Page images
PDF
EPUB

66

and in foreign ports, was a southern measure; that the war with Great Britain, which swept almost all our ships from the ocean, was forced on the country by fiery southern statesmen; that the tariff at the close of the war, was the measure of southern men, when it was believed that one effect of it would be to prevent the revival of commerce, and the growth of northern cities; that when northern capital became invested in manufactures, and it was found that the free states would flourish, southern politicians changed their course, became so furious that they would go far to kick a sheep," and would not be easy till the protective policy was abandoned for a strictly revenue tariff; that Louisiana was purchased, partly for the purpose of extending the domain of slavery, and increasing the power of the slave states in Congress; that Florida, Texas, and California, Utah and New Mexico, were obtained for the same purpose, at the dictation, and by the leading advocacy of southern men; that the Seminole war was waged to break up a refuge of men who escaped from oppression, and that Missouri was brought into the Union, as a slave state, by southern influence. We might continue the list, but will only refer to the measures which they have opposed, because they were supposed to be in favor of the North. Slavery was kept out of, or excluded from, the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, in spite of the efforts of southern men under the lead of Mr. Jefferson. The leaders of the war of 1812 took care that Canada should not be added to the free side of the Union; and the same policy abandoned a vast territory lying at the north of Oregon, lest the power of the free states should increase. A similar horror of facts is shown in the statement, repeated as if of unquestioned verity-that the slave trade was continued until 1808 by the northern states, in spite of the opposition of Virginia. This grave charge lays the blame of the continuance of the slave trade on the northern states, and loads them with the guilt of increasing the number of slaves in the United States at the present time, "by at least three hundred thousand," yet every tyro in our history knows that the slave trade was allowed simply because it could not be stopped. The states before the adoption of the Constitution had exclusive power over the subject, and two or three of the extreme southern states refused to come into the Union, on any practicable basis, unless the trade in slaves should be permitted to go on until the year 1808. This was one of the cases where northern men yielded to southern bluster, or were cajoled, like some in more recent times, by southern flattery; but it is a violation of the truth of history, and a foul charge of wickedness against 6

VOL. XIII.

the North to say that the continuance of the slave trade until 1808 is to be charged to its public men, since every one of these states had already passed laws against that nefarious traffic. It is true that Virginia voted against the continuance of the slave trade; for which two reasons can be given, without ascribing to her unparalleled magnanimity, or love of freedom. In the first place, it is just possible that she knew what the threats of the more southern states were worth, and despised them; and secondly, the abolition of the African slave trade would increase the value of every slave in her borders. She already had a surplus slave population, which "naturally flowed off" into sparser settlements. Her revenue, even then, was in a measure derived from the sale of slaves; and the arrival of a cargo of human chattels from Africa, lessened the cash value of her human property.

But this is not all; the perfidy of the South in the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, is palliated by our author, on the plea that the repeal was proffered to the South, as a boon, by northern men. He says, page 127: "We cannot wonder that southern politicians caught at it, when offered to them by northern men, as affording a defense to slavery at home against the North. What had the South done to injure us, except through our sensibilities on the subject of slavery? What have we done to her, but admonish, threaten, and indict her before God, excommunicate her, stir up insurrection among her slaves, endanger her homes, make her Christians and Ministers odious in other lands? And now that she has availed herself of a northern measure for her defense, we are ready to move the country from its foundations!" We know not how to characterize such statements, without the use of strong terms; but we leave them to the indignation of our readers, with the simple remark, that the originator of this measure, as he himself claims, is a senator from Missouri, while its principal champion in the Senate is the owner of a large plantation stocked with slaves in Mississippi, and that the measure was supported, in almost unbroken phalanx, by the South in Congress, because it was hoped that it would open the territory to the ingress of slavery! And yet the South, meek, fraternal, and unambitious, only took the measure, as a boon from the North!

Our author, considering his former strong anti-slavery feelings, has suffered his indignation against anti-slavery men to run suddenly to a great height. In the first place, they are charged, without a particle of evidence, with sending incendiary pictures to the South, for the purpose of stirring up opposi tion to slavery, and endangering the stability of the system.

Then the Liberty party is accused of having brought Texas into the Union. We had almost forgotten this stale charge, but on refreshing our memory, find the facts to have been as follows. Mr. Birney and his friends always claimed that he drew as many votes from Mr. Polk as from Mr. Clay, in the state of New York, on whose decision the election turned. Whether this is true or otherwise, Mr. Clay destroyed his own prospects in New York by his letter to a gentleman in Alabama, which was understood to be in favor of annexation, and thus lost his election. And finally, Mr. Tyler secured the annexation of Texas before Mr. Polk became President. The defunct Liberty party has no special claims upon us; yet let us be just and vindicate the truth of history. But this is not the extent of the mischief arising from the interference of abolitionists. They, it seems, have caused the friends of emancipation in the South, to relax their efforts for the freedom of the slaves; they defeated the abolition of slavery in Virginia, by the Convention of 1830; they put back the good cause. "A great change very soon came over the South. Remonstrances from among themselves, legislative measures, free, earnest discussions of slavery, all tending to its removal, as soon as the best method could be determined, were suddenly hushed." p. 106. This is the old story of those who find fault with everything that has been done at the North, to remove the curse of slavery from our nation. Is there any truth in it? We have conversed with many large slaveholders, respecting the proceedings of the Virginia Convention. To the question, " did you not come near to emancipation in 1830?" The answer was, "You refer to our Convention. No; there was a large party in favor of gradual emancipation; but it could not be carried. Even if it had been, the result would have been the same. The measure would have been resisted by the planters with the force of arms." This was said by a large slaveholder, a member of Congress from Virginia, and a man who knew intimately, the sentiments of slaveholders. The fact is, that the public have been deluded in respect to this matter. There was a strong party in Virginia in favor of emancipation, chiefly from the west and middle of the state; but it was voted down. It never possessed but a small portion of the wealth and influence of the state; and the anti-slavery feeling died out in a measure, under the influence of the growing cotton cultivation. This solution of the question does not suit our author. He says, pp. 106-7, that "this phenomenon is strangely accounted for, on the part of many at the North, by saying that about

