INFLUENCE OF SLAVERY ON THE POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES.
_Casca._ I believe these are portentous things
Unto the climate that they point upon.
_Cicero._ Indeed it is a strange disposed time:
But men may construe things after their fashion,
Clean from the purpose of the things themselves.
JULIUS CÆSAR.
When slave representation was admitted into the Constitution of the
United States, a wedge was introduced, which has ever since effectually
sundered the sympathies and interests of different portions of the
country. By this step, the slave States acquired an undue advantage,
which they have maintained with anxious jealousy, and in which the free
States have never perfectly acquiesced. The latter would probably never
have made the concession, so contrary to their principles, and the
express provisions of their State constitutions, if powerful motives had
not been offered by the South. These consisted, first, in taking upon
themselves a proportion of _direct taxes_, increased in the same ratio
as their representation was increased by the concession to their slaves.
Second.--In conceding to the small States an entire equality in the
Senate. This was not indeed proposed as an item of the adjustment,
but it operated as such; for the small States, with the exception of
Georgia, (which in fact expected to become one of the largest,) lay in
the North, and were either free, or likely soon to become so.
During most of the contest, Massachusetts, then one of the large States,
voted with Virginia and Pennsylvania for unequal representation in the
Senate; but on the final question she was divided, and gave no vote.
There was probably an increasing tendency to view this part of the
compromise, not merely as a concession of the large to the small
States, but also of the largely slaveholding, to the free, or slightly
slaveholding States. The two questions of slave representation with a
proportional increase of direct taxes, and of perfect equality in
the Senate, were always connected together; and a large committee of
compromise, consisting of one member from each State, expressly
recommended that both provisions should be adopted, but neither of them
without the other.
Such were the equivalents, directly or indirectly offered, by which the
free States were induced to consent to slave representation. It was not
without very considerable struggles that they overcame their repugnance
to admitting such a principle in the construction of a republican
government. Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, _at first_ exclaimed against it
with evident horror, but _at last_, he was chairman of the committee of
compromise. Even the slave States themselves, seem to have been a little
embarrassed with the discordant element. A curious proof of this is
given in the language of the Constitution. The ugly feature is covered
as cautiously as the deformed visage of the Veiled Prophet. The words
are as follows: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned
among the States according to their respective numbers; which shall be
ascertained by adding to the whole number of free persons, _including
those bound to servitude for a term of years, and excluding Indians
not taxed, three fifths of all other persons_." In this most elaborate
sentence, a foreigner would discern no slavery. None but those already
acquainted with the serpent, would be able to discover its sting.
Governor Wright, of Maryland, a contemporary of all these transactions,
and a slaveholder, after delivering a eulogy upon the kindness of
masters[AA] expressed himself as follows: "The Constitution guaranties
to us the services of these persons. It does not say _slaves_; for the
feelings of the framers of that glorious instrument would not suffer
them to use _that_ word, on account of its anti-congeniality--its
incongeniality to the idea of a constitution for freemen. It says,
'_persons held to service, or labor_.'"--_Governor Wright's Speech in
Congress, March, 1822._
[Footnote AA: It was stated, at the time, that this person frequently
steamed his negroes, in order to reduce their size to an equal weight
for riding race-horses. This practice is understood to be common at the
South.]
This high praise bestowed on the _form_ of our constitution, reminds me
of an anecdote. A clergyman in a neighboring State, being obliged to be
absent from his parish, procured a young man to supply his place, who
was very worldly in his inclinations, and very gay in his manners. When
the minister returned, his people said, somewhat reproachfully, "How
could you provide such a man to preach for us; _you might at least have
left us a hypocrite_."
While all parties agreed to act in opposition to the _principles_ of
justice, they all concurred to pay homage to them by hypocrisy of
_language_! Men are willing to try all means to _appear_ honest, except
the simple experiment of _being_ so. It is true, there were individuals
who distrusted this compromise at the time, if they did not wholly
disapprove of it. It is said that Washington, as he was walking
thoughtfully near the Schuylkill, was met by a member of the Convention,
to whom, in the course of conversation, he acknowledged that he was
meditating whether it would not be better to separate, without proposing
a constitution to the people; for he was in great doubt whether the
frame of government, which was now nearly completed, would be better
for them, than to trust to the course of events, and await future
emergencies.
