Volume II Part 71 (1/2)
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.
[Footnote A: ”It is not,” says Mr. Calhoun, ”that we expect the abolitionists will resort to arms--will commence a crusade to deliver our slaves by force.”--”Let me tell our friends of the South, who differ from us, that the war which the abolitionists wage against us is of a very different character, and _far more effective_. It is waged, not against our lives, but our character.” More correctly, Mr. C. might have said against a _system_, with which the slaveholders have chosen to involve their characters, and which they have determined to defend, at the hazard of losing them.]
Another result would follow the dissolution:--_Now_, the abolitionists find it difficult, by reason of the odium which the princ.i.p.al slaveholders and their friends have succeeded in attaching to their _name_, to introduce a knowledge of their principles and measures into the great ma.s.s of southern mind. There are mult.i.tudes at the South who would co-operate with us, if they could be informed of our aim.[A] Now, we cannot reach them--then, it would be otherwise. The united power of the large slaveholders would not be able longer to keep them in ignorance. If the Union were dissolved, they _would_ know the cause, and discuss it, and condemn it.
[Footnote A: There is abundant evidence of this. Our limits confine us to the following, from the first No. of the Southern Literary Journal, (Charleston, S.C.):--”There are _many good men even among us_, who have begun to grow _timid_. They think, that what the virtuous and high-minded men of the North look upon as a crime and a plague-spot, cannot be perfectly innocent or quite harmless in a slaveholding community.”
This, also, from the North Carolina Watchman:--
”It (the abolition party) is the growing party at the North. We are inclined to believe that there is even more of it at the South than prudence will permit to be openly avowed.”
”It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that there is a LARGE, RESPECTABLE and INTELLIGENT PARTY in Kentucky, who will exert every nerve and spare no efforts to dislodge the subsisting rights to our Slave population, or alter in some manner, and to some extent, at least, the tenure by which that species of property is held.”--_Speech of the Hon. James T.
Morehead in the Kentucky Legislature, last winter_.]
A second reason why the South will not dissolve the Union is, that she would be exposed to the visitation of _real_ incendiaries, exciting her slaves to revolt. Now, it would cover any one with infamy, who would stir them up to vindicate their rights by the ma.s.sacre of their masters.
Dissolve the Union, and the candidates for ”GLORY” would find in the plains of Carolina and Louisiana as inviting a theatre for their enterprise, as their prototypes, the Houstons, the Van Rennsselaers, and the Sutherlands did, in the prairies of Texas or the forests of Canada.
A third reason why the South will not dissolve is, that the slaves would leave their masters and take refuge in the free states. The South would not be able to establish a _cordon_ along her wide frontier sufficiently strong to prevent it. Then, the slaves could not be reclaimed, as they now are, under the Const.i.tution. Some may say, the free states would not permit them to come in and dwell among them.--Believe it not. The fact of separation on the ground supposed, would abolitionize the whole North. Beside this, in an economical point of view, the _demand for labor_ in the Western States would make their presence welcome. At all events, a pa.s.sage through the Northern States to Canada would not be denied them.
A fourth reason why the South will not dissolve is, that a large number of her most steady and effective population would emigrate to the free states. In the slave-_selling_ states especially, there has always been a cla.s.s who have consented to remain there with their families, only in the hope that slavery would, in some way or other, be terminated. I do not say they are abolitionists, for many of them are slaveholders. It may be, too, that such would expect compensation for their slaves, should they be emanc.i.p.ated, and also that they should be sent out of the country. The particular mode of emanc.i.p.ation, however crude it may be, that has occupied their minds, has nothing to do with the point before us. _They look for emanc.i.p.ation--in this hope they have remained, and now remain, where they are_. Take away this hope, by making slavery the _distinctive bond of union_ of a new government, and you drive them to the North. These persons are not among the rich, the voluptuous, the effeminate; nor are they the despised, the indigent, the thriftless--they are men of moderate property, of intelligence, of conscience--in every way the ”bone and sinew” of the South.
A fifth reason why the South will not dissolve, is her _weakness_. It is a remarkable fact, that in modern times, and in the Christian world, all slaveholding countries have been united with countries that are free.
Thus, the West Indian and Mexican and South American slaveholding colonies were united to England, France, Spain, Portugal, and other states of Europe. If England (before her Emanc.i.p.ation Act) and the others had at any time withdrawn the protection of their _power_ from their colonies, slavery would have been extinguished almost simultaneously with the knowledge of the fact. In the West Indies there could have been no doubt of this, from the disparity in numbers between the whites and the slaves, from the multiplied attempts made from time to time by the latter to vindicate their rights by insurrection, and from the fact, that all their insurrections had to be suppressed by the _force_ of the mother country. As soon as Mexico and the South American colonies dissolved their connexion with Spain, slavery was abolished in every one of them. This may, I know, be attributed to the necessity imposed on these states, by the wars in which they engaged to establish their independence. However this may be--the _fact_ still remains. The free states of this Union are to the slave, so far as the maintenance of slavery is concerned, substantially, in the relation of the European states to their slaveholding colonies. Slavery, in all probability, could not be maintained by the South disjoined from the North, a single year. So far from there existing any reason for making the South an exception, in this particular, to other slave countries, there are circ.u.mstances in her condition that seem to make her dependence more complete. Two of them are, the superior intelligence of her slaves on the subject of human rights, and the geographical connexion of the slave region in the United States. In the West Indies, in Mexico and South America the great body of the slaves were far below the slaves of this country in their intellectual and moral condition--and, in the former, their power to act in concert was weakened by the insular fragments into which they were divided.
