The people of the United States had, in an unexceptionably legal and constitutional manner, chosen for their President an eminently conservative, cautious, moderate citizen, of blameless life and unambitious spirit, born in slaveholding Kentucky, but now resident in free Illinois, who held, with Jefferson and nearly all our Revolutionary sages and patriots, that Human Slavery is an evil which ought not to be diffused and strengthened in this Nineteenth Century of Christian light and love. Hereupon, the ruling oligarchy in certain States, who had done nothing to prevent, but much, indirectly yet purposely, to secure this result, resolved to rend the Republic into fragments, tearing their own fragment away from the residue. What should be done about it? The natural, obvious answer springs at once to every unquivering lip "Convince the disturbers that their only safe course is to desist and behave themselves. They might have had a President who is not a Republican, had they chosen having done their best to elect one who is, they must now accept the result they have contributed to insure, until the evolutions of four years shall bring around the opportunity for another, and, if they will, a more acceptable choice."

Far otherwise was the actual response of the Republic to her spoiled children, and their most unreasonably factious demonstration. Instead of treating their outbreak as culpable and flagrant disloyalty, to be rebuked, abandoned, repented, and desisted from, the first impulse from almost every side was to inquire on what terms and by what means they could

remaining peaceably in the Union.

This was but following in the beaten track. Vehement threats of secession and dissolution were among the established means whereby an aristocracy of less than one-tenth of the American people had for sixty years swayed, almost uninterruptedly, the destinies of the Nation. Why should they not again resort to the expedient which had so often proved effectual? Why should not the response be substantially the same now as it had hitherto been? And why should not those whose success furnished the pretext for this treason be charged with the evil, and inculpated as themselves the traitors?

Had not, for a generation, the upholding of a rule based on caste, and a denial to the humblest class of all political rights in half the Union, and of all social and civil, as well as political, rights in another third of it, been commended and glorified as Democracy?

Had not every assertion, however broad and general, of the right of each rational being to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," been stigmatized as Sectionalism?

Had not a simple adhesion to the policy of Jefferson and the fathers, as to Slavery in the Territories, been denounced as Radicalism, and as "making war on fifteen States ?"

Had not ravaging and subjugating foreign lands, with intent to curse them with human bondage, been glorified as "extending the area of Freedom?"

Had not the maintenance of the rights of constitutional majorities, and of the duty of universal submission to the popular will, constitutionally ascertained and declared, been stigma

353

And who could expect that half a century of such utter perversion of the plainest, least equivocal, most obvious terms, should not bear bitter fruit? The inebriate, who fancies the square in which he lives revolving about him, and gravely holds his latch-key in hand, waiting till his door shall in due order present itself, labors under substantially the same hallucination, and is usually certain to cherish it until he awakes to prosaic realities—to bruises, self-reproach, headache, and remorse.'

Nearly forty years ago, the great and good Channing, after listening to Benjamin Lundy, wrote to Mr. Webster in apprehension that the South would regard and resent any attempt at the North to promote or hasten

1 Von Muller, one of the present King of Prussia's grave and reverend councilors of state, in his younger and wittier days, celebrated this inversion of the perceptive faculties, in verses still popular in Germany, and which have been rendered into English, as follows:

"OUT OF THE TAVERN. "Out of the tavern I've just stepped to-night: Street! you are caught in a very bad plight; Right hand and left are both out of placeStreet! you are drunk !—'t is a very clear case! "Moon! 't is a very queer figure you cutOne eye is staring, whilst t' other is shut; Tipsy, I see; and you're greatly to blame: Old as you are, it is a terrible shame. "Then the street lamps-what a scandalous sight! None of them soberly standing upright; Rocking and swaggering-why, on my word, Each of the lamps is as drunk as a lord!

"All is confusion-now is n't it odd,
I am the only thing sober abroad?
Sure it were rash with this crew to remain;
Better go into the tavern again."

pelled by hostility or ill-will, though nothing was further from our intention. The good Doctor can scarcely have read with adequate attention, or at least not with the utmost profit, the urgent, impassioned adjurations of the demoniacs to the Saviour of mankind, for forbearance and 'nonintervention." "Let us alone," was their habitual entreaty: "What have we to do with thee?" "Art thou come to torment us before the time?" No delicacy of handling, no gentleness of treatment, could have pacified them: they must be left undisturbed and unobserved, or irritation and excitement were unavoidable.

Twenty or thirty years ago, there existed in Charleston, S. C., an association for social and intellectual enjoyment, known as joyment, known as 'The Wistar

the editor of a paper called 'The Genius of Universal Emancipation,' visited this part of the country to stir us up to the work of abolishing Slavery at the South; and the intention is to organize societies for this purpose. I know of few objects into which I should enter with more zeal; but I am aware how cautiously exertions are to be made for it in this part of the country. I know that our Southern brethren interpret every word from this region on the subject of Slavery as an expression of hostility. I would ask if they cannot be brought to understand us better, and if we can do any good till we remove their misapprehensions. It seems to me that, before moving in this matter, we ought to say to them distinctly: 'We consider Slavery as your calamity, not your crime; and we will share with you the burden of putting an end to it. We will consent that the public lands shall be appropriated to this object; or that the General Government shall be clothed with power to apply a portion of revenue to it.'