This anecdote was derived from an authentic source, and I have no doubt
of its truth: neither is there any doubt that Washington had in his mind
this great compromise, the pivot on which the system of government was
to turn.
If avarice was induced to shake hands with injustice, from the
expectation of increased direct taxation upon the South, she gained
little by the bargain. With the exception of two brief periods, during
the French war, and the last war with England, the revenue of the United
States has been raised by _duties on imports_. The heavy debts and
expenditures of the several States, which they had been accustomed to
provide for by direct taxes, and which they probably expected to see
provided for by the same means in time to come, have been all paid by
duties on imports. The greatest proportion of these duties are, of
course, paid by the free States; for here, the poorest laborer daily
consumes several articles of foreign production, of which from
one-eighth to one-half the price is a tax paid to government. The
clothing of the slave population increases the revenue very little,
and their food almost none at all.
Wherever free labor and slave labor exist under the same government,
there must be a perpetual clashing of interests. The legislation
required for one, is, in its spirit and maxims, diametrically opposed
to that required for the other. Hence Mr. Madison predicted, in the
convention which formed our Federal Constitution, that the contests
would be between the great geographical sections; that such had been
the division, even during the war and the confederacy.
In the same convention, Charles Pinckney, a man of great sagacity, spoke
of the equal representation of large and small States as a matter of
slight consequence; no difficulties, he said, would ever arise on that
point; the question would always be between the slaveholding and
non-slaveholding interests.
If the pressure of common danger, and the sense of individual weakness,
during our contest for independence, could not bring the States to
mutual confidence, nothing ever can do it, except a change of character.
From the adoption of the constitution to the present time, the breach
has been gradually widening. The South has pursued a uniform and
sagacious system of policy, which, in all its bearings, direct and
indirect, has been framed for the preservation and extension of slave
power. This system has, in the very nature of the two things, constantly
interfered with the interests of the free States; and hitherto the South
have always gained the victory. This has principally been accomplished
by yoking all important questions together _in pairs_, and strenuously
resisting the passage of one, unless accompanied by the other. The South
was desirous of removing the seat of government from Philadelphia to
Washington, because the latter is in a slave territory, where republican
representatives and magistrates can bring their slaves without danger of
losing them, or having them contaminated by the principles of universal
liberty. The assumption of the State debts, likely to bring considerable
money back to the North, was _linked_ with this question, and both were
carried. The admission of Maine into the Union as a free State, and of
Missouri as a slave State, were two more of these Siamese twins, not
allowed to be separated from each other. A numerous smaller progeny may
be found in the laying of imposts, and the successive adjustment of
protection to navigation, the fisheries, agriculture, and manufactures.
There would perhaps be no harm in this system of compromises, or any
objection to its continuing in infinite series, if no injustice were
done to a third party, which is never heard or noticed, except for
purposes of oppression.
I reverence the wisdom of our early legislators; but they certainly
did very wrong to admit slavery as an element into a free constitution;
and to sacrifice the known and _declared_ rights of a third and weaker
party, in order to cement a union between two stronger ones. Such an
arrangement ought not, and could not, come to good. It has given the
slave States a controlling power which they will always keep, so long
as we remain together.
President John Adams was of opinion, that this ascendency might be
attributed to an early mistake, originating in what he called the
"Frankford advice." When the first Congress was summoned in
Philadelphia, Doctor Rush, and two or three other eminent men of
Pennsylvania, met the Massachusetts delegates at Frankford, a few miles
from Philadelphia, and conjured them, as they valued the success of the
common cause, to let no measure of importance _appear_ to originate with
the North, to yield precedence in all things to Virginia, and lead her
if possible to commit herself to the Revolution. Above all, they begged
that not a word might be said about "independence;" for that a strong
prejudice already existed against the delegates from New-England, on
account of a supposed design to throw off their allegiance to the
mother country. "The Frankford advice" was followed. The delegates from
Virginia took the lead on all occasions.
His son, John Q. Adams, finds a more substantial reason. In his speech
on the Tariff, February 4, 1833, he said: "Not three days since, Mr.
