Part 121 (1/2)
[Footnote A: It may be replied, The colored people were held as _property_ by the laws of Louisiana previously to the cession, and that Congress had no right to divest the newly acquired citizens of their property. This statement is evasive. It does not include, nor touch the question, which is this:--Had Congress, or the treaty-making power, a right to recognise, and, by recognising, to establish, in a territory that had no claim of privilege, on the ground of being part of one of the ”Original States,” a condition of things that it could not establish _directly_, because there was no grant in the const.i.tution of power, direct or incidental, to do so--and because, _to do so_, was in downright oppugnancy to the principles of the Const.i.tution itself? The question may be easily answered by stating the following case:--Suppose a law had existed in Louisiana, previous to the cession, by which the children--male and female--of all such parents as were not owners of real estate of the yearly value of $500, had been--no matter how long--held in slavery by their more wealthy land-holding neighbors:--would Congress, under the Const.i.tution, have a right (by recognising) to establish, for ever, such a relation as one white person, under such a law, might hold to another? Surely not. And yet no substantial difference between the two cases can be pointed out.]
In this case, the violation of the Const.i.tution was suffered to pa.s.s with but little opposition, except from Ma.s.sachusetts, because we were content to receive in exchange, multiplied commercial benefits and enlarged territorial limits.
The next stride that slavery made over the Const.i.tution was in the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union. _She_ could claim no favor as part of an ”Original State.” At this point, it might have been supposed, the friends of Freedom and of the Const.i.tution according to its original intent, would have made a stand. But no: with the exception of Ma.s.sachusetts, they hesitated and were persuaded to acquiesce, because the country was just about entering into a war with England, and the crisis was unpropitious for discussing questions that would create divisions between different sections of the Union. We must wait till the country was at peace. Thus it was that Louisiana was admitted without a controversy.
Next followed, in 1817 and 1820, Mississippi and Alabama--admitted after the example of Kentucky and Tennessee, without any contest.
Meantime, Florida had given some uneasiness to the slaveholders of the neighboring states; and for their accommodation chiefly, a negociation was set on foot by the government to purchase it.
Missouri was next in order in 1821. She could plead no privilege, on the score of being part of one of the original states; the country too, was relieved from the pressure of her late conflict with England; it was prosperous and quiet; every thing seemed propitious to a calm and dispa.s.sionate consideration of the claims of slaveholders to add props to their system, by admitting indefinitely, new slave states to the Union. Up to this time, the ”EVIL” of slavery had been almost universally acknowledged and deplored by the South, and its termination (apparently) sincerely hoped for.[A] By this management its friends succeeded in blinding the confiding people of the North. They thought for the most part, that the slaveholders were acting in good faith. It is not intended by this remark, to make the impression, that the South had all along pressed the admission of new slave states, simply with a view to the increase of its own relative power. By no means: slavery had insinuated itself into favor because of its being mixed up with (other) supposed benefits--and because its ultimate influence on the government was neither suspected nor dreaded. But, on the Missouri question, there was a fair trial of strength between the friends of Slavery and the friends of the Const.i.tution. The former triumphed, and by the prime agency of one whose raiment, the remainder of his days, ought to be sackcloth and ashes,--because of the disgrace he has continued on the name of his country, and the consequent injury that he has inflicted on the cause of Freedom throughout the world. Although all the different Administrations, from the first organization of the government, had, in the indirect manner already mentioned, favored slavery,--there had not been on any previous occasion, a direct struggle between its pretensions and the principles of liberty ingrafted on the Const.i.tution. The friends of the latter were induced to believe, whenever they should be arrayed against each other, that _theirs_ would be the triumph. Tremendous error! Mistake almost fatal! The battle was fought. Slavery emerged from it unhurt--her hands made gory--her b.l.o.o.d.y plume still floating in the air--exultingly brandis.h.i.+ng her dripping sword over her prostrate and vanquished enemy. She had won all for which she fought. Her victory was complete--THE SANCTION OF THE NATION WAS GIVEN TO SLAVERY![B]
[Footnote A: Mr. Clay, in conducting the Missouri compromise, found it necessary to argue, that the admission of Missouri, as a slaveholding state, would aid in bringing about the termination of slavery. His argument is thus stated by Mr. Sergeant, who replied to him:--”In this long view of remote and distant consequences, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) thinks he sees how slavery, when thus spread, is at last to find its end. It is to be brought about by the combined operation of the laws which regulate the price of labor, and the laws which govern population. When the country shall be filled with inhabitants, and the price of labor shall have reached a minimum, (a comparative minimum I suppose is meant,) free labor will be found cheaper than slave labor. Slaves will then be without employment, and, of course, without the means of comfortable subsistence, which will reduce their numbers, and finally extirpate them. This is the argument as I understand it,” says Mr. Sergeant; and, certainly, one more chimerical or more inhuman could not have been urged.]
