other European states have abolished slavery, and adopted the
system of free labor. It was the antagonistic political tendencies
of the two systems which the first Napoleon was contemplating when
he predicted that Europe would ultimately be either all Cossack or
all Republican. Never did human sagacity utter a more pregnant
truth. The two systems are at once perceived to be incongruous,
but they are more than incongruous, they are incompatible. They
never have permanently existed together in one country, and they
never can. It would be easy to demonstrate this impossibility,
from the irreconcilable contrast between their great principles
and characteristics. But the experience of mankind has
conclusively established it. Slavery, as I have already intimated,
existed in every state in Europe. Free labor has supplanted it
everywhere except in Russia and Turkey. State necessities,
developed in modern times, are now obliging even those two nations
to encourage and employ free labor; and already, despotic as they
are, we find them engaged in abolishing slavery. In the United
States, slavery came into collision with free labor at the close
of the last century, and fell before it in New England, New York,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, but triumphed over it effectually,
and excluded it for a period yet undetermined, from Virginia, the
Carolinas, and Georgia. Indeed, so incompatible are the two
systems, that every new State which is organized within our
ever-extending domain makes its first political act a choice of
the one and an exclusion of the other, even at the cost of civil
war, if necessary. The slave States, without law, at the last
national election, successfully forbade, within their own limits,
even the casting of votes for a candidate for President of the
United States supposed to be favorable to the establishment of the
free-labor system in the new States.
"Hitherto, the two systems have existed in different States, but
side by side within the American Union. This has happened because
the Union is a confederation of States. But in another aspect, the
United States constitute only one nation. Increase of population,
which is filling the States out to their very borders, together
with a new and extended net-work of railroads and other avenues,
and an internal commerce which daily becomes more intimate, is
rapidly bringing the States into a higher and more perfect social
unity or consolidation. Thus these antagonistic systems are
continually coming into closer contact, and collision results.
"Shall I tell you what this collision means? They who think that
it is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical
agitators, and therefore ephemeral, mistake the case altogether.
It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring
forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner
or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or
entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of
South Carolina and the sugar plantations of Louisiana will
ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans
become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye
fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again
be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the
production of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more
markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men. It is the
failure to apprehend this great truth that induces so many
unsuccessful attempts at final compromise between the slave and
free States, and it is the existence of this great fact that
renders all such pretended compromises, when made, vain and
ephemeral. Startling as this saying may appear to you,
fellow-citizens, it is by no means an original or even a modern
one. Our forefathers knew it to be true, and unanimously acted
upon it when they framed the Constitution of the United States.
They regarded the existence of the servile system in so many of
the States with sorrow and shame, which they openly confessed, and
they looked upon the collision between them, which was then just
revealing itself, and which we are now accustomed to deplore, with
favor and hope. They knew that either the one or the other system
must exclusively prevail.
"Unlike too many of those who in modern times invoke their
authority, they had a choice between the two. They preferred the
system of free labor, and they determined to organize the
Government, and so to direct its activity, that that system should
surely and certainly prevail. For this purpose, and no other, they
based the whole structure of government broadly on the principle
that all men are created equal, and therefore free--little
dreaming that within the short period of one hundred years, their
descendants would bear to be told by any orator, however popular,
that the utterance of that principle was merely a rhetorical
rhapsody; or by any judge, however venerated, that it was attended
by mental reservations, which render it hypocritical and false. By
the ordinance of 1787, they dedicated all the national domain not
yet polluted by slavery to free labor immediately, thenceforth and
forever, while by the new Constitution and laws they invited
foreign free labor from all lands under the sun, and interdicted
the importation of African slave labor, at all times, in all
places, and under all circumstances whatsoever. It is true that
they necessarily and wisely modified this policy of freedom by
leaving it to the several States, affected as they were by
differing circumstances, to abolish slavery in their own way, and
at their own pleasure, instead of confiding that duty to Congress,
and that they secured to the slave States, while yet retaining the
system of slavery, a three-fifths representation of slaves in the
Federal Government, until they should find themselves able to
relinquish it with safety. But the very nature of these
modifications fortifies my position that the fathers knew that the
two systems could not endure within the Union, and expected that
within a short period slavery would disappear forever. Moreover,
in order that these modifications might not altogether defeat
their grand design of a republic maintaining universal equality,
they provided that two-thirds of the States might amend the
Constitution.