Clayton, of Georgia, called that species of population (viz. slaves)
the machinery of the South. Now that machinery had twenty odd
representatives[AB] in that hall,--not elected by the machinery, but
by those who owned it. And if he should go back to the history of this
government from its foundation, it would be easy to prove that its
decisions had been affected, in general, by less majorities than that.
Nay, he might go farther, and insist that that very representation had
ever been, in fact, _the ruling power of this government_."
[Footnote AB: There are now twenty-five _odd_ representatives--that is,
representatives of slaves.]
"The history of the Union has afforded a continual proof that this
representation of property, which they enjoy, as well in the election of
President and Vice-President of the United States, as upon the floor of
the House of Representatives, has secured to the slaveholding States the
entire control of the national policy, and, almost without exception,
the possession of the highest executive office of the Union. Always
united in the purpose of regulating the affairs of the whole Union by
the standard of the slaveholding interest, their disproportionate
numbers in the electoral colleges have enabled them, in ten out of
twelve quadrennial elections, to confer the Chief Magistracy upon one
of their own citizens. Their suffrages at every election, without
exception, have been almost exclusively confined to a candidate of their
own caste. Availing themselves of the divisions which, from the nature
of man, always prevail in communities entirely free, they have sought
and found auxiliaries in the other quarters of the Union, by associating
the passions of parties, and the ambition of individuals, with their own
purposes, to establish and maintain throughout the confederated nation
the slaveholding policy. The office of Vice-President, a station of high
dignity, but of little other than contingent power, had been usually, by
their indulgence, conceded to a citizen of the other section; but even
this political courtesy was superseded at the election before the last,
and both the offices of President and Vice-President of the United
States were, by the preponderancy of slaveholding votes, bestowed upon
citizens of two adjoining and both slaveholding States. At this moment
the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the
United States, are all citizens of that favored portion of the united
republic. The last of these offices, being under the constitution held
by the tenure of good behaviour, has been honored and dignified by the
occupation of the present incumbent upwards of thirty years. An
overruling sense of the high responsibilities under which it is held,
has effectually guarded him from permitting the sectional slaveholding
spirit to ascend the tribunal of justice; and it is not difficult to
discern, in this inflexible impartiality, the source of the obloquy
which that same spirit has not been inactive in attempting to excite
against the Supreme Court of the United States itself: and of the
insuperable aversion of the votaries of nullification to encounter or
abide by the decision of that tribunal, the true and legitimate umpire
of constitutional, controverted law."
It is worthy of observation that this slave representation is always
used to protect and extend slave power; and in this way, the slaves
themselves are made to vote for slavery: they are compelled to furnish
halters to hang their posterity.
Machiavel says that "the whole politics of rival states consist in
checking the growth of one another." It is sufficiently obvious, that
the slave and free States are, and must be, rivals, owing to the
inevitable contradiction of their interests. It needed no Machiavel to
predict the result. A continual strife has been going on, more or less
earnest, according to the nature of the interests it involved, and the
South has always had strength and skill to carry her point. Of all our
Presidents, Washington alone had power to keep the jealousies of his
countrymen in check; and he used his influence nobly. Some of his
successors have cherished those jealousies, and made effective use of
them.
The people of the North have to manage a rocky and reluctant soil; hence
commerce and the fisheries early attracted their attention. The products
of these employments were, as they should be, proportioned to the
dexterity and hard labor required in their pursuit. The North grew
opulent; and her politicians, who came in contact with those of the
South with any thing like rival pretensions, represented the commercial
class, which was the nucleus of the old Federal party.
The Southerners have a genial climate and a fertile soil; but in
consequence of the cumbrous machinery of slave labor, which is slow for
every thing, (except exhausting the soil,) they have always been less
prosperous than the free States. It is said, I know not with how much
truth, but it is certainly very credible, that a great proportion of
their plantations are deeply mortgaged in New-York and Philadelphia. It
is likewise said that the expenses of the planters are generally one or
two years in advance of their income. Whether these statements be true
or not, the most casual observer will decide, that the free States are
uniformly the most prosperous, notwithstanding the South possesses
a political power, by which she manages to check-mate us at every
important move. When we add this to the original jealousy spoken of
by Mr. Madison, it is not wonderful that Southern politicians take so
little pains to conceal their strong dislike of the North.
