Page images
PDF
EPUB

of that line, it determined that he still remained the property of his master who had brought him from the South. The Court held that the Constitution recognises the right of property in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen.' We thus see that the Supreme Court, Congress, the Republican party, and the President, had each, in their several spheres, hedged in the interests of the slave-owner, and given him every possible guarantee against any invasion of his rights. Is it then a delusion to suppose that slavery had anything to do with Secession? This we by no means say. It was one of the causes, but not in the manner or to the extent generally imagined. To understand this, we must consider the political bearings of the question, and this we cannot do without some knowledge of the history of the Union.

But a change took place. In 1808 the Slave-trade was forbidden. The Northern States were gradually ceasing to hold slaves, who, owing to the difference of soil and climate, were far less valuable there than in the South; and these slaves were in the great majority of cases not emancipated but sold to the Southern planters, who, having paid for them as property, naturally expected that as purchasers their title would be respected by the sellers. But new interests were springing up in the North, where the active industry of the people was creating manufactures to compete with broad-cloths of Yorkshire and the calicoes of Lancashire. We shall advert to this subject more fully by and by. Here we need only mention that these manufacturers were encouraged by highly protec tive duties, the burden of which fell almost exclusively on the inhabitants of the South, who were entirely agriculturists, who had no That Union consisted originally of thirteen manufacture of their own, and who were the States, of which one only-Massachusetts chief customers of the North. Their object was entirely free soil: in all the others was to get manufactures cheap in exchange slavery existed in a greater or less degree. for their cotton and sugar, and coffee and By the Constitution, each State sends to the tobacco. They therefore would gladly have Senate two members, whatever may be its seen the ports of the Union admit all that extent or population. New York and Rhode Europe would send them free of duty. The Island, Georgia and Vermont, are equally re-object of the Northern States was to make presented in the Upper House. In the House of Representatives it is different. There representation is in the ratio of population. Formerly it was one member for every 33,000 souls; it is now one for every 127,972. At first the South could have no fear that her interests would suffer from the Union. The richness and fertility of the soil, the enormous extent of territory then still unoccupied, seemed to promise for all future time superiority in wealth and power. Virginia took the lead in framing the Articles of Union. Alexander Hamilton, the ablest politician amongst the eminent men employed in the task, was a delegate from Virginia. The capital was within her boundaries, and so prolific was she in statesmen that she acquired the proud title of Mother of Presidents. At the beginning of the century Louisiana was purchased from France, and Florida was taken from Spain; so that the area of slavery was enormously increased, and the position of the South seemed to be impregnable.

It was not then dreamed that slavery would come to be regarded as a curse--a thing to be denounced as a crime in pulpits and on platforms. It was not foreseen that the course of supply would be dried up, and the importation of slaves from Africa-which was then as much a matter of course as the importation of manufactures from England-would become an act to which the feelings of mankind would be as much opposed as to piracy or murder.

foreign manufactures dear, and thereby force the South to buy from them. Thus the eommercial interests of the two great geographical divisions of the country became autagonistic; and this led to a struggle for political supremacy. Now here the element of slavery was of vital importance-pot as a social but a political question. The original number of the States was, as we have said, thirteen: before the outbreak of the civil war they were thirty-four. The increase was made from time to time as the tide of popu lation rolled on, and countries, which a few years before had for the first time echoed to the axe of the backwoodsman, assumed the dignity of organized States, and claimed admission into the Union. But each new State sent its two members to the Senate, and the balance of political power there would of course incline to the South or to the North, according as the majority of those States were slave holding or free-soil. It was the same in the House of Representatives, but not in the same degree. There, owing to the large proportion of members who were returned by the older and more thickly peopled States, the representatives of the new comers did not at first so materially alter the relative posi tions of the two parties. For a long time the South had the majority, but that majority began steadily to decrease. The rate of immigration into the Free States became more and more rapid, and as they became more