"_It remains to say on this point only one word, to guard against
misapprehension. If these States are to again become universally
slaveholding, I do not pretend to say with what violations of the
Constitution that end shall be accomplished. On the other hand,
while I do confidently believe and hope that my country will yet
become a land of universal freedom, I do not expect that it will
be made so otherwise than through the action of the several States
cooperating with the Federal Government, and all acting in strict
conformity with their respective Constitutions_."
In a speech in the Senate, last spring, March 2, 1859, Mr. Seward
said--he was speaking of the "Expenses and Revenues"--
"We are for free trade to a practical extent, and we all are in
favor of a judicious tariff. The exigency of this debate does not
require me to survey the whole range of productive industry of the
country, and to suggest a comparative system of imposts adjusted
to them all. It would be labor lost to do so; for, as I have
already said, it is in the House of Representatives, and not here,
that the act originating any revision of the tariff must be
introduced, and perfected, at least in degree. But I can say, with
entire freedom, that it would present no ground of objection, in
my judgment, if such a bill should be so constructed as to favor
and encourage the mining and manufacture of iron. I select and
distinguish this great interest, because I think that the
disasters which have overtaken the National Treasury and have
crushed the prosperity of the country, have resulted from neglect
and improvidence in regard to it. We have been engaged, as most
other civilized states have been engaged, during the last fifteen
or twenty years, in adopting the great invention of railroads, or,
as the Frenchmen accurately describe them, iron roads, and
bringing it into universal use. If we could only have understood
ourselves in the beginning of this period, and adhered
persistently throughout to just convictions then formed, we should
have so discriminated in our revenue system as to have made this
great enterprise work out an establishment of the iron manufacture
in this country, so as to derive from it our chief supplies. But
the country has not been willing to look steadily to that ultimate
interest. It has asked always the cheapest iron that could be
gotten, and, of course, has demanded that the imposts should be
fixed at the lowest possible rates. So the protection afforded by
the tariff of 1846 gave place to a lower protection in 1857; and
it has not been without much difficulty that at times Congress has
been stayed from remitting all duties on foreign manufactures of
railroad iron. The Legislatures of the States, acting on the same
erroneous principles, have authorized combinations and
associations on doubtful principles to force forward the same
precipitancy of action. Loans of the credit of States, of
counties, cities, and even towns, have been authorized, to furnish
capital to railroad corporations, and at the same time they have
been continually allowed to borrow money, at usurious and ruinous
rates of interest. Securities thus obtained, doubted and
comparatively valueless at home, have been pledged to the iron
manufacturers abroad, and their enterprise has been excessively
stimulated, while that of our own manufacturers has been
disheartened and suppressed. These improvement measures have at
last produced their inevitable effect--an undue diversion of
capital into railroad enterprises, a derangement of internal
exchanges at home, and a collapse of the national credit abroad,
and a suspension equally of domestic manufactures and of foreign
commerce. Such are the legitimate results of the improvidence
which caused roads to be built of foreign iron, over the coal and
iron beds in our mountains. I hope, sir, that the House of
Representatives will make the needed initial step in a return to a
wise policy, and will send the miner once more with his torch into
the deserted chambers where the coal and the ore are stored away
by the hand of nature, and will adopt such a policy as will
rekindle the slumbering fires in the forges and furnaces of
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Tennessee and Missouri. It
would be a benevolent work. I do not say that I would force the
Government to assume it merely as a work of benevolence; but I do
say, that since there is need of taxes to avoid debt, I would so
levy the taxes as to secure incidentally that benevolent object."
To show that Mr. Seward indulged in no feelings of personal hostility
toward any slaveholder, we quote from his remarks on the death of
Senator Rusk of Texas, a man in his politics _utterly_ opposed to Mr.
Seward as we can suppose any southern politician, however ultra, to
be.