A striking difference of manners, also caused by slavery, serves to
aggravate other differences. Slaveholders have the habit of command;
and from the superior ease with which it sits upon them, they seem to
imagine that they were "born to command," and we to obey. In time of
war, they tauntingly told us that we might furnish the _men_, and they
would furnish the _officers_; but in time of peace they find our list
of pensioners so large, they complain that we did furnish so many men.
At the North, every body is busy in some employment, and politics, with
very few exceptions, form but a brief episode in the lives of the
citizens. But the Southern politicians are men of leisure. They have
nothing to do but to ride round their plantations, hunt, attend the
races, study politics for the next legislative or congressional
campaign, and decide how to use the prodigious mechanical power, of
slave representation, which a political Archimedes may effectually wield
for the destruction of commerce, or any thing else, involving the
prosperity of the free States.[AC]
[Footnote AC: The Hon. W. B. Seabrook, a southern gentleman, has lately
written a pamphlet on the management of slaves, in which he says: "An
addition of one million dollars to the private fortune of Daniel
Webster, would not give to Massachusetts more than she now possesses
in the federal councils. On the other hand, every increase of slave
property in South Carolina, is a fraction thrown into the scale, by
which her representation in _Congress_ is determined."]
It has been already said, that most of the wealth in New-England was
made by commerce; consequently the South became unfriendly to commerce.
There was a class in New-England, jealous, and not without reason, of
their own commercial aristocracy. It was the policy of the South to
foment their passions, and increase their prejudices. Thus was the old
Democratic party formed; and while that party honestly supposed they
were merely resisting the encroachments of a nobility at home, they were
actually playing a game for one of the most aristocratic classes in the
world--viz. the Southern planters. A famous slave-owner and politician
openly boasted, that the South could always put down the aristocracy
of the North, by means of her own democracy. In this point of view,
democracy becomes a machine used by one aristocratic class against
another, that has less power, and is therefore less dangerous.
There are features in the organization of society, resulting from
slavery, which are conducive to any thing but the union of these States.
A large class are without employment, are accustomed to command, and
have a strong contempt for habits of industry. This class, like the
nobility of feudal times, are restless, impetuous, eager for excitement,
and prompt to settle all questions with the sword. Like the fierce old
barons, at the head of their vassals, they are ever ready to resist and
nullify the _central_ power of the State, whenever it interferes with
their individual interests, or even approaches the strong holds of their
prejudices. All history shows, that men possessing hereditary, despotic
power, cannot easily be brought to acknowledge a superior, either in the
administrators of the laws, or in the law itself. It was precisely such
a class of men that covered Europe with camps, for upwards of ten
centuries.
A Southern governor has dignified duelling with the name of an
"institution;" and the planters generally, seem to regard it as among
those which they have denominated their "peculiar institutions." General
Wilkinson, who was the son of a slave-owner, expresses in his memoirs,
great abhorrence of duelling, and laments the powerful influence which
his father's injunction, when a boy, had upon his after life: "James,"
said the old gentleman, "if you ever take an insult, I will disinherit
you."
A young lawyer, who went from Massachusetts to reside at the South, has
frequently declared that he could not take any stand there as a lawyer,
or a gentleman, until he had fought: he was subject to continual insult
and degradation, until he had evinced his readiness to kill, or be
killed. It is obvious that such a state of morals elevates mere physical
courage into a most undue importance. There are indeed emergencies, when
all the virtues, and all the best affections of man, are intertwined
with personal bravery; but this is not the kind of courage, which makes
duelling in fashion. The patriot nobly sacrifices himself for the good
of others; the duellist wantonly sacrifices others to himself.
Browbeating, which is the pioneer of the pistol, characterizes,
particularly of late years, the Southern legislation. By these means,
they seek to overawe the Representatives from the free States, whenever
any question even remotely connected with slavery is about to be
discussed; and this, united with our strong reverence for the Union, has
made our legislators shamefully cautious with regard to a subject, which
peculiarly demands moral courage, and an abandonment of selfish
considerations. If a member of Congress does stand his ground firmly,
if he wants no preferment or profit, which the all-powerful Southern
influence can give, an effort is then made to intimidate him. The
instances are numerous in which Northern men have been insulted and
challenged by their Southern brethren, in consequence of the adverse
influence they exerted over the measures of the _Federal_ government.