populous of course they returned more mem- | territory of the Northern free-soil States. bers. If the Slave States remained stationary, Again, the Irish famine occurred. It was or did not advance in the same ratio, it was now no longer the influx of emigrants, but clear that they must be beaten in the struggle: the exodus of a nation to the North. The and this the more certainly as the minimum population there became overpoweringly number taken as the standard of representa greater than in the South, and the ratio of tion was increased. For it is easily seen that members in the House of Representatives if that number is large, it may be impossible followed in the same proportion. The South for particular States, even although increas- struggled hard for the maintenance of its suing in numbers, to add a single unit to their premacy. The North had been unwilling to members, while others may be able to add extend the Missouri compromise to the West, several. Now what are the facts? We will for the effect of that would be to extend quote from Mr. Spence :slavery to every new State south of that line as far as the Pacific, and the South would not rest under it because it prevented slavery from extending northwards. The result was that in 1844 Mr. Douglas, representing the interests of the Slave States, carried the Nebraska Bill, whereby the principle of squatter sovereignty' was established; that is, each territory before its admission into the Union was to determine whether it recognized slavery or not; and, in the words of the Act, when admitted as a State or States the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their institutions may prescribe at the time of their admission.'

'Originally Virginia returned 10 members to 6 from New York: the proportions are nowVirginia 11 to New York 30. But this is not all. Virginia had at one time 23 members, now reduced to 11, although her population has increased, slowly indeed, but steadily, during the period. And South Carolina, which in the scheme of the Constitution stands for 5 in 65, or one-thirteenth of the representation, will re turn, under the last census, 4 out of 233, or onesixtieth part. Hence that State has now less than a quarter of the representative power it had when the Federal compact was framed-a compact entered into with the expectation of advantage from it.'

The consequence was that in 1820, when Missouri applied for admission into the Union, the relative numbers in the Senate were so equally balanced, that its admission as a slave-holding or a free-soil State would have turned the scale in favour of either the South or the North. It was this,' says Mr. Spence, which caused the desperate character of that struggle. The mere admission of a single State had been accepted with indifference before, when regarded merely as the admission of one to a number, but it had become the weight that was to turn the scale.' The contest ended in the well-known Missouri compromise, by which slavery was excluded from all the territory embraced in the acquisition of Louisiana north of a line coinciding with 36° 30' latitude.

[ocr errors]

But the decision in the Dred Scot case made this a dead letter. For the Supreme Court there decided that it was contrary to the Constitution to declare slavery illegal, and therefore beyond the competence of the legislative authority in any territory to probibit it. The question again assumed a practical form in the case of Kansas. We all know that this was made the battle-ground of the contending parties, and this not figuratively but literally; for civil war raged in the territory and blood flowed, because the minority in favour of slavery would not yield to the majority who wished to exclude it. We give no opinion as to which party was right in a constitutional point of view, nor stop to inquire with what show of justice or The next great struggle was as to the ad-reason the Slave States, which had carried mission of Texas. It was torn from Mexico by the South, as Florida had been torn from Spain. Let it be signified to me,' General Jackson had written to President Monroe, through any channel, that the possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty days it will be accomplished.' This seemed to be an important gain to the South, but mark the retribution that followed! The annexation of Texas led to a war with Mexico, and this to the extension of the Union to the shores of the Pacific: gold, apparently inexhaustible, was discovered in California, and an enormous tide of population flowed into the new El Dorado, and also into Oregon, adding immensely to the

the Nebraska Act, now practically repudiated it. Our object is to show the nature of the struggle, and the causes which led to the Secession.