Said Mr. Seward of his fellow-senator:
"On the last day of August, I was reentering the port of Quebec,
after a voyage of thirty days, in search of health, along the
inhospitable coasts of Labrador. The sympathies of home and
country, so long suppressed, were revived within me, and I was
even meditating new labors and studies here, when the pilot, who
came on board, handed me a newspaper which announced the death of
the senator from Texas. My first emotions were those of sadness
and sorrow over this bereavement of a personal friend. When these
had had their time, I tried to divine why it was that he, among
all the associates whom I honored, esteemed and loved here, was
thus suddenly and prematurely withdrawn from the scene of our
common labors; he for whom I thought higher honors were preparing,
and a fuller wreath was being woven; he who seemed to me to stand
a monument against which the waves of faction must break, if ever
they should be stirred up from their lowest depths; he, in short,
with whom I thought I might do so much, and without whom I could
do almost nothing, to magnify and honor the Republic. That
question I could not solve--I cannot solve it now. It is only
another occasion in which I am required to trust, where I am not
permitted to know, the ways of the Great Disposer.
"Mr. President, the teeming thoughts of this solemn hour bring up
once more before me the manly form and beaming countenance of my
friend, though it is but for that formal parting which has, until
now, been denied me. Farewell, noble patriot, heroic soldier,
faithful statesman, generous friend! loved by no means the least,
although among the last of friends secured. I little thought that
our whisperings about travels over earth's fairest lands and
broadest seas were only the suggestions of our inward natures to
prepare for the sad journey[1] that leads through the gate of
death."
[1] Mr. Rusk and Mr. Seward had planned a voyage around the
world together.
Feb. 25, 1859, the famous night session of the Senate on the Cuba
Thirty Million Bill occurred. Mr. Seward had previously spoken against
the measure, and opposed the friends of the bill, but he was treated
with courtesy till this night session, when Mr. Tombs made a fierce
onslaught upon him. Let us recall the debate:
Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, spoke for two hours, replying to the points
of Mr. Benjamin's recent speech. Mr. Benjamin had urged, he said, that
unless we acquire Cuba, Spain will emancipate the negroes. Mr. Dixon
reasoned, that if negro freedom in Cuba would be injurious to the
United States, in Jamaica it must be equally so; yet it is not used as
an argument to buy Jamaica from Great Britain. Mr. Benjamin had
reasoned that compulsory labor was necessary to develop tropical
production; but Mr. Dixon thought that the sugar for the world could
be grown by free labor; and if it could not, sugar was not a
sufficient equivalent for the perpetuation of slavery. In the course
of his remarks, Mr. Dixon had occasion to say that slavery degrades
free labor.
Mr. Reid controverted this opinion, and said the doctrine was new in
the South. He maintained that the white man was not degraded by labor,
although he worked at the bench, or in a field, side by side with his
slave.
Mr. Dixon refused to admit the correctness of this assertion as an
exposition of the general southern feeling.
Mr. Bell traced the rise and progress of the filibuster spirit, until
it culminated in the Ostend manifesto, and became reflected in this
Cuban bill. Both were in a form offensive to Spain. No nation would be
apt to receive kindly an offer made to purchase its territory when
accompanied by a studied reminder of its fallen fortunes. His (Mr.
Bell's) opinion was that the Ostend manifesto and the present proposal
were framed on the perfect knowledge that Cuba could not be acquired,
and that they were addressed to what is supposed to be the dominant
traits in our national character. The committee's report is skillfully
drawn up. It promises to extend the trade and commerce of the North,
the peculiar industry of the South, and the agriculture of the West.
It is framed to habituate the country to the cry of "war," but we are
making no preparation for war. On the contrary, we are trying to get
along without a revenue. For himself, he would favor our acquiring
control of the island, either as a protectorate or independent power;
but he likewise held that the time has not yet come when its
possession was necessary, either to our development or security. We
are not now in position to accept Cuba, if Spain should offer it as a
gift. We cannot accept it until we have built up a navy of sufficient
strength to maintain it. The first blow that would be struck in a war
with a naval power would be to wrest it from us, and hold its harbors
as a means of annoyance against us. The committee's promise that the
acquisition of the island will give us the monopoly of sugar is
equally fallacious. The increasing production of that article would
soon create its production throughout the whole temperate zone.