This turbulent evil exists only in our slave States; and the peace of
the country is committed to their hands whenever _twenty-five_ votes in
Congress can turn the scale in favor of war.
The statesmen of the South have generally been planters. Their
agricultural products must pay the merchants--foreign and domestic,--the
ship-owner, the manufacturer,--and all others concerned in the exchange
or manipulation of them. It is universally agreed that the production of
the raw materials is the least profitable employment of capital. The
planters have always entertained a jealous dislike of those engaged
in the more profitable business of the manufacture and exchange of
products; particularly as the existence of slavery among them destroys
ingenuity and enterprise, and compels them to employ the merchants,
manufacturers, and sailors, of the free States.[AD] Hence there has ever
been a tendency to check New-England, whenever she appears to shoot
up with vigorous rapidity. Whether she tries to live by _hook_ or by
_crook_, there is always an effort to restrain her within certain
limited bounds. The embargo, passed without limitation of time, (a thing
unprecedented,) was fastened upon the bosom of her commerce, until life
was extinguished. The ostensible object of this measure, was to force
Great Britain to terms, by distressing the West Indies for food. But
while England commanded the seas, her colonies were not likely to
starve; and for the sake of this doubtful experiment, a certain and
incalculable injury was inflicted upon the Northern States. Seamen, and
the numerous classes of mechanics connected with navigation, were thrown
out of employment, as suddenly as if they had been cast on a desert
island by some convulsion of nature. Thousands of families were ruined
by that ill-judged measure. Has any government a right to inflict so
much direct suffering on a very large portion of their own people, for
the sake of an indirect and remote evil which may possibly be inflicted
on an enemy?
[Footnote AD: Virginia has great natural advantages for becoming a
manufacturing country; but slavery, that does evil to all and good to
none, produces a state of things which renders that impossible.]
It is true, agriculture suffered as well as commerce; but agricultural
products could be converted into food and clothing; they would not decay
like ships, nor would the producers be deprived of employment and
sustenance, like those connected with navigation.
Whether this step was intended to paralyze the North or not, it most
suddenly and decidedly produced that effect. We were told that it was
done to save our commerce from falling into the hands of the English and
French. But our merchants earnestly entreated not to be thus saved. At
the very moment of the embargo, underwriters were ready to _insure_ at
the _usual_ rates.
The non-intercourse was of the same general character as the embargo,
but less offensive and injurious. The war crowned this course of policy;
and like the other measures, was carried by slave votes. It was
emphatically a Southern, not a national war. Individuals gained glory
by it, and many of them nobly deserved it; but the amount of benefit
which the country derived from that war might be told in much fewer words
than would enumerate the mischiefs it produced.
The commercial States, particularly New-England, have been frequently
reproached for not being willing to go to war for the protection of
their own interests; and have been charged with pusillanimity and
ingratitude for not warmly seconding those who were so zealous to defend
their cause. Mr. Hayne, during the great debate with Mr. Webster, in
the Senate, made use of this customary sarcasm. It is revived whenever
the sectional spirit of the South, or party spirit in the North,
prompts individuals to depreciate the talents and character of any
eminent Northern man. The Southern States have even gone so far on
this subject, as to assume the designation of "_patriot States_," in
contra-distinction to their northern neighbors--and this too, while
Bunker Hill and Faneuil Hall are still standing! It certainly was a
pleasant idea to exchange the appellation of _slave_ States for that of
_patriot_ States--it removed a word which in a republic is unseemly and
inconsistent.
Whatever may be thought of the justice and expediency of the last war,
it was certainly undertaken against the earnest wishes of the commercial
States--two thirds of the Representatives from those States voted in
opposition to the measure. According to the spirit of the constitution
it ought not to have passed unless there were two thirds in favor of it.
Why then should the South have insisted upon conferring a boon, which
was not wanted; and how happened it, that _Yankees_, with all their
acknowledged shrewdness in money matters, could never to this day
perceive how they were protected by it? Yet New-England is reproached
with cowardice and ingratitude to her Southern benefactors! If one man
were to knock another down with a broad-axe, in the attempt to brush
a fly from his face, and then blame him for not being sufficiently
thankful, it would exactly illustrate the relation between the North and
the South on this subject.
