THE ENCROACHMENTS OF SLAVERY.
It is necessary at this point to take a glance at the history of
American slavery, in order to understand Lincoln's career. In 1619, or
one year before the landing of the _Mayflower_ at Plymouth, a Dutch
man-of-war landed a cargo of slaves at Jamestown, Virginia. For nearly
two centuries after this the slave trade was more or less brisk. The
slaves were distributed, though unevenly, over all the colonies. But as
time passed, differences appeared. In the North, the public conscience
was awake to the injustice of the institution, while in the South it
was not. There were many exceptions in both localities, but the public
sentiment, the general feeling, was as stated.
There was another difference. Slave labor was more valuable in the
South than in the North. This was due to the climate. The negro does
not take kindly to the rigors of the North, while in the South the
heat, which is excessive to the white man, is precisely suited to the
negro. In the course of years, therefore, there came to be
comparatively few negroes in the North while large numbers were found
in the South.
It is generally conceded that the founders of our government looked
forward to a gradual extinction of slavery. In the first draft of the
Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson inserted some scathing
remarks about the King's part in the slave traffic. But it was felt
that such remarks would come with ill grace from colonies that abetted
slavery, and the passage was stricken out. It was, however, provided
that the slave trade should cease in the year 1808.
The Ordinance of 1787 recognized the difference in sentiment of the two
portions of the country on the subject, and was enacted as a
compromise. Like several subsequent enactments, it was supposed to set
the agitation of the subject for ever at rest. This ordinance provided
that slavery should be excluded from the northwestern territory. At
that time the Mississippi river formed the western boundary of the
country, and the territory thus ordained to be free was that out of
which the five states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and
Wisconsin were subsequently formed. It was not then dreamed that the
future acquisition of new territory, or the sudden appreciation of the
value of the slave, would reopen the question.
But three facts changed the entire complexion of the subject. It was
discovered that the soil and climate of the South were remarkably well
adapted to the growth of cotton. Then the development of steam power
and machinery in the manufacture of cotton goods created a sudden and
enormous demand from Liverpool, Manchester, and other cities in England
for American cotton. There remained an obstacle to the supply of this
demand. This was the difficulty of separating the cotton fiber from the
seed. A negro woman was able to clean about a pound of cotton in a day.
In 1793, Eli Whitney, a graduate of Yale college, was teaching school
in Georgia, and boarding with the widow of General Greene. Certain
planters were complaining, in the hearing of Mrs. Greene, of the
difficulty of cleaning cotton, when she declared that the Yankee school
teacher could solve the difficulty, that he was so ingenious that there
was almost nothing he could not do.
The matter was brought to Whitney's attention, who protested that he
knew nothing of the subject,--he hardly knew a cotton seed when he saw
it. Nevertheless he set to work and invented the cotton gin. By this
machine one man, turning a crank; could clean fifty pounds of cotton a
day. The effect of this was to put a new face upon the cotton trade. It
enabled the planters to meet the rapidly-increasing demand for raw
cotton.
It had an equal influence on the slavery question. Only negroes can
work successfully in the cotton fields. There was a phenomenal increase
in the demand for negro labor. And this was fifteen years before the
time limit of the slave trade in 1808.
There soon came to be a decided jealousy between the slave-holding and
the non-slave-holding portion of the country which continually
increased. At the time of the Ordinance of 1787 the two parts of the
country, were about evenly balanced. Each section kept a vigilant watch
of the other section so as to avoid losing the balance of power.
As the country enlarged, this balance was preserved by the admission of
free and slave states in turn. Vermont was paired with Kentucky;
Tennessee with Ohio; Louisiana with Indiana; and Mississippi with
Illinois. In 1836, Michigan and Arkansas were admitted on the same day.
on the same day. This indicates that the jealousy of the two parties
was growing more acute.
Then Texas was admitted December 29, 1845, and was not balanced until
the admission of Wisconsin in 1848.
We must now go back to the admission of Missouri. It came into the
Union as a slave state, but by what is known as the Missouri Compromise
of 1820. By this compromise the concession of slavery to Missouri was
offset by the enactment that all slavery should be forever excluded
from the territory west of that state and north of its southern
boundary: namely, the parallel of 36 degrees 30'.
The mutterings of the conflict were heard at the time of the admission
of Texas in 1848. It was again "set forever at rest" by what was known
as the Wilmot proviso. A year or two later, the discovery of gold in
California and the acquisition of New Mexico reopened the whole
question. Henry Clay of Kentucky, a slaveholder but opposed to the
extension of slavery, was then a member of the House. By a series of
compromises--he had a brilliant talent for compromise--he once more set
the whole question "forever at rest." This rest lasted for four years.
But in 1852 Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe published "Uncle Tom's Cabin,"
an event of national importance. To a degree unprecedented, it roused
the conscience of those who were opposed to slavery and inflamed the
wrath of those who favored it.
The sudden and rude awakening from this rest came in 1854 with the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The overland travel to California
after the year 1848 had given to the intervening territory an
importance far in excess of its actual population. It early became
desirable to admit into the Union both Kansas and Nebraska; and the
question arose whether slavery should be excluded according to the act
of 1820. The slave-holding residents of Missouri were hostile to the
exclusion of slavery. It was situated just beyond their border, and
there is no wonder that they were unable to see any good reason why
they could not settle there with their slaves. They had the sympathy of
the slave states generally.
On the other hand, the free states were bitterly opposed to extending
the slave power. To them it seemed that the slaveholders were planning
for a vast empire of slavery, an empire which should include not only
the southern half of the United States, but also Mexico, Central
America, and possibly a portion of South America. The advocates of
slavery certainly presented and maintained an imperious and despotic
temper. Feeling was running high on both sides in the early fifties.
A leading cyclopedia concludes a brief article on the Missouri
Compromise with the parenthetical reference,--"see DOUGLAS, STEPHEN A."
The implication contained in these words is fully warranted. The chief
event in the life of Douglas is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
And the history of the Missouri Compromise cannot be written without
giving large place to the activity of Douglas. His previous utterances
had not led observers, however watchful, to suspect this. In the
compromise of 1850 he had spoken with great emphasis: "In taking leave
of this subject, I wish to state that I have determined never to make
another speech upon the slavery question.... We claim that the
compromise is a final settlement.... Those who preach peace should not
be the first to commence and reopen an old quarrel."
This was the man who four years later recommenced and reopened this old
quarrel of slavery. In the meantime something had occurred. In 1852 he
had been the unsuccessful candidate for the democratic nomination for
President, and he had aspirations for the nomination in 1856, when a
nomination would have been equivalent to an election. It thus seemed
politic for him to make some decided move which would secure to him the
loyalty of the slave power.
Upon Stephen A. Douglas rested the responsibility of the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise. He was at that time chairman of the Senate
committee on Territories. His personal friend and political manager for
Illinois, William A. Richardson, held a similar position in the House.
The control of the legislation upon this subject was then absolutely in
the hands of Senator Douglas, the man who had "determined never to make
another speech on the slavery question."
It is not within the scope of this book to go into the details of this
iniquitous plot, for plot it was. But the following passage may be
quoted as exhibiting the method of the bill: "It being the true intent
and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or
state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way, subject only to the Constitution." In other words, no
state or territory could be surely safe from the intrusion of slavery.
Lincoln had been practising law and had been out of politics for six
years. It was this bill which called him back to politics, "like a
fire-bell in the night."