[Footnote B: See Appendix, E.]
Immediately after this achievement, the slaveholding interest was still more strongly fortified by the acquisition of Florida, and the establishment of slavery there, as it had already been in the territory of Louisiana. The Missouri triumph, however, seems to have extinguished every thing like a systematic or spirited opposition, on the part of the free states, to the pretensions of the slaveholding South.
Arkansas was admitted but the other day, with nothing that deserves to be called an effort to prevent it--although her Const.i.tution attempts to _perpetuate_ slavery, by forbidding the master to emanc.i.p.ate his bondmen without the consent of the Legislature, and the Legislature without the consent of the master. Emboldened, but not satisfied, with their success in every political contest with the people of the free states, the slaveholders are beginning now to throw off their disguise--to brand their former notions about the ”_evil_, political and moral” of slavery, as ”folly and delusion,”[A]--and as if to ”make a.s.surance double sure,”
and defend themselves forever, by territorial power, against the progress of Free principles and the renovation of the Const.i.tution, they now demand openly--scorning to conceal that their object is, to _advance and establish their political power in the country_,--that Texas, a foreign state, five or six times as large as all New England, with a Const.i.tution dyed as deep in slavery, as that of Arkansas, shall be added to the Union.
[Footnote A: Mr. Calhoun is reported, in the National Intelligencer, as having used these words in a speech delivered in the Senate, the 10th day of January:--
”Many in the South once believed that it [slavery] was a moral and political evil; that folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free inst.i.tutions in the world.”
Mr. Hammond, formerly a Representative in Congress from South Carolina, delivered a speech (Feb. 1, 1836) on the question of receiving pet.i.tions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In answering those who objected to a slaveholding country, that it was ”a.s.similated to an aristocracy,” he says--”In this they are right. I accept the terms. _It is a government of the best._ Combining all the advantages, and possessing but few of the disadvantages, of the aristocracy of the old world--without fostering, to an unwarrantable extent, the pride, the exclusiveness, the selfishness, the thirst for sway, the contempt for the rights of others, which distinguish the n.o.bility of Europe--it gives us their education, their polish, their munificence, their high honor, their undaunted spirit. Slavery does indeed create an aristocracy--an aristocracy of talents, of virtue, of generosity, of courage. In a slave country, every freeman is an aristocrat. Be he rich or poor, if he does not possess a single slave, he has been born to all the natural advantages of the society in which he is placed; and all its honors lie open before him, inviting his genius and industry. Sir, I do firmly believe, that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society, that has ever existed on the face of the earth.”
That this _retraxit_ of former _follies and delusions_ is not confined to the mere politician, we have the following proofs:--
The CHARLESTON (S.C.) UNION PRESBYTERY--”Resolved. That in the opinion of this Presbytery, the holding of slaves, so far from being a sin in the sight of G.o.d, is nowhere condemned in his holy word; that it is in accordance with the example, or consistent with the precepts, of patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; and that it is compatible with the most fraternal regard to the good of the servants whom G.o.d has committed to our charge.”--Within the last few months, as we learn from a late No.
of the Charleston Courier, the late Synod of the Presbyterian Church, in Augusta, (Ga.) pa.s.sed resolutions declaring ”That slavery is a CIVIL INSt.i.tUTION, with which the General a.s.sembly [the highest ecclesiastical tribunal] has NOTHING TO DO.”
Again:--The CHARLESTON BAPTIST a.s.sOCIATION, in a memorial to the Legislature of South Carolina, say--”The undersigned would further represent, that the said a.s.sociation does not consider that the Holy Scriptures have made the FACT of slavery a question of morals at all.”
And further,--”The right of masters to dispose of the time of their slaves, has been distinctly recognised by the Creator of all things.”