No stronger proof can be given of the political character of the struggle between the South and the North, than that which at first sight appears to be entirely a social or commercial question-namely, the extension of slavery into new territories or States. For it would seem to be directly contrary to the interest of the cotton-planter and sugar-grower to bring fresh districts into competition with himself. He has now a monopoly of produc tion. Why should he wish others to share in it, and thus lower his profits? Can it be

possible that the agriculturist of Virginia or Georgia should desire New Mexico and Arizona to become slave-holding States, in order that they may produce cotton and sugar in rivalry with himself? Or is it the want of fresh soil that is felt, owing to the exhaustion of the old plantations, and is he obliged to look out for new fields of labour in which his slaves may be more profitably employed? Nothing of the kind. The planter of Virginia has no thought of transferring himself or his slaves to New Mexico, some thousand miles away. And how stand the facts as to the increase of slavery in the new districts? New Mexico has an area of 200,000 square miles, and at the end of ten years there are upon the territory twenty-two slaves, and of these only twelve are domiciled. And yet the area of New Mexico is four times as large as England. When, therefore, so little pains are taken to propagate slavery outside the circle of the existing Slave States, it cannot be that the extension of slavery is desired by the South on social or commercial grounds directly, and still less from any love for the thing itself for its own sake. But the value of New Mexico and Arizona politically is very great. In the Senate they would count as four votes, and their representatives in Congress could vote with the South or with the North according as they ranked in the cate gory of slave-holding or free-soil States.

Surely then these facts prove that it was not because slavery was in jeopardy that the South seceded from the North. Nor can the North pretend that she is fighting in the cause of humanity to remove the blot of slavery from the escutcheon of the Union. She was never more disposed to rivet the chains of bondage and render emancipation hopeless in those territories where alone slavery can exist for purposes of production, than at the very moment when she would have us believe that her zeal for the interests of the slaves was the cause of the alienation of the South.

But if this be so, the question naturally occurs, What was the cause of offence? How came the views of the South to be so opposed to those of the North that it determined at all hazards, and at any cost, to renounce partnership, and declare itself independent? Why was combined political action necessary in the case of all the Southern States to oppose the policy of the North? If slavery was not in danger, what else had they to fear? In the first place, the North and South did not really constitute one nation. In the next place, their commercial interests were in conflict. The North wished to foster its own manufactures by high protective tariffs, the burden of which fell chiefly on the

South; and that in two ways. First, because they were the largest consumers; and, secondly, because as producers they were unable to exchange their commodities with the manufactures of England to the same extent or advantage as if the duties on imports had been lower. When the Constitution was first framed the whole of the States were agricultural, and all manufactures were imported. The early tariffs were extremely moderate; the duties on manufactured goods varying from 5 to 7 per cent. The war with Great Britain in 1812-13 led to the introduction of home manufactures, but only in the North. With the return of peace came distress upon the newly-created interests, which had to struggle against competition with England. In 1816 a tariff of high pro tective duties was imposed, under which the manufactures of the North flourished at the expense of their Southern neighbours. Capital was attracted, and that branch of industry became more and more powerful in itself and influential in Congress. In 1823 a further large increase of duties was proposed. The Southern States strenuously opposed the measure; but they were beaten by narrow majorities of 107 to 102 in the House of Representatives, and 25 to 21 in the Senate. In 1828 the struggle was renewed; and on that occasion, in the course of debate, the following prophetic words were spoken by one of the members of the House of Representatives:

'If the union of these States shall ever be

severed, and their liberties subverted, the historian who records these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this description. I do sincerely believe that neither this Government, nor any free goverment, can exist for a quarter of a century under such a system of legislation.'

The tariff came again under revision in 1832. Owing to excessive protective duties, there was now so large a surplus of revenue that it became necessary to reduce them. But the Northern States were determined that their manufactures should be favoured at the expense of other commodities. The South protested against this injustice, but in vain. The new tariff passed, and was so flagrantly unfair that a convention was summoned in South Carolina, which passed an ordinance declaring it null and void, on the ground that Congress had exceeded its just powers under the Constitution. The danger was so imminent that the North now yielded to fear what it had refused to grant to justice. News arrived that South Carolina was calling out her militia, and preparing for war. Upon this a measure was hastily introduced and rapidly passed, by which a large though gra

dual reduction of duties on manufactures was effected.. South Carolina was appeased, and the peril for the moment passed away.

