The years 1834, ’35, and ’36 were remarkable for an almost epidemic
species of madness on the subject of slavery, or, rather, upon the
question of the immediate emancipation of the slaves throughout the
South. That this was carried to extremes by both parties there can be no
doubt, and that very extremity became the chief cause of the rebellion
of the South. The question has been settled by the North that although
the South had all she could claim consistently under an _uncertain
clause_ of the Constitution, she had no right to make slavery a fiendish
monster, that was to ride iron-shod over all the Free States in the
Union, and silence the voice of Christianity in its peaceful attempts to
lessen its evils. As a relic of the long past, one of the dark pages
from Saxon history, the institution of slavery, as sustained in the
South, was a deep, damning, dark spot on a land that boasted of
principles based on three cardinal precepts, “virtue, liberty, and
independence,”—a misnomer in its Constitution and laws.
While the fanatical portion of the Northern abolitionists were striving
to impress upon the South the enormity of their crime in sustaining
slavery, the South was equally virulent in its condemnation of their
mode of doing so. Meetings were held all over the country, speeches
made, and passion swayed the judgment to the total extinction of common
sense. The South accused the North of encouraging amalgamation; the
North indignantly denied it, and with much logic proved that it was a
_Southern virtue altogether_.
This was the beginning of the rebellion: here were the seeds grown,
watered, and nurtured by hatred, envy, and malice. The South had planted
its poisonous root on a free soil, and it came in contact with its more
wholesome brother: the one began to pale before the venom of the other,
blasting it like “a mildew’d ear.” It is not our purpose to give a
history of these eventful years, nor the consequence attending the
operations of the Northern opposition party to slavery against Southern
arrogance and presumptuous domination. The question, however, had to be
decided at one time or another; and in 1860 it was answered by the
thunder sound of cannon and flashes from millions of rifles.
The South became very indignant against the post-office department,
which it accused of an abuse of power, by _permitting_ what they called
“incendiary publications” to pass through the office to individuals in
the South. The Federal Government was called upon to correct this
“prostitution of its laws,” which was calculated to affect its (the
South’s) peculiar “domestic institution,” and if persisted in would be
the CERTAIN DESTRUCTION OF THE UNION.
In answer to repeated complaints made to Amos Kendall, Esq., the then
postmaster-general, both from Southern men and Northern advocates of
slavery, he stated distinctly that he had no legal authority to exclude
newspapers from the mail, nor prohibit their carriage or delivery on
account of their character and tendency, real or supposed. Indeed, this
would be assuming a power over the liberty of the press which might be
perverted and abused to an extent highly injurious to our republican
system of government.
In 1835, Amos Kendall received a letter from the postmaster at
Charleston, stating that he had detained in the office certain
inflammatory newspapers, circulars, pamphlets, &c., the distribution of
which he thought was calculated to do much harm in the State; in fact, a
meeting was called in that city of its citizens upon the subject of
these “incendiary documents,” when it was publicly stated that
“_arrangements had been made with the postmaster, by which no seditious
pamphlets shall be issued or forwarded from the post-office in this
city_”! The committee consisted of the following-named gentlemen, who
had waited upon the postmaster, and hence his letter to the
postmaster-general:—General Hayne, John Robinson, Charles Edmonston, H.
A. Desaussure, James Robertson, James Lynah, Edward R. Laurens. The
following is an extract from Mr. Kendall’s letter to the postmaster at
Charleston: similar replies to other postmasters from the Southern
States were also forwarded, as it appeared to have been a preconcerted
Southern action. Of this there can be no doubt; for the Charleston
letter bore date July 29, 1835, the Richmond August 8, New Orleans July
15, and Georgia July 10. Mr. Kendall says,—
“But I am not prepared to direct you to forward or deliver the papers of
which you speak. The post-office department was created to serve the
people of each and all of the _United States_, and not to be used as the
instrument of their _destruction_. None of the papers detained have been
forwarded to me, and I cannot judge for myself of their character and
tendency; but you inform me that they are in character ‘the most
inflammable and incendiary, and insurrectionary in the highest degree.’
“By no act or direction of mine, official or private, could I be induced
to aid knowingly in giving circulation to papers of this description,
directly or indirectly. We owe an obligation to the laws, but a higher
one to the communities in which we live; and if the _former_ be
perverted to destroy the _latter_, it is patriotism to disregard them.