Again, the depopulation of the South of large numbers of its white inhabitants, from the cause mentioned under the fourth head, would, it is apprehended, bring the two cla.s.ses to something like a numerical equality. Now, consider the present state of the moral sentiment of the Christianized and commercial world in relation to slavery; add to it the impulse that this sentiment, acknowledged by the South already to be wholly opposed to her, would naturally acquire by an act of separation on her part, with a single view to the perpetuation of slavery; bring this sentiment in all its acc.u.mulation and intensity to act upon a nation where one half are enslavers, the other the enslaved--and what must be the effect? From the nature of mind; from the laws of moral influence, (which are as sure in their operation, if not so well understood, as the laws of physical influence,) the party ”whose conscience with injustice is oppressed,” must become dispirited, weakened in courage, and in the end unnerved and contemptible. On the other hand, the sympathy that would be felt for the oppressed--the comfort they would receive--the encouragement that would be given them to a.s.sert their rights, would make it an impossibility, to keep them in slavish peace and submission.
This state of things would be greatly aggravated by the peculiarly morbid sensitiveness of the South to every thing that is supposed to touch her _character_. Her highest distinction would then become her most troublesome one. How, for instance, could her chivalrous sons bear to be taunted, wherever they went, on business or for pleasure, out of their own limits, with the cry ”the knights of the las.h.!.+” ”Go home and pay your laborers!” ”Cease from the scourging of husbands and wives in each others presence--from attending the shambles, to sell or buy as slaves those whom G.o.d has made of the same blood with yourselves--your brethren--your sisters! Cease, high minded sons of the 'ANCIENT DOMINION,' from estimating your revenue by the number of children you rear, to sell in the flesh market!” ”Go home and pay your laborers!” ”Go home and pay your laborers!” This would be a trial to which ”southern chivalry” could not patiently submit. Their ”high honor,” their ”undaunted spirit” would impel them to the field--only to prove that the ”last resort” requires something more substantial than mere ”honor” and ”spirit” to maintain it. Suppose there should be a disagreement--as in all likelihood there soon would, leading to war between the North and the South? The North would scarcely have occasion to march a squadron to the field. She would have an army that could be raised up by the million, at the fireside of her enemy. It has been said, that during the late war with England, it was proposed to her cabinet, by some enterprising officers, to land five thousand men on the coast of South Carolina and proclaim liberty to the slates. The success of the scheme was well thought of. But then the example! England herself held nearly a million of slaves at no greater distance from the scene of action than the West Indies. _Now_, a restraint of this kind on such a scheme does not exist.
It seems plain beyond the power of argument to make it plainer, that a slaveholding nation--one under the circ.u.mstances in which the South separated from the North would be placed--must be at the mercy of every free people having neither power to vindicate a right nor avenge a wrong.[A]
[Footnote A: Governor Hayne, of South Carolina, spoke in high terms, a few years ago, of the ability that the South would possess, in a military point of view, because her great wealth would enable her, at all times, to command the services of mercenary troops. Without stopping to dispute with him, as to her comparative wealth, I would remark, that he seemed entirely to have overlooked this truth--that whenever a government is under the necessity of calling in foreign troops, to keep in subjection one half of the people, the power of the government has already pa.s.sed into the hands of the _Protectors_. They can and will, of course, act with whichever party will best subserve their purpose.]
A sixth reason why the South will not dissolve the Union, is found in the difficulty of bringing about an _actual_ separation. Preparatory to such a movement, it would seem indispensable, that _Union_ among the seceding states themselves should be secured. A General Convention would be necessary to adjust its terms. This would, of course, be preceded by _particular_ conventions in the several states. To this procedure the same objection applies, that has been made, for the last two or three years, to holding an anti-abolition convention in the South:--It would give to the _question_ such notoriety, that the object of holding the convention could not be concealed from the slaves. The more sagacious in the South have been opposed to a convention; nor have they been influenced solely by the consideration just mentioned--which, in my view, is but of little moment--but by the apprehension, that the diversity of sentiment which exists among the slave states, themselves, in relation to the _system_, would be disclosed to the country; and that the slaveholding interest would be found deficient in that harmony which, from its perfectness heretofore, has made the slaveholders so successful in their action on the North.