6

importance of slavery in a political point of view. It was not from any admiration of the thing in itself, nor from a desire to create In 1842, owing to the impoverished state competition with themselves, but in order to of the exchequer, which arose chiefly from a gain votes in the Senate and the House of reduction in the income derivable from the Representatives that they battled so despesale of public lands, the duties were again rately for the admission into the Union of raised. This is known as the Morrill Tariff; new territories as slave-holding and not as and, to quote the words of Mr. Spence, from free-soil States. But it would be idle to deny that day to this the fiscal system of the Uni- that the tone adopted by the North on the ted States has been continuously protective, to subject of slavery exasperated the South, the profit of Northern manufactures at the cost even whent here was the least ground for of the Southern agriculturist. For the South-fear that legislative protection to their proern States are the great exporters of the Union. perty would be withdrawn. Books, sermons, Our imports from them have reached thirty mil-speeches-a whole flood of literature was lions a-year. They wish to receive our earthenware, woollens, and calico in exchange; but the North does all in its power to exclude them by a high and most complicated tariff, in order to protect its own manufactures. We need not here discuss the question of free trade and protection. It is beside our purpose at present to say anything as to the policy or impolicy of such a system in a commercial point of view; but it is all-important to remember that the whole of the South was, without exception, opposed to these duties, and their interest was diametrically against such legislation. It enhanced the price of that which they had to buy, and diminished the exchangeable value of that which they had to sell. We will quote a passage from Coleridge's Table Talk,' p. 230, to show the view taken of the conduct of the Northern States, as far back as 1833, by one of the deepest thinkers of this century-a man who felt no interest in party questions, except in so far as they involved some principle of importance. After showing that taxation may, without being unfair, press unequally, or apparently so, on different classes in a State, he goes on to say: 'But when New England, which may be considered a State in itself, taxes the admission of foreign manufactures in order to cherish manufactures of its own, and thereby forces the Carolinians, another State of itself, with which there is little intercommunion, which has no such desire or interest to serve, to buy worse articles at a higher price, it is altogether a different question, and is, in fact, downright tyranny of the worst, because of the most sordid kind.'

[blocks in formation]

directed against slavery, and the cotton-
planters were held up to public execration as
beings who were a disgrace to humanity.
The Abolitionists preached a crusade against
the Southerner in language which made the..
blood boil in his veins. God forbid that we
should say a word in favour of slavery: it is
a horrible evil, and England has no deeper.
cause for self-gratulation than the pecuniary
sacrifices she made to shake off the pollution
from her for ever. But it is impossible to
deny that it would be an atrocious wrong to
deprive forcibly the planter of his property
without compensation. What then must have
been his feelings to hear himself threatened
with spoliation, and his name associated with
infamy? If the efforts of the Abolitionists
have had no other effect, they have done this:
they have produced an intensity of hatred in
the South which, added to the sense of injury
from hostile tariffs, made its continuance in
the Union, except under compulsion, impos-
sible. Men will not remain in partnership who
detest each other, and who have each sufficient
capital to set up business for themselves. If
the subject had been approached in a more
conciliatory manner, the result might have
been different. All that the planter heard
of from the abolitionist was a denial of his
right, and the only plan for making him re-
linquish his property was confiscation.