Entertaining these views, I cannot sanction, and will not condemn, the
step you have taken. Your justification must be looked for in the
character of the papers detained, and the circumstances by which you are
surrounded.”
“The surroundings” in and near all Southern post-offices are those which
the institution of slavery inaugurates. Letters from certain Eastern
States were subject to an espionage somewhat similar to that by which a
detective policeman tracks an unsuspecting culprit from haunt to haunt,
acquiring a perfect knowledge of his habits and the character of his
associates. Letters were opened by a sort of steaming process, read and
their contents noted, carefully sealed again, and delivered to the
person to whom they were directed. If the contents of the letter came
under the denunciatory head, the individual to whom it was addressed
received intimation from the Order of “The Regulators,” a society
formed for the purpose of finding out abolitionists, to leave the city
in twenty-four hours.
The writer of this resided in the city of New Orleans at that period,
and he knew of the existence of one established as far back as 1829: it
was called the “Regulators.” It was not only formidable in numbers, but
equally so in a political point of view. This order has since been
merged in that of the “Golden Circle.” One of the obligations of the
“Regulators” was, and is in the new “junto,” to this effect:—
“I do promise that I will use my best exertions to find out any and
every one who in any way favors abolitionism, and who attempts to
instruct or enlighten a slave, either by teaching him his letters, or by
giving him religious instruction,” &c.
Under this oath men were driven from the South, and in some instances
_tarred and feathered_! In 1834 the writer knew an old gentleman from
Boston, who, ignorant of the _exclusive_ slave-laws of the State, was
compelled to quit New Orleans for simply talking to an old black man
about religion and teaching him his letters, so that he might read the
word of God: this, too, in a Christian land,—a land of freedom![39]
It may be observed, however, in extenuation even for such seeming
high-handed measures, that as slavery was an acknowledged institution
rearing itself up on the Constitution, and that some 4,000,000 of human
creatures were chained to it, it was absolutely necessary to keep them
in ignorance of any sympathy existing for their degraded state either in
the North or the South, lest such sympathy should excite them to
resistance. Hence every thing that was calculated to throw light on
their benighted pathway, and strengthen any lingering preconceived idea
that they were men and not beasts of burden, was kept studiously away
from them. As long as this country sanctioned the existence of slavery,
just so long was she justified in protecting those States sustaining it
from any outbreak on the part of its victims. It was an evil that came
in under the Constitution, and it was an evil it was bound to sustain.
The anti-slavery party North carried their views far beyond common sense
and simple reason; and this led to Southern opposition. But the more
enlightened people viewed both parties as acting wrong, and in opposing
the first they as strongly repudiated the acts of the latter. And what
has been the consequence? The South, alone in its crime, alone in its
inhuman traffic, alone in its crushing power to make men beasts of
burden,—even lower in the animal scale than the animal itself,—like
Lucifer, rebelled against its country and its God. Thus, slaveholders
became barbarians by the very act of attempting to rivet the chains of
bondage on man and his country. That rebellion recreated in our midst a
new order, or rather carried out the very spirit of the Declaration of
Independence, declaring that these united colonies are, and of right
ought to be, “FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.” There can be no such thing
as freedom, if its meaning be linked to the chains of slavery. There is
no true freedom for an American to boast of, if one portion of the land
sustains slavery and laughs at the sound of the lash as it lacerates the
back of a bondsman in the nineteenth century. Age of Christianity! age
of refinement! age of letters! What a misnomer!
This feeling, which had a tendency to divide the South from the North,
was gradually assuming a dangerous aspect. It was a feeling
antagonistical to that which prevailed in the North. The one was allied
to the age of barbarism, the other to the highest order of civilization.
The worst passions of bad men were working the evil; they engendered
hatred and malice; and the rising popularity of the North for its
intelligence, its institutions, its educational system, its arts, its
sciences, and, in fact, all that a high state of intellectual knowledge
produces, added fuel to the hellish fire that was burning in the
Southern breast.