Neither is it true, as the committee says, that when a nation ceases
growth, its decadence commences. History does not teach this doctrine
of expansion, nor is there any parallelism between the growth of a
nation and an individual man. Are our internal affairs so perfectly
organized as to leave no range for our ambition? Has even the question
of currency been placed on a satisfactory basis? Is our great internal
domain reduced to such narrow limits as to afford no scope to our
energies? Our territory is now greater than the whole area of the
Roman Empire. All this we are bound to protect and defend; and to
defend the accessible points of our extended frontier would require
100,000 men, with at least 250 war steamers. The chairman of the Naval
Committee says our whole guns are 1,100. The French navy alone has
15,000 cannon afloat, with 500 ships, of which half are war steamers.
We are not now prepared for such a war; and yet the President
announced, on a recent occasion, that our policy henceforth is
expansion.
Mr. Kennedy, of Maryland, addressed the Senate, arguing that the
acquisition of Cuba is subversive of the best interests of the South.
Referring to the aspect of our domestic affairs, he considered that
innovations had been ingrafted on the policy of this government, which
inevitably betokens its dissolution. The doctrine of State Rights did
well while we were a homogeneous people, bound together by common
troubles; but that day has passed. The unbounded prosperity of this
country, its fertile lands, and increasing wealth, have attracted to
it people from every clime. There is no common interest to bind us
together. The Constitution and the Supreme Court are derided, and the
Constitution threatens to be but a rope of sand, unable to bind, from
having no power to punish infractions of that Constitution. He had
been derided as an old Federalist, and the men who so denounced him
had now on the table two bills more dangerous, in consolidating the
power in the hands of one man, than any that ever emanated from the
old Federal party. They had also a bill to give away the public lands
to the sweepings of European lazar-houses, to squat thereon, and,
under an easy franchise, to control that government, before they know
a word of our language, or have one idea toward a comprehension of our
institutions. Yet, while offering this extraordinary bonus to the
discontented spirits of the old world, they refuse to vote for and
denounce the old soldiers' bill. How comes it, he asked, that there is
such a diversity of opinion in the democratic party, marching under
one banner, and professing common principles?
He proceeded to ask how it is possible for us to hold Cuba, with but
fifty-seven ships in our navy to protect the fifty Cuban harbors? Our
Paraguay armada consists of canal-boats, and side-wheel steamers. Have
senators reflected on the baneful effect the acquisition of Cuba would
have on slave property? He remembered the opening of Alabama. Virginia
has scarcely yet recovered from the effect of that exodus of her labor
to localities where it would be more remunerative. With the slave
trade stopped, Cuba would be a perpetual drain, and would put planters
into a more unequal contest by withdrawing the labor from their cotton
fields into sugar production. It is estimated that five hundred
thousand slaves will be abstracted from the southern States, and a
thousand millions of capital, within five years. And if we drift into
a war with England and France, we will have to maintain a contest with
fifteen hundred ships on our extended coast line. These are
considerations, for the American people, as they will change the whole
course of our policy, and inaugurate a new era of standing armies and
enormous fleets. The time is also inopportune for the acquisition of
that island. In conclusion, he did not admit the right to bring in a
foreign nation, with a foreign tongue and foreign teachings, and
incapable of understanding our institutions. In his opinion, we were
fast losing all those landmarks which characterized our early
nationality, and were fast becoming a mere confederation of
heterogeneous States. For these and other considerations, he was
opposed to the acquisition of Cuba.
Mr. Wade here moved to adjourn. Lost by 17 to 28.
At eight o'clock in the evening the Senate was crowded--the galleries
were one sea of faces. The Republicans wanted to adjourn the
discussion to the next day--the Democrats were determined to force a
vote on the bill that evening.
Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, moved to postpone the Cuba and take up
the homestead bill, and proceeded to speak on the latter.
Mr. Slidell called him to order.