It is remarkable that no feasible scheme for extinguishing slavery has yet been proposed by the North. The obvious mode is compensation. We are not now considering the question of what would become of the Blacks themselves, and what would be their destiny if suddenly emancipated. We confine ourselves solely to the question of property. We never yet heard of a deliberate plan for buying up all the negroes. Perhaps the Abolitionists were appalled at the magnitude of the sum, for, taking the number of negro slaves according to the last census at four millions, and averaging their value at six hundred dollars a head, which is not a high figure, the amount of compensation required

The

would be five hundred millions of pounds ster-will never be obliterated, and every irritation ling! Here, by the way, we must observe, will make it deeper and deeper. that the expenditure of the first year of the Northern States had 183 votes, the Southern, if war is computed at two hundred millions, the North chose to act in a mass, its power unanimous, 120. Hence it was plain that if and that payments in specie have already was irresistible. At last it did act in a mass. been suspended. But surely, if the North is Upon that event political power departed from as sincere in its hatred of slavery as we are the South, and departed for ever. asked to believe, we might expect something Looking at the election of Mr. Lincoln from an to be done for its extinction in cases where European point of view, it was an ordinary, an the process would be easy and the pecuniary insignificant event; looking at it as seen by the cost small. The little state of Delaware has Southerner, it was the knell of the departing indeless than 1800 slaves. The district of Co-pendence and welfare of this portion of the Conlumbia which surrounds Washington, and which, as the seat of the Government of the United States, is placed by the Constitution under the exclusive control of Congress, without the possibility of any question of State rights being raised, contains 3181 slaves. Why are not these districts purged from the black stain of slavery? The conduct of the white inhabitants of the North to

the poor negro, or any one tainted with his blood, is thoroughly unchristian. They consider contact contamination. It was only the other day that we saw a petition from the coloured citizens of Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love,' praying to be allowed to ride in the passenger cars. It is not then surprising that the South is tempted to regard the clamour of the North against slavery as something very like hypocrisy, and to resent with bitterness a cry which it knows to be injurious and believes to be insincere.

. But it may now be asked, Why was the election of Mr. Lincoln as President the turning point of the struggle? what was there in that event so intolerable to the South that it rushed at once into secession ? We have seen that he was prepared to give slavery more protection than it had ever before enjoyed; and at first sight it would seem a most unjustifiable act for half a continent to plunge into civil war because its own candidate was beaten in an election struggle -to draw the sword because it was defeated by the ballot-box. It was not the first time that the Southern States had been obliged to accept a President from the North, and had lost the man of their own choice. But they did not in angry disappointment break up the Union. We cannot answer the question better than in the words of Mr. Spence :

"Because for the first time in the history of the United States the election of the President was purely geographical; it was not a defeat at the hands of a party, but at those of the Northern power. It was an act which severed North from South as with the clean cut of a knife.

Upon such a division Jefferson remarked long ago; a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men,

tinent.'

But besides slavery and commercial tariffs, and altogether independent of any conflict of interests, sooner or later Secession was inevi table. The Federal Republic contained within itself the germ of its own destruction. It was not a homogeneous whole, but was made up of incongruous parts, the cohesion of which was sure to be in the inverse ratio of their size. A mass so composed will break by its own weight. The population of the Union at the date of the Constitution was not so great as the population of Scotland at the present day. Now the population is more than thirty-one millions; the number of States is thirty-four; and the territory embraced is so enormous that it is difficult for the imagination to realise it. The valley of the Mississippi alone can contain and support a population equal to that of Europe. The Union stretched from Canada to Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It comprised States, some of which were larger than most European kingdoms. And the idea of their separate independence was carefully fostered by their institutions: each had its mimic Congress, its Governor, its own taxation, its own militia, its own laws. As they grew in numbers and importance, they would necessarily become more and more impatient of external control, and unwilling to submit to legislation by others which they might think adverse to their interests. The centrifugal force was becoming year by year stronger than the centripetal; and we know that in dynamics the result is, that the revolving body flies off at a tangent. The event was long foreseen. Even Washington had foreboding fears that the extent of the thirteen original States-a mere seaboard of the Atlantic-was too great for permanent union. He hardly dared to look into the future. 'Let experience,' he said,

solve the question; to look to speculation in such a case were criminal.' Jefferson wrote thus: I have been amongst the most sanguine in believing that the Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much, and see the event at no great distance.' Curtis, in his History of the Constitution,'

« PreviousContinue »