If the protection of commerce had been the real object of the war, would
not some preparations have been made for a navy? It was ever the policy
of the slave States to destroy the navy. Vast conquests by _land_ were
contemplated, for the protection of Northern commerce. Whatever was
intended, the work of destruction was done. The policy of the South
stood for awhile like a giant among ruins. New-England received a blow,
which crushed her energies, but could not annihilate them. Where the
system of free labor prevails, and there is work of any kind to be done,
there is a safety-valve provided for _any_ pressure. In such a community
there is a vital and active principle, which cannot be long repressed.
You may dam up the busy waters, but they will sweep away obstructions,
or force a new channel.
Immediately after the peace, when commerce again began to try her broken
wings, the South took care to keep her down, by multiplying permanent
embarrasments, in the shape of duties. The _direct_ tax (which would
have borne equally upon them, and which in the original compact was
the equivalent for slave representation,) was forthwith repealed, and
commerce was burdened with the payment of the national debt. The
encouragement of _manufactures_, the consumption of domestic products,
or _living within ourselves_, was then urged upon us. This was an
ancient doctrine of the democratic party. Mr. Jefferson was its
strongest advocate. Did he think it likely to bear unfavorably upon "the
nation of shopkeepers and pedlers?"[AE] The Northerners adopted it with
sincere views to economy, and more perfect independence. The duties
were so adjusted as to embarrass commerce, and to guard the interests
of a few in the North, who from patriotism, party spirit, or private
interest, had established manufactures on a considerable scale. This
system of protection opposed by the North, was begun in 1816 by Southern
politicians, and enlarged and confirmed by them in 1824. It was carried
nearly as much by Southern influence, as was the war itself; and if
the votes were placed side by side, there could not be a doubt of the
identity of the interests and passions, which lay concealed under both.
But enterprise, that moral perpetual motion, overcomes all obstacles.
Neat and flourishing villages rose in every valley of New-England.
The busy hum of machinery made music with her neglected waterfalls.
All her streams, like the famous Pactolus, flowed with gold. From
her discouraged and embarrassed commerce arose a greater blessing,
apparently indestructible. Walls of brick and granite could not easily
be overturned by the Southern _lever_, and left to decay, as the
ship-timber had done. Thus Mordecai was again seated in the king's gate,
by means of the very system intended for his ruin. As soon as this state
of things became perceptible, the South commenced active hostility with
manufactures. Doleful pictures of Southern desolation and decay were
given, and all attributed to manufactures. The North was said to be
plundering the South, while she, poor dame, was enriching her neighbors,
and growing poor upon her extensive labors. (If this statement be true,
how much gratitude do we owe the _negroes_; for they do all the work
that is done at the South. Their masters only serve to keep them in a
condition, where they do not accomplish half as much as they otherwise
would.)
[Footnote AE: Mr. Jefferson's description of New-England.]
New-England seems to be like the poor lamb that tried to drink at the
same stream with the wolf. "You make the water so muddy I can't drink,"
says the wolf: "I stand below you," replied the lamb, "and therefore it
cannot be." "You did me an injury last year," retorted the wolf. "I was
not born last year," rejoined the lamb. "Well, well," exclaimed the
wolf, "then it was your father or mother. I'll eat you, at all events."
The bitter discussions in Congress have grown out of this strong dislike
to the free States; and the crown of the whole policy is nullification.
The single State of South Carolina has undertaken to abolish the
revenues of the whole nation, and threatened the Federal Government
with cecession from the Union, in case the laws were enforced by any
other means, than through the judicial tribunals.
"It is not a little extraordinary that this new pretention of South
Carolina, the State which above all others enjoys this unrequited
privilege of excessive representation, released from all payment of the
direct taxes, of which her proportion would be nearly double that of any
non-slaveholding State, should proceed from that very complaint that
she bears an unequal proportion of duties of imposts, which, by the
constitution of the United States, are required to be uniform throughout
the Union. Vermont, with a free population of two hundred and eighty
thousand souls, has five representatives in the popular House of
Congress, and seven Electors for President and Vice-President. South
Carolina, with a free population of less than two hundred and sixty
thousand souls, sends nine members to the House of Representatives, and
honors the Governor of Virginia with eleven votes for the office of
President of the United States. If the rule of representation were the
same for South Carolina and for Vermont, they would have the same number
of Representatives in the House, and the same number of Electors for the
choice of President and Vice-President. She has nearly double the number
of both."