this time the cotton interest assumed very great importance, and the anti-slavery feeling at the South was therefore suppressed. He who believes this, makes an imputation which hardly does credit to his knowledge of human nature; it certainly reflects too much upon the Christian character of a community distinguished for intellectual and moral excellences;" and more of the same sort. In reply to this, we will give a brief extract from the famous 7th of March Speech of Mr. Webster, and then leave the annihilating contempt of our author to fall upon him. Says Mr. W., "What then have been the causes which have created so new a feeling in favor of slavery in the South, which have changed the whole nomenclature of the South on that subject, so that, from being thought of and described in the terms I have mentioned, and will not repeat, it has now become an institution, a cherished institution, in that quarter; no evil, no scourge, but a great religious, social, and moral blessing, as I think I have lately heard it spoken of? I suppose this, sir, is owing to the rapid growth and sudden extension of the cotton plantations of the South. * *The age of cotton became the golden age with our southern brethren. It gratified their desire for improvement and accumulation, at the same time that it excited it. The desire grew by what it fed upon, and there soon came to be an eagerness for new territory, a new area, or new areas, for the cultivation of the cotton crop; and measures leading to this result were brought about rapidly, one after another, under the lead of southern men !"

It could not be expected that the "fanaticism" of anti-slavery men would escape reproach in a work of this nature. Accordingly, we find the following choice bit on the 128th page: "Whatever our repugnance to slavery may be, there is a law of the land, a Constitution, to which we must submit, or employ suitable means to change it. While it remains, all our appeals to a higher law' are fanaticism." This is going to the extent of the atheistic politicians, for our readers will observe that the position is, that "all our appeals to a 'higher law' are fanaticism, while we have a law of the land, and a Constitution." In other words, it is fanaticism to resist government, under any circumstances, where it proceeds according to law. The advocates of the "higher law" believe there are certain cases where it is the duty of the people to rise in rebellion, and overthrow the government. This is the sacred right of revolution, and far more to be valued than any particular form of government. They also believe that there are cases, not calling for rebellion, nor for forcible resistance, in which good men are conscientiously bound to withhold all coöperation in the execution

of a wicked law, and quietly take the consequences. This is sometimes called passive resistance. Both these positions are maintained by all public writers, except the tools of tyrants, and by the great mass of divines. We have looked over several bodies of divinity, as a matter of curiosity, and been delighted to find how nearly unanimous are the minds that have studied Bible principles, on this subject. The General Associations of Connecticut and Massachusetts, a few years since, took the same ground, and placed themselves squarely on the "higher law." Of course they are fanatical, but they have the consolation of being sustained by our author; for inconsistent as it may seem, we find him on page 135, talking in this hazardous way: "If called upon by a sheriff to aid in capturing a fugitive of any description, I have a right to decide whether I will not refuse, and abide the penalty of a refusal." Inconsistency is the necessary result of taking a wrong principle. In the days of James II, the advocates of despotism and the enemies of the "higher law," maintained the absolute authority of the government, and the duty of the subject to obey, in all cases whatsoever; and yet they deserted that tyrant in a mass, when he went a little too far to please them. An anecdote is told illustrating the "fanaticism" and the morality of the ultra opponents of a "higher law." A jacobite lady was disputing with a liberal wit, when to test the strength of her principles, he put the question: "Suppose the king should command you to be his mistress; would you feel bound to sub:nit, and give up your husband, in spite of the commandment of God?" The lady was afraid she would be obliged to comply with the royal command. "But suppose he should require you to attend a presbyterian conventicle; would you do it?" With an eye flashing fire, she replied, "No, I'd die first."

There is considerable dogmatizing on the subject of the Constitution, in which the fact that many able men believe the Constitution contains no provisions respecting fugitive slaves, is ignored entirely; as well as the other fact, that a larger number, including Mr. Webster, deny that the Constitution gives to Congress any power to pass a law on the subject of fugitive slaves; and also that a still larger number believe the present law unconstitutional. Justice requires us to say, however, that our author thinks "some obnoxious features in the present fugitive slave law" ought to be repealed. What these features are is not very distinctly stated; but we suppose he refers to those by which a person claimed to be a slave, is deprived of a fair chance to prove his freedom. We should have passed this chapter without notice, however, except for the lecture given, obiter, near

« PreviousContinue »