Slavery--Responsibility of the North--District of Columbia--Preponderance
of the Slave Power--Extermination of the Indians--President Taylor and
his Blood-hounds--Conclusion.
But there is a class of things among them which men of well-regulated
minds and habits cannot but detest. These, as they have come under my
notice, I have pointed out. The chief of all is _slavery_. This stared
me in the face the moment I entered the States; and it presses itself
on my notice now that I have retired from the American shore. It is the
beginning and the ending of all that is vile and vicious in this
confederation of Republics. In England, you have been often told by
American visiters that the Northern States of the Union are not at all
identified with slavery, and are, in fact, no more responsible for its
existence in the South than we are for the existence of a like system
in the colonies of some of our European Allies. Than this
representation nothing can be further from the truth. There is really
no analogy whatever between the two cases. Each State, it is true, has
its own distinct and independent legislature; but all the States are
united in one federation, which has a thoroughly pro-slavery
government. The constitution is pledged to maintain the execrable
system, and the Northern States are pledged to maintain the
hypocritical constitution.
That no preponderance of influence might be given to any one State over
the rest, by making it the seat of the central government, a district
of 10 miles square was partitioned out, partly from Virginia and partly
from Maryland, for that purpose. This district, called the District of
Columbia, has no government and no representation of its own, but is
under the absolute control and regulation of the United Government or
Congress, "exclusive jurisdiction over it in all cases whatsoever"
having been given by the constitution. In this absolute government of
the "ten miles square," embracing the site of Washington the capital,
the Northern States, by their representatives in Congress, have their
full share. Now, not merely does slavery exist in that District, but it
exists there under statutes so barbarous and cruel that the
neighbouring slave States have actually abolished the like within the
bounds of their separate jurisdiction, leaving to the _free_ States the
unenviable responsibility of enforcing laws too horrible for
kidnappers. Take a specimen,--"A slave convicted of any petit treason,
or murder, or wilful burning of a dwelling-house, to have the right
hand cut off, to be hanged in the usual manner, the head severed from
the body, the body divided into four quarters, and the head and
quarters set up in the most public places of the county where such act
was committed." Take another,--"A _free negro_ may be arrested, and put
in jail for 3 months, on _suspicion_ of being a runaway; and if he is
not able to _prove_ his freedom in 12 months, _he is to be sold as a
slave_ TO PAY HIS JAIL FEES!" Are there not hundreds of free men, both
black and white, who could not _prove_ their freedom under such
circumstances? Yet, for this _crime_, they are reduced to perpetual
bondage _by authority of Congress_. And all this the North upholds!
Washington, the capital, thus governed, is but the great mart of the
national man-trade. From the adjoining port of Alexandria, 7 miles off,
the victims are shipped for the South. Listen to the _Gazette_ of that
place,--"Here you may behold fathers and brothers leaving behind them
the dearest objects of affection, and moving slowly along in the mute
agony of despair,--there the young mother sobbing over the infant,
whose innocent smiles seem but to increase her misery. From some you
will hear the burst of bitter lamentation; while from others the loud
hysteric laugh breaks forth, denoting still deeper agony."
But you will be told that it is not in the power of Northern members to
alter this state of things. Why not? In the House of Representatives
the free States have a majority of about 50, and in the Senate they
have for some years been equal. But have they tried? Have they
protested? Have they voted? Have they divided the House? They _have_
voted. How? _Eighty-two Northern men_, a few years ago, voted that
Congress ought not to interfere _in any way_ with slavery in the
District of Columbia!
Look at some of the provisions of the Federal Government. See what
"SOLEMN GUARANTEES" it gives to the accursed system of slavery, in
whatever State it may be found!
Art. I., sect. 2, says, "Representatives and direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States which may be included within this
Union according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined
by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
serve for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
_three-fifths of all other persons_"--that is to say, _slaves_, for
once called "persons!" Here is a positive premium on slave-holding.