Mr. Doolittle insisted on his motion.
Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, although he had for fifteen years advocated
the homestead bill, asked Mr. Doolittle to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Douglas, as a friend of the homestead bill, made the same request.
Mr. Clark, of Connecticut, as a friend of the homestead bill, moved
the Senate adjourn. Lost, by 17 to 30.
Mr. Trumbull asked Mr. Hunter to pledge himself not to bring forward
the appropriation bills, to prevent a vote on the homestead bill.
Mr. Hunter would give no such promise.
Mr. Trumbull appealed to Mr. Johnson to stand by and press the
homestead bill.
Mr. Bigler asked Mr. Trumbull, for himself and the Republicans, to
name the hour at which they would vote on both measures.
Mr. Trumbull, for himself, was ready now, but could not make any
pledge for his friends.
Mr. Seward said that after nine hours' discussion on the Cuba bill, it
was time to come back to the great question of the age. Two
propositions now stand face to face; one is the question of land for
the landless, and the other is a question of land for slaves.
Mr. Slidell here rose.
The Vice-President. Will the Senator from New York yield the floor to
the Senator from Louisiana?
Mr. Seward. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Slidell called Mr. Seward to order. He was discussing the
comparative merits of the two bills.
The Vice-President decided that Mr. Seward was in order.
Mr. Seward went on with a few words, when Mr. Fitch appealed to the
Chair to put the question of order to the Senate, with a view of
stopping what threatened to be an interminable discussion.
The Vice-President refused to do so.
Mr. Seward went on, saying: "It is in the Thirty-fifth Congress that
the homestead bill has been put aside." He then contrasted the merits
of the two bills.
Mr. Toombs said, as to "land for the landless," it carried with it
some demagogical power. He despised a demagogue, but despised still
more those who are driven by demagogues. What are the other side
afraid of? If they do not want to give $30,000,000 to carry out a
great national policy, let them say so and not attempt to get rid of
the issue by saying, "We want to give land to the landless."
Mr. Wade said the question was land to the landless, or niggers to the
niggerless. He would antagonize these issues, and carry the appeal to
the country. The whole object of the Democratic party was to go round
the world hunting for niggers. They could no more sustain their party
without niggers, than they could a steam engine without fuel.
Mr. Fessenden took Mr. Toombs to task, and asked if the language he
had used was not in imitation of the great man at the other end of the
Avenue (the President), who recently addressed an out-of-door crowd,
saying none but cowards shirk this Cuban bill. He told the senator the
Republicans did not tremble nor shrink. He referred to the trial of
physical endurance at the last session, and hinted that they could
endure as much again. He denied that the Republicans were obstructing
legitimate business, but said they were opposed to this Cuban measure,
by which nothing was intended but a party result.
Mr. Seward was not in the habit of impugning the courage of any man.
He believed every senator had sufficient. He himself had enough for
his own purposes. But other qualities are also necessary. There is
moral courage. There is truthfulness to pledges. The President had
power to carry out his pledges, and has he done so? Where is the
Pacific Railroad bill? where his protection? where relief to the
bankrupt? Lost, sunk, sacrificed, in his attempt to fasten slavery on
the Spanish American States. No part of the President's policy has
been carried out, but it is all sacrificed to a false and pretended
issue. Out of nothing, nothing is expected to come. He (Mr. Seward)
had never mistaken the President's policy. He never mistook it for a
giant in arms, but for a windmill with sails. Mr. Seward concluded by
an energetic declaration that he is to be found on the side of
liberty, everywhere and always.
Mr. Toombs replied at some length, till Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas,
again raised a question of order, to cut off debate.
At eleven o'clock there was a crowded audience; half the senators were
in their seats, while the rest were reading and smoking in the
ante-room.
Mr. Doolittle finally declined to withdraw his motion.
At midnight, Mr. Chandler attempted to reply to the remarks of Mr.
Toombs respecting demagogues.
The Vice-President ruled that he was not in order.
Mr. Fessenden appealed from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Mason again moved to adjourn. Lost by 20 to 30.
The appeal of Mr. Fessenden was then laid on the table.