GROWING AUDACITY OF THE SLAVE POWER.
So closely is the life of Lincoln intertwined with the growth of the
slave power that it will be necessary at this point to give a brief
space to the latter. It was the persistent, the ever-increasing, the
imperious demands of this power that called Lincoln to his post of
duty. The feeling upon the subject had reached a high degree of tension
at the period we are now considering. To understand this fully, we must
go back and come once again down through the period already treated.
There are three salient points of development.
The first of these is the fugitive slave law. At the adoption of the
Constitution it was arranged that there should be no specific approval
of slavery. For this reason the word "slave" does not appear in that
document. But the idea is there, and the phrase, "person held to
service or labor," fully covers the subject. Slaves were a valuable
property. The public opinion approved of the institution. To set up one
part of the territory as a refuge for escaped slaves would be an
infringement of this right of property, and would cause unceasing
friction between the various parts of the country.
In 1793, which happens to be the year of the invention of the cotton
gin, the fugitive slave law was passed. This was for the purpose of
enacting measures by which escaped slaves might be recaptured. This law
continued in force to 1850. As the years passed, the operation of this
law produced results not dreamed of in the outset. There came to be
free states, communities in which the very toleration of slavery was an
abomination. The conscience of these communities abhorred the
institution. Though these people were content to leave slavery
unmolested in the slave states, they were angered at having the horrors
of slave-hunting thrust upon them. In other words, they were unable to
reside in any locality, no matter how stringent the laws were in behalf
of freedom, where they were not liable to be invaded, their very homes
entered, by the institution of slavery in its most cruel forms.
This aroused a bitter antagonism in the North. Societies were formed to
assist fugitive slaves to escape to Canada. Men living at convenient
distances along the route were in communication with one another. The
fugitives were passed secretly and with great skill along this line.
These societies were known as the Underground Railway. The
appropriateness of this name is obvious. The men themselves who
secreted the fugitive slaves were said to keep stations on that
railway.
This organized endeavor to assist the fugitives was met by an increased
imperiousness on the part of the slave power. Slavery is imperious in
its nature. It almost inevitably cultivates that disposition in those
who wield the power. So that the case was rendered more exasperating by
the passage, in 1850, of another fugitive slave law. Nothing could have
been devised more surely adapted to inflame the moral sense of those
communities that were, in feeling or conscience, opposed to slavery,
than this law of 1850. This was a reenactment of the law of 1793, but
with more stringent and cruel regulations. The concealment or assisting
of a fugitive was highly penal. Any home might be invaded and searched.
No hearth was safe from intrusion. The negro could not testify in his
own behalf. It was practically impossible to counteract the oath or
affidavit of the pretended master, and a premium was practically put
upon perjury. The pursuit of slaves became a regular business, and its
operation was often indescribably horrible. These cruelties were
emphasized chiefly in the presence of those who were known to be averse
to slavery in any form, and they could not escape from the revolting
scenes.
The culmination of this was in what is known as the Dred Scott
decision. Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. He was by his master
taken to Fort Snelling, now in the state of Minnesota, then in the
territory of Wisconsin. This was free soil, and the slave was, at least
while there, free. With the consent of his former master he married a
free woman who had formerly been a slave. Two children were born to
them. The master returned to Missouri, bringing the negroes. He here
claimed that they, being on slave soil, were restored to the condition
of slavery.
Scott sued for his freedom and won his case. It was, however, appealed
to the Supreme Court of the United States. The first opinion of the
court was written by Judge Nelson. This treated of this specific case
only. Had this opinion issued as the finding of the court, it would not
have aroused general attention.
But the court was then dominated by the slave sentiment, and the
opportunity of laying down general principles on the subject of slavery
could not be resisted. The decision was written by Chief Justice Taney,
and reaches its climax in the declaration that the negro "had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect." Professor T. W. Dwight says
that much injustice was done to Chief Justice Taney by the erroneous
statement that he had himself affirmed that the negro "had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect." But while this may be
satisfactory to the legal mind, to the lay mind, to the average
citizen, it is a distinction without a difference, or, at best, with a
very slight difference. The Judge was giving what, in his opinion, was
the law of the land. It was his opinion, nay, it was his decision. Nor
was it the unanimous ruling of the court. Two justices dissented. The
words quoted are picturesque, and are well suited to a battle-cry. On
every side, with ominous emphasis in the North, one heard that the
negro had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. This was,
until 1860, the last and greatest exhibition of audacity on the part of
the slave power.
There was another exhibition of the spirit of slavery which deserves
special mention. This is the history of the settlement of Kansas. That
remarkable episode, lasting from 1854 to 1861, requires a volume, not a
paragraph, for its narration. It is almost impossible for the
imagination of those who live in an orderly, law-abiding community, to
conceive that such a condition of affairs ever existed in any portion
of the United States. The story of "bleeding Kansas" will long remain
an example of the proverb that truth is stranger than fiction.
The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, in 1854, opened up to this free
territory the possibility of coming into the Union as a slave state. It
was to be left to the actual settlers to decide this question. This
principle was condensed into the phrase "squatter sovereignty." The
only resource left to those who wished Kansas to come in as a free
state was to settle it with an anti-slavery population.
With this purpose in view, societies were formed in anti-slavery
communities, extending as far east as the Atlantic coast, to assist
emigrants. From Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, and elsewhere,
emigrants poured into Kansas. But the slave party had the advantage of
geographical location. The slave state of Missouri was only just across
the river. It was able, at short notice and with little expense, to
pour out its population in large numbers. This it did. Many went from
Missouri as actual settlers. By far the larger part went only
temporarily and for the purpose of creating a disturbance. These were
popularly called "border ruffians." Their excesses of ruffianism are
not easily described. They went into the territory for the purpose of
driving out all the settlers who had come in under the emigrant aid
societies. Murder was common. At the elections, they practised
intimidation and every form of election fraud then known. Every
election was contested, and both parties always claimed the victory.
The parties elected two separate legislatures, adopted two
constitutions, established two capitals. For several years, civil war
and anarchy prevailed.
There is no doubt, either reasonable or unreasonable,--there is no
doubt whatever that the anti-slavery men had a vast majority of actual
settlers. The territorial governors were appointed by Presidents Pierce
and Buchanan. These were uniformly pro-slavery and extremely partisan.
But every governor quickly came to side with the free-state men, or
else resigned to get out of the way.
The pro-slavery men, after the farce of a pretended vote, declared the
Lecompton constitution adopted. The governor at that time was Walker,
of Mississippi, who had been appointed as a sure friend of the
interests of slavery. But even he revolted at so gross an outrage, and
made a personal visit to Washington to protest against it. It was at
this point, too, that Senator Douglas broke with the administration.
In spite of the overwhelming majority of anti-slavery settlers in the
state, Kansas was not admitted to the Union until after the
inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.
So unscrupulous, imperious, grasping was the slave power. Whom the gods
wish to destroy, they first make mad. The slave power had reached the
reckless point of madness and was rushing to its own destruction. These
three manifestations,--the fugitive-slave law, the Dred Scott decision,
and the anarchy in Kansas,--though they were revolting in the extreme
and indescribably painful, hastened the end.