of Lincoln. But it is deep down in the
human heart. The real question is a question of Empire. And I do not
think our political doctors will be able to treat the case upon any
other diagnosis than this. The country is divided into sections; it is
immaterial by what influence”.
Meanwhile, Maury went about his work at the Observatory as well as he
could with his mind distracted by the unsettled state of the country.
In September, 1860, he made a visit with Mrs. Maury and other members
of his family to Niagara Falls, and to Newburgh, New York to see the
family of his old friend Hasbrouck. During the following month he
went to Tennessee to speak at the laying of the corner stone of the
University of the South at Sewanee, as has already been related. On
this visit, Maury went to Nashville, where he delivered two speeches.
One was to the school children on the subject of the sea; the other
was before the same audience that heard Robert L. Yancey and on the
same subject, the state of the country. Yancey urged war and made
extravagant claims for success; but Maury counseled moderation and
warned the people that danger was ahead. In November, he was in
England whence he had gone to arrange for the copyrighting of a new
edition of his “Physical Geography of the Sea”.
During that month momentous happenings occurred in the United States.
On November 6, Lincoln was elected President, and the day following
the legislature of South Carolina took steps which resulted in the
calling of a secession convention. This convention unanimously passed,
on December 20, an ordinance declaring the state of South Carolina no
longer in the Union.
By that time Maury had returned to the United States, and he made a
last effort to secure mediation through Commodore Stockton as the
representative of the Governor of New Jersey; but early in the year
1861 he sorrowfully wrote that the New Jersey plan had missed fire.
After the failure of this attempt he sought in vain to be made a member
of the “Peace Congress”, which was called by the Border States and met
in Washington in the month of February. In this he offered to represent
Tennessee, which he referred to as his Naomi.
South Carolina had been followed out of the Union by Mississippi,
Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In February, the
seceding states set up a provisional government with Montgomery as the
capital and with Jefferson Davis as President and Alexander H. Stephens
as Vice President. But Maury urged the “barrier” states, Virginia,
Tennessee, and Kentucky, to remain in the Union in order to conserve
the peace, to mediate, and to organize a re-annexation party for the
next Presidential election.
On the day of Lincoln’s inauguration, Maury wrote, “The new President
is now on his way to the Capitol, and the _Express_ reports ‘All
quiet’, as I took it for granted it would be. I have no idea of any
disturbance, or any attempt even at a plot. Of course, you will see
the Inaugural as soon, if not sooner than I shall, for, having the
telegraph, Mr. Lincoln may literally speak his polyglot through tongues
of fire. Officers of the Army and Navy—should war come between the
sections—will have a hard time; and, indeed, who will not? No military
man can permit himself to accept service with a mental reservation.
All who are foes of his flag, and whom his country considers enemies
of hers, are enemies of his; therefore, if we have a war between the
sections, every man who continues in ‘Uncle Sam’s’ service, is, in good
faith, bound to fight his own, if his own be on the other side. The
line of duty, therefore, is to me clear—each one to follow his own
state, if his own state goes to war; if not, he may remain to help on
the work of reunion. If there be no war between the sections, we must
hoist the flag of re-annexation, to carry the elections of ’64 upon
that issue, bring back the seceding states, and be happier and greater
and more glorious than ever. As soon as the smoke clears away, you
will see that the old party lines have been rubbed out.... Virginia is
not at all ready to go out of this Union; and she is not going out for
anything that is likely to occur short of coercion—such is my opinion”.
But the broken fragments of the Union were not to be reunited in any
such peaceful fashion, and Maury was soon to be forced to follow his
native state into the bloody conflict. The overt act precipitating
the war was the firing on Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861. Maury thought
that the _Star of the West_ with recruits for the garrison of the
fort should not have been sent, for it was but an invitation to South
Carolina to an overt act which would still further widen the breach
between the sections.
In any case, the overt act came, when under fear of reinforcements
from a strong squadron which was in preparation President Jefferson
Davis on April 12, 1861 ordered General Beauregard to reduce Fort
Sumter. Three days afterward President Lincoln issued a proclamation
calling on the state governors to furnish 75,000 state militia. This
caused Virginia to pass an ordinance of secession on the 17th of April.
Moreover, in Tennessee, Maury’s adopted state, sentiment favorable to
the Confederacy began to crystallize, and on May 8 her legislature
decided also in favor of separation from the Union and leagued the
state with the Southern Confederacy. But in spite of the fact that
Maury had written of Tennessee as his Naomi, it was his native Virginia
that decided his future for him.
On the day this state passed her ordinance of secession, Maury wrote
to his wife, who was visiting in Fredericksburg, not to return to
Washington, for he expected Virginia soon to declare herself out of the
Union and he would as a consequence immediately resign his commission
in the navy. Three days later he regretfully forwarded to President
Lincoln his resignation from the service in which he had spent so many
happy and profitable years.
The circumstances connected with the writing of this resignation are
thus related by Maury’s daughter Mary: “It is related of Socrates that,
when his last hour had come and one of his young disciples brought him
the cup of hemlock, the young man covered his face with his mantle,
weeping as he presented it, and, falling on his knees, he buried his
face on the couch where his dear master sat awaiting his death. When
Maury determined to leave the service of the United States, he bade his
secretary (Mr. Thomas Harrison) write his resignation. That true and
loyal heart, which had served and loved him for almost twenty years,
and whose fluent pen had rendered him such willing service, refused
its office now; and, presenting the unfinished paper with one hand, he
covered his eyes with the other, and exclaimed, with a choking voice
and gathering tears, ‘I cannot write it, sir!’ He knew it was the
death-warrant to his scientific life—the cup of hemlock that would
paralyze and kill him in his pursuit after the knowledge of nature and
of nature’s laws”.
As far as the disturbed political conditions permitted, Maury continued
his work at the Observatory down to the very day of his resignation,
his last publications being Nautical Monographs, numbers 2 and 3,
on “The Barometer at Sea” and “The Southeast Trade Winds of the
Atlantic” respectively. With the war clouds gathering round him he had
written, “What a comfort the sea is! I have withdrawn my mind from the
heart-sickening scenes that you gentlemen are meeting”. But with his
leaving the Observatory this comfort was taken from him, and instead of
the quiet contemplative life of a scientist he was to suffer for eight
years the rough exigencies and trying uncertainties of the Civil War
and its aftermath.