They could boast of only one institution, and that was slavery. This
institution sent forth
“the piercing cry
Which shook the waves and rent the sky:
E’en now, e’en now, on yonder western shores
Weeps pale Despair, and writhing Anguish roars;
E’en now on Afric’s groves, with hideous yell
Fierce Slavery stalks, and slips the dogs of hell;
From vale to vale the gathering cries rebound,
And sable nations tremble at the sound!”
The South actually could boast of but this one institution: for all
others, either of commerce, agriculture, education, arts or sciences,
they were indebted to the North. And yet they rebelled!
The moment men, as well as nations, feel their own insignificance and
witness the rising greatness of others, that moment they begin to plot
mischief. Treason is the offspring of disappointment and a desire for
power. Defeated ambition not unfrequently steps in, and out of such
elements rebellions are made. Lucifer, therefore, may be quoted as the
personification of the treason of Jeff Davis.
The South also made the discovery that slave labor, devoted only to one
object, was demoralizing the soil, as it had already demoralized
society. Northern men and Northern manners did not suit their ideas of
refinement, and thus the social relations became unpleasant.
Every foot of ground neglected or simply used for one especial purpose
was gradually wearing out. The census of 1850 furnishes the following
facts connected with the decadency of the Southern soil.
Three hundred and thirty-five thousand natives of Virginia emigrated
from the State of Virginia and found homes elsewhere. South Carolina
sent forth 163,000. North Carolina lost 261,575,—equal to thirty-one per
cent. As regards Maryland, the extreme poverty of her soil can be
directly traced to man’s neglect of what kind Nature sent him, that by
the “sweat of his brow” he should cultivate and enjoy.
If we were to trace the cause of this, it would be found to have
originated in the sterility of the soil, the absence of free labor and
agricultural knowledge. Southern men are not favorably disposed towards
Northern improvements in any department, no matter whether it be trade,
commerce, or agriculture: hence they have no such farms South as they
have North, even in portions of their country where the soil is equally
susceptible of improvement.
The South stated distinctly, speaking through her secret councils, using
their own language, “_that it could only hope for the real enjoyment of
its rights in a_ SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY”!
Mr. Kendall’s letter to the postmaster was applauded by the Southern
press, and most severely censured by that of the North. One editor said,
“There was but one course for the postmaster-general to pursue in
relation to the distribution of the documents at Charleston, and that
is, to have directed his subordinate officer to follow the statutes as
laid down, and leave the result to the law. Instead of this, he tells
him that it is _patriotism sometimes to disregard the law_!”
It is said the law is defective: it may have been in 1835; but the
South, by its own vile act, has made that law so clear that there is not
the least doubt but every Southern postmaster hereafter, whatever his
political opinions may be, will be fully able to understand it.
Perhaps no man exerted himself more to make the postal department
honored and respected than did Amos Kendall. He was, consequently,
making rules and regulations organizing the several departments, and
watching each and every operation with a shrewd and business eye to its
interest.
In 1835, under the heading of the “Organization of the Post-Office
Department,” he published fifty-six rules and regulations, concluding
with the following remarks, _apart from a political basis_:—
“The postmaster-general looks to all those under his direction and
control for a cheerful and vigorous co-operation in the management of
the business of the department, by which they will not only render an
essential service to their country, but assuredly promote their own
happiness and extend their individual reputation. It will give him
pleasure, and it is his fixed purpose, to advance, as occasion may
offer, all such as by their industry, fidelity, and correct deportment
may give character to the department and enable him to discharge
honorably the important duties with which he is intrusted.”
Mr. Kendall and, in fact, all postmaster-generals in their reports
invariably speak of advancing the interest of honest and trustworthy
employees; but we believe that unless this important and much-desired
consideration is carried out by _political influence, anxious expectants
will never enjoy the benefits arising from it_.
Postmaster-General Blair made similar promises, which, like those of
others, were not fulfilled, and the writer of this, among others, was
told that an addition to their salary would follow Postmaster-General
Blair’s promises. The presumption, however, was that there was not a man
in the whole postal department who came up to the postmaster-general’s
idea of what constituted “honesty” in its connection with the
department. This, however, we do know, that the noisy, ignorant
politicians, those who exercised an influence over frequenters of
rum-shops, were the men who received the most attention from these
functionaries. Postmaster-General Blair, in his Annual Report of the
Post-Office Department, 1862, winds up with these words:—
“It is my purpose to adhere firmly to my determination to displace
incompetency and indifference wherever found in official position under
my control, without any discrimination in favor of appointments which I
may myself have made under misinformation of facts. The postal business
must be conducted, if successful, upon the same principles which control
the operations of the upright and sagacious man of business. The
department should adhere to those officers who have administrative
talents and are faithful to its interests, and should remove those who
take no interest in the efficiency of its service.”