Again:--The EDGEFIELD (S.C.) a.s.sOCIATION--”Resolved, That the practical question of slavery, in a country where the system has obtained as a part of its stated policy, is settled in the Scriptures by Jesus Christ and his apostles.” ”Resolved, That these uniformly recognised the relation of master and slave, and enjoined on both their respective duties, under a system of servitude more degrading and absolute than that which obtains in our country.”
Again we find, in a late No. of the Charleston Courier, the following:--
”THE SOUTHERN CHURCH.--The Georgia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at a recent meeting in Athens, pa.s.sed resolutions, declaring that slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil, and is a civil and domestic inst.i.tution, with which Christian ministers have nothing to do, further than to meliorate the condition of the slave, by endeavoring to impart to him and his master the benign influence of the religion of Christ, and aiding both on their way to heaven.”]
The abolitionists feel a deep regard for the integrity and union of the government, _on the principles of the Const.i.tution_. Therefore it is, that they look with earnest concern on the attempt now making by the South, to do, what, in the view of mult.i.tudes of our citizens, would amount to good cause for the separation of the free from the slave states. Their concern is not mingled with any feelings of despair. The alarm they sounded on the ”annexation” question has penetrated the free states; it will, in all probability, be favorably responded to by every one of them; thus giving encouragement to our faith, that the admission of Texas will be successfully resisted,--that this additional stain will not be impressed on our national escutcheon, nor this additional peril brought upon the South.[A]
[Footnote A: See Appendix, F.]
This, the present condition of the country, induced by a long train of usurpations on the part of the South, and by unworthy concessions to it by the North, may justly be regarded as one of the events of the last few years affecting in some way, the measures of the abolitionists. It has certainly done so. And whilst it is not to be denied, that many abolitionists feel painful apprehensions for the result, it has only roused them up to make more strenuous efforts for the preservation of the country.
It may be replied--if the abolitionists are such firm friends of the Union, why do they persist in what must end in its rupture and dissolution? The abolitionists, let it be repeated _are_ friends of _the_ Union that was intended by the Const.i.tution; but not of a Union from which is eviscerated, to be trodden under foot, the right to SPEAK,--to PRINT--to PEt.i.tION,--the rights of CONSCIENCE; not of a Union whose ligaments are whips, where the interest of the oppressor is the _great_ interest, the right to oppress the _paramount_ right. It is against the distortion of the glorious Union our fathers left us into one bound with despotic bands that the abolitionists are contending. In the political aspect of the question, they have nothing to ask, except what the Const.i.tution authorizes--no change to desire, but that the Const.i.tution may be restored to its pristine republican purity.
But they have well considered the ”dissolution of the Union.” There is no just ground for apprehending that such a measure will ever be resorted to by the _South_. It is by no means intended by this, to affirm, that the South, like a spoiled child, for the first time denied some favourite object, may not fall into sudden frenzy and do herself some great harm. But knowing as I do, the intelligence and forecast of the leading men of the South--and believing that they will, if ever such a crisis should come, be judiciously influenced by the _existing_ state of the case, and by the _consequences_ that would inevitably flow from an act of dissolution--they would not, I am sure, deem it desirable or politic. They would be brought, in their calmer moments, to coincide with one who has facetiously, but not the less truly remarked, that it would be as indiscreet in the slave South to separate from the free North, as for the poor, to separate from the parish that supported them.
In support of this opinion, I would say:
First--A dissolution of the Union by the South would, in no manner, secure to her the object she has in view.--The _leaders_ at the South, both in the church and in the state, must, by this time, be too well informed as to the nature of the anti-slavery movement, and the character of those engaged in it, to entertain fears that, violence of any kind will be resorted to, directly or indirectly.[A] The whole complaint of the South is neither more nor less than this--THE NORTH TALKS ABOUT SLAVERY. Now, of all the means or appliances that could be devised, to give greater life and publicity to the discussion of slavery, none could be half so effectual as the dissolution of the Union _because of the discussion_. It would astonish the civilized world--they would inquire into the cause of such a remarkable event in its history;--the result would be not only enlarged _discussion_ of the whole subject, but it would bring such a measure of contempt on the guilty movers of the deed, that even with all the advantages of ”their education, their polish, their munificence, their high honor, their undaunted spirit,” so eloquently set forth by the Hon. Mr. Hammond, they would find it hard to withstand its influence. It is difficult for men in a _good_ cause, to maintain their steadfastness in opposition to an extensively corrupt public sentiment; in a _bad_ one, against public sentiment purified and enlightened, next to impossible, if not quite so.