This constitutes an aristocracy of the most monstrous character, and
introduces into the social fabric an element as absurd as it is
perilous. Talk of the aristocracy of England, and the undue influence
of landed proprietors! You have nothing half so unjust and vicious as
this. Suppose the Southern States have two millions and a half of
slaves: for that amount of property they have one million and a half of
additional votes; while in the free States there is no property
representation whatever. Or look at the question in another aspect. Two
citizens have each a capital of 5,000_l._ to invest. The one invests in
shipping or commerce in New York, and at the time of the election,
counts _one_; the other invests in slaves in South Carolina, obtaining
for the sum mentioned a whole gang of 100 human beings of both sexes
and of all ages, and at the time of the election he counts
_sixty-one_,--swamping with his 100 slaves the votes of sixty-one
respectable merchants in a free State! This it is which has constituted
an aristocracy of about 200,000 slaveholders in the South, the ruling
power in the United States. It has made the preservation and extension
of slavery the vital and moving principle of the national policy. So
that ever since 1830 slavery, slave-holding, slave-breeding, and
slave-trading have enjoyed the special and fostering care of the
Federal Government. As to the _quid pro quo_--the taxation that was to
be connected with the representation of "three-fifths of all other
persons," that has been almost entirely evaded. "There has not been,"
says a New England Reviewer, "if we mistake not, but in one instance,
and then in a very light degree, an assessment of direct taxation."
Art. I., sect. 8, says, "Congress shall have power"--among other
things--"to suppress _insurrections_." And Art. IV., sect. 4, says,
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against
invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive
(when the legislature cannot be convened), against _domestic
violence_."
These clauses pledge the whole force of the United States' army, and
navy too, if needs be, to the maintenance of slavery in any or in all
the States and Districts in which it may exist. But for this, the
system could not stand a single day. Let the North say to the South,
"We will not interfere with your 'peculiar institution,' but we will
not defend it; if you cannot keep your slaves in subjection, you must
expect no aid from us." Let them only say this, and _do_ nothing, and
the whole fabric of slavery would instantly crumble and fall. The
edifice is rotten, and is propped up only by the buttresses of the
North. The South retains the slave, because the free States furnish the
sentinels.
Again, Art. IV., sect. 2, says, "No person held to service or labour in
one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in
consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such
service or labour; but shall be _delivered up_ on claim of the party to
whom such service or labour may be due."
This clause pledges the North, not only to refuse an asylum to the
fugitive slave, but also to deliver him up to his unrighteous and cruel
task-master,--a deed which the law of God expressly condemns, and which
the best impulses of our nature repudiate with loathing and contempt.
The article before us constitutes all the free States of the Union a
slave-hunting ground for the Southern aristocracy. Talk of the game
laws of England! Here is a game law infinitely more unjust and
oppressive. A free country this! A noble government! Hail Columbia!
See how this slave-holding aristocracy have always managed to oppress
the North, and to secure to themselves the lion's share of the good
things of government.
THE PRESIDENCY.--Out of the 16 presidential elections since the origin
of the Confederation, 13 have been in favour of slave-holders, and only
3 in favour of Northern men. By holding the Presidency, slavery rules
the cabinet, the diplomacy, the army, and the navy of the Union. The
power that controls the Presidency controls the nation. No Northern
President has ever been re-elected.
THE VICE-PRESIDENCY.--The individual who holds this office is
_ex-officio_ President of the Senate, and, as such, has a casting vote
in all questions before that body. During the last 20 years, with one
exception, this functionary has always been a slave-holder.
THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE.--This is second only in importance to
the Presidency. It is the duty of this officer to direct correspondence
with foreign courts, instruct the foreign ministers, negotiate
treaties, &c. Of the 16 who have hitherto filled that office, 10 have
been from the slave States, and 6 from the free.
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.--This officer has the
appointment of all committees, and exerts an immense influence on the
legislation of the country. During 31 of the 34 years from 1811 to 1845
the Speakers were all slave-holders.
The slave power, having thus the whole machinery of government under
its control, can at any time bring all the resources of the nation to
bear upon the preservation and extension of the "peculiar institution."
While Florida, for instance, belonged to Spain, it furnished an asylum
for runaway slaves from the neighbouring States. It must therefore be
purchased by the Union, and five millions of dollars were paid for it.
Still the native Indians, those children of the forest, afforded a
shelter to fugitives from slavery. They must therefore be either
exterminated or exiled. A war was waged against them. They were driven
from the homes of their fathers, and the negroes among them hunted and
shot like wild beasts. At the urgent recommendation of Zachary
Taylor--the person who in March next will doubtless mount the
presidential chair--blood-hounds were purchased as AUXILIARIES to the
army, at a cost of five thousand dollars; and blood-hounds and
soldiers and officers marched together under the "star-spangled banner"
in pursuit of the panting fugitives from Southern oppression. In this
expedition they captured 460 negroes, each one at the cost of the lives
of two white men, and at a further expense of at least eighty thousand
dollars per head. The whole outlay of the war was _forty millions of
dollars_, most of which was drawn from the pockets of Northern people.
The Annexation of Texas and the Mexican War--all for the perpetuation
and extension of slavery--are fresh in your remembrance.