What would the South have? They took the management at the very
threshold of our government, and, excepting the rigidly just
administration of Washington, they have kept it ever since. They claimed
slave representation and obtained it. For their convenience the revenues
were raised by imposts instead of direct taxes, and thus they give
little or nothing in exchange for their excessive representation. They
have increased the slave States, till they have twenty-five votes in
Congress--They have laid the embargo, and declared war--They have
controlled the expenditures of the nation--They have acquired Louisiana
and Florida for an eternal slave market, and perchance for the
manufactory of more slave States--They have given five presidents out of
seven to the United States--And in their attack upon manufactures, they
have gained Mr. Clay's _concession_ bill. "But all this availeth not, so
long as Mordecai the Jew sitteth in the king's gate." The free States
must be kept down. But change their policy as they will, free States
_cannot_ be kept down. There is but one way to ruin them; and that is
to make them slave States. If the South with all her power and skill
cannot manage herself into prosperity, it is because the difficulty lies
at her own doors, and she will not remove it. At one time her deserted
villages were attributed to the undue patronage bestowed upon settlers
on the public lands: at another, the tariff is the cause of her
desolation. Slavery, the real root of the evil, is carefully kept out
of sight, as a "delicate subject," which must not be alluded to. It is
a singular fact in the present age of the world, that delicate and
indelicate subjects mean precisely the same thing.
If any proof were wanted, that _slavery_ is the cause of all this
discord, it is furnished by Eastern and Western Virginia. They belong to
the same State, and are protected by the same laws; but in the former,
the slaveholding interest is very strong--while in the latter, it is
scarcely any thing. The result is, warfare, and continual complaints,
and threats of separation. There are no such contentions between the
different sections of _free_ States; simply because slavery, the
exciting cause of strife, does not exist among them.
The constant threat of the slaveholding States is the dissolution of the
Union; and they have repeated it with all the earnestness of sincerity,
though there are powerful reasons why it would not be well for them to
venture upon that untried state of being. In one respect only, are these
threats of any consequence--they have familiarized the public mind with
the subject of separation, and diminished the reverence, with which the
free States have hitherto regarded the Union.
The farewell advice of Washington operated like a spell upon the hearts
and consciences of his countrymen. For many, many years after his death,
it would almost have been deemed blasphemy to speak of separation as a
possible event. I would that it still continued so! But it is now an
every-day occurrence, to hear politicians, of all parties, conjecturing
what system would be pursued by different sections of the country, in
case of a dissolution of the Union. This evil is likewise chargeable
upon slavery. The threats of separation have _uniformly_ come from the
slaveholding States; and on many important measures the free States have
been awed into acquiescence by their respect for the Union.
Mr. Adams, in the able and manly report before alluded to, says: "It
cannot be denied that in a community spreading over a large extent of
territory, and politically founded upon the principles proclaimed in the
Declaration of Independence, but differing so widely in the elements of
their social condition, that the inhabitants of one-half the territory
are wholly free, and those of the other half divided into masters and
slaves, deep if not irreconcilable collisions of interest must abound.
The question whether such a community can exist under one common
government, is a subject of profound, philosophical speculation in
theory. Whether it can continue long to exist, is a question to be
solved only by the experiment now making by the people of this Union,
under that national compact, the constitution of the United States."
The admission of Missouri into the Union is another clear illustration
of the slaveholding power. That contest was marked by the same violence,
and the same threats, as have characterized nullification. On both
occasions the planters were pitted against the commercial and
manufacturing sections of the country. On both occasions the democracy
of the North was, by one means or another, induced to throw its strength
upon the Southern _lever_, to increase its already prodigious power.
On both, and on all occasions, some little support has been given to
Northern principles in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina; because
in portions of those States there is a considerable commercial interest,
and some encouragement of free labor. So true it is, in the minutest
details, that slavery and freedom are always arrayed in opposition to
each other.