This is exactly the argument we have used in another portion of this
work in favor of those who are faithful to the interest of the
government and have acquired a thorough knowledge of their duties. We
hope the suggestions of Mr. Blair will be _practically_ carried out.
Mr. Kendall had to contend against a powerful political party which was
brought to bear upon his time and patience. The latter was severely
tried during the session of Congress, March, 1839. To all the attacks,
however, which were made upon him, and the various attempts to accuse
him of political partiality in his appointments, he answered with a
clearness and boldness which fully proved that the attempt to make
political capital out of his supposed malfeasance in office was at best
but a “weak invention of the enemy.”
It was stated that he retained in office a postmaster, “a wretch who was
guilty of forgery and counterfeiting, and who escaped the fangs of the
law only by turning state’s evidence,” although he had been fully
informed of the facts and knew the character of the man, and that his
reason for retaining him (such a villain) in office was that he was an
active and determined partisan. To this statement Mr. Kendall replied as
follows:—
“These charges appear to have been made on the 28th of February last.
Lucius D. Smith, postmaster at New Lebanon, Oneida county, New York, the
individual referred to, was removed from office on the 21st of January
last, and the appointment of his successor was officially announced in
the ‘Globe’ on the 1st of February last. He had, therefore, been removed
more than a month when these charges were uttered on the floor of the
House.”
In another portion of this work we have alluded to the fact of the
postal department being made a political one. It is one of those
institutions that is allied to the general interest of all parties; and
for the maintenance of that interest its political influence should not
extend throughout all its ramifications. It is true, the heads of the
department in many instances, being mere ciphers, might be with
propriety politically disposed of; but the workers in the office—the
active business-men—should not step out from their duties to take part
in the active workings of the party at the expense of the postal
interest. And yet, under the present system, these men _must labor_ in
their “political vocation” or lose their position. Their presence at
ward-meetings, their being elected delegates, their lost time at the
polls, are all for their chances of retaining place for four years.
Then they pass away into other business, forgotten by those who used
them as their tools while in office. What are such men, when subject to
a system like this, but _political paupers_? We do not say that men in
the post-office should not be the friends and supporters of the party in
power: on the contrary, they are expected to be. But cannot a man be the
friend and supporter of the government under any administration apart
from his political bias, more particularly if he is placed in a position
of honor and trust not easily supplied by another, without being subject
to instant dismissal? Previous to 1860 this should have been a
governmental axiom; but the rebellion changed the whole system, because
there arose a divided sentiment in relation to the union of States,
originating the treasonable idea that secession was a constitutional
principle. Men who advocated this doctrine were not considered worthy a
place of trust: hence, in the different post-offices throughout the
loyal States, the oath of allegiance was administered to the
employees,—a most important movement; for a disloyal clerk would have
been a powerful auxiliary to the rebel cause. Although during the
rebellion—nay, even up to its very close—portions of the press were
favorably disposed towards traitors, the post-office made no distinction
in its distribution of newspapers: unlike the South in its days of
_slavish_ triumph and during the incipient stages of the rebellion, it
exercised no espionage even over the Copperhead presses of the North,—an
oversight on the part of our government for which it has dearly paid;
for it led to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, by furnishing to the
South the information of its having friends in the North. His death,
however, only accelerated the downfall of all their plans and the final
surrender of all their armies.
And here, although perhaps out of place in a work like this, we ask how
an editor, dipping his pen in the black blood of treason and tracing
the dark lines of crime along the columns of his paper could claim
postal protection while aiming to destroy the very power under which he
claimed the right to publish his incendiary sheet?
That press should cease to be considered a part and portion of an
institution when its columns maintain the right not only to utter
treason, but to claim on constitutional grounds, according to its idea,
the privilege of expressing sentiments calculated to destroy the union
of the States.[40]
We have alluded to the frequent changes that are made in our
post-offices: we annex parallel passages from the English post-office
administration and that of our own:—