At the time of the Missouri question, the pestiferous effects of slavery
had become too obvious to escape the observation of the most superficial
statesman. The new free States admitted into the Union enjoyed tenfold
prosperity compared with the new slave States. Give a free laborer a
barren rock, and he will soon cover it with vegetation; while the slave
and his task-master, would change the garden of Eden to a desert.
But Missouri must be admitted as a slave State, for two strong reasons.
First, that the planters might perpetuate their predominant influence
by adding to the slave representation,--the power of which is always
concentrated against the interests of the free States. Second, that a
new market might be opened for their surplus slaves. It is lamentable
to think that two votes in favor of Missouri slavery, were given by
Massachusetts men; and that those two votes would have turned the scale.
The planters loudly threatened to dissolve the Union, if slavery were
not extended beyond the Mississippi. If the Union cannot be preserved
without crime, it is an eternal truth that nothing good can be preserved
_by_ crime. The immense territories of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida,
are very likely to be formed into slave States; and every new vote on
this side, places the free States more and more at the mercy of the
South, and gives a renewed and apparently interminable lease to the
duration of slavery.
The purchase or the conquest of the Texas, is a favorite scheme with
Southerners, because it would occasion such an inexhaustible demand for
slaves. A gentleman in the Virginia convention thought the acquisition
of the Texas so certain, that he made calculations upon the increased
value of negroes. We have reason to thank God that the jealousy of the
Mexican government places a barrier in that direction.
The existence of slavery among us prevents the recognition of Haytian
independence. That republic is fast increasing in wealth, intelligence
and refinement.--Her commerce is valuable to us and might become much
more so. But our Northern representatives have never even made an effort
to have her independence acknowledged, because a colored ambassador
would be so disagreeable to our prejudices.
Few are aware of the extent of _sectional_ dislike in this country; and
I would not speak of it, if I thought it possible to add to it. The
late John Taylor, a man of great natural talent, wrote a book on the
agriculture of Virginia, in which he acknowledges impoverishment, but
attributes it all to the mismanagement of _overseers_. In this work, Mr.
Taylor has embodied more of the genuine spirit, the ethics and politics,
of planters, than any other man; excepting perhaps, John Randolph in
his speeches. He treats merchants, capitalists, bankers, and all other
people not planters, as so many robbers, who live by plundering the
slave-owner, apparently forgetting by what plunder they themselves live.
Mr. Jefferson and other eminent men from the South, have occasionally
betrayed the same strong prejudices; but they were more guarded, lest
the democracy of the North should be undeceived, and their votes lost.
Mr. Taylor's book is in high repute in the Southern States, and its
sentiments widely echoed; but it is little known here.
A year or two since, I received a letter from a publisher who largely
supplies the Southern market, in which he assured me that no book from
the North would sell at the South, unless the source from which it came,
were carefully concealed! Yet New-England has always yielded to Southern
policy in preference to uniting with the Middle States, with which she
has, in most respects, a congeniality of interests and habits. It has
been the constant policy of the slave States to prevent the free States
from acting together.
Who does not see that the American people are walking over a
subterranean fire, the flames of which are fed by slavery?
The South no doubt gave her influence to General Jackson, from the
conviction that a slave-owner would support the slaveholding interest.
The Proclamation against the nullifiers, which has given the President
such sudden popularity at the North, has of course offended them. No
person has a right to say that Proclamation is insincere. It will be
extraordinary if a slave-owner does in _reality_ depart from the uniform
system of his brethren. In the President's last Message, it is
maintained that the wealthy landholders, that is, the planters, are
the _best_ part of the population;--it admits that the laws for raising
of revenue by imposts have been in their operation oppressive to the
South;--it recommends a gradual withdrawing of protection from
manufactures;--it advises that the public lands shall cease to be
a source of revenue, as soon as practicable--that they be sold to
settlers--and in a _convenient time_ the disposal of the soil be
surrendered to _the States respectively in which it lies_;--lastly,
the Message tends to discourage future appropriations of public money
for purposes of internal improvement.
Every one of these items is a concession to the slaveholding policy. If
the public lands are taken from the nation, and given to the States in
which the soil lies, who will get the largest share? That _best_ part of
the population called planters.
The Proclamation and the Message are very unlike each other. Perhaps
South Carolina is to obtain her own will by a route more certain, though
more circuitous, than open rebellion. Time will show.