"I throw out these suggestions merely to illustrate my views. We must first let the Southern States see that we are their friends in this affair; that we sympathize with them, and, from principles of patriotism and philanthropy, are willing to share the toil and expense of abol

"BOSTON, May 14, 1828.

"MY DEAR SIR:-I wish to call your attention to a subject of general interest.

"A little while ago, Mr. Lundy, of Baltimore,

avail nothing. I am the more sensitive on this subject, from my increased solicitude for the preservation of the Union.. I know no public interest so important as this."-Webster's Works, vol V., p. 366.

Club.' Many, if not most, of the more intelligent and cultivated class belonged to it, and strangers of like breeding were freely invited to its weekly or bi-weekly meetings. It was its rule to select, at each gathering, some subject for conversational discussion at the next. At one of these meetings, the economic results of Slavery were incidentally brought into view; when the few remarks dropped from one and another developed a decided difference of opinion -the native Carolinians expressing a conviction that the institution' was profitable; while two or three members or guests of Northern birth indicated a contrary impression. Hereupon, some one asked, 'Why not select this as the topic for our next meeting?' 'Agreed!' was the unbroken response; and the point was settled. It was distinctly stipulated that no ethical, ethnological, religious, or other aspect of the main problem, should be considered-nothing but the simple, naked question-Is it economically advantageous to a community to hold slaves?' Hereupon, the assemblage quietly dissolved.

At the evening designated for the next regular meeting, the Yankee' members of the club were duly on hand, prepared and eager for the expected discussion; but not a Carolinian was present! Some old head had determined that no such discussion should take place at least, in Charleston and had given a hint which had operated as a command. Though the interest in the subject had seemed general at the last meeting, and the disposition to discuss it mutual and cordial, not a man now appeared to speak for Slavery. The "Yankees' enjoyed or endured each

other's society throughout the evening, sipped their coffee with due decorum, and dispersed at the proper hour, without an opportunity for discussion, leaving the proposed debate to stand adjourned over to the opening of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, in the year of grace 1861.

"Why can't you let Slavery alone?" was imperiously or querulously demanded at the North, throughout the long struggle preceding that bombardment, by men who should have seen, but would not, that Slavery never let the North alone, nor thought of so doing. "Buy Louisiana for us!" said the slaveholders. "With pleasure." "Now Florida!" "Certainly." Next: "Violate your treaties with the Creeks and Cherokees; expel those tribes from the lands they have held from time immemorial, so as to let us expand our plantations." "So said, so done." "Now for Texas!" "You have it." "Next, a third more of Mexico!" "Yours it is." "Now, break the Missouri Compact, and let Slavery wrestle with Free Labor for the vast region consecrated by that Compact to Freedom !" "Very good. What next?" "Buy us Cuba, for One Hundred to One Hundred and Fifty Millions." "We have tried; but Spain refuses to sell it.” wrest it from her at all hazards!" And all this time, while Slavery was using the Union as her catspawdragging the Republic into iniquitous wars and enormous expenditures, and grasping empire after empire thereby-Northern men (or, more accurately, men at the North) were constantly asking why people living in the Free States could not let Slavery alone, mind their own

"Then

355

The Slave Power, having resolved to destroy the Union-having taken decided steps to that end-several States having definitively seceded, or prepared to secede, from the Union, without giving the least intimation that they could be swerved from this purpose by any pledge or act whatever, on the part of the Free Stateswhat was the North to do?

"Let us try the virtue of new protestations, new prostrations, more groveling abasements," was the instinctive, urgent, unanimous response of that large portion of the politicians and traders of the Free States who had already reduced servility to a science. Without the least warrant, in defiance of the most explicit declarations, it was assumed that Secession was but a "strike" of the Slave Power for more complete, unresisted sway over the Union, rather than for utter and final escape from it.

Whoever has carefully considered the platforms and the action of the

'At a great public meeting held at Mobile, Alabama, November 15, 1860, a "Declaration of Causes," twenty-two in number, was put forth; from which we select the following:

"The following brief, but truthful history of the Republican party, its acts and purposes, affords an answer to these questions:

"It claims to abolish Slavery in the districts, forts, arsenals, dockyards, and other places ceded to the United States. To abolish the interState Slave-Trade, and thus cut off the Northern Slave States from their profits of production, and deprive the Southern of their sources of supply

of labor. * * *

"It has denied the extradition of murderers, marauders, and other felons.

"It has concealed and shielded the murderer of masters or owners, in pursuit of fugitive slaves. * * *

"It has advocated negro equality, and made it

1. By substantial acquiescence in the movement, and in its proposed result.

2. By proffering such new concessions and guarantees to Slavery as should induce the conspirators to desist from their purpose, and return to loyalty and the Union.

3. By treating it as Rebellion and Treason, and putting it down, if need be, by the strong arm.

4. By so acting and speaking as to induce a pause in the movement, and permit an appeal "to Philip sober"— from the South inflamed by passionate appeals and frenzied accusations, to the South, enlightened, calmed, and undeceived, by a few months of friendly, familiar discussion, and earnest expostulation.

The first of these alternatives had

few open advocates in the Free States; but there were some who even went the length of declaring Secession a constitutional right, to be exercised by any State whenever her own con

the ground of positive legislation, hostile to the Southern States.

"It opposes protection to Slave property on the high seas, and has justified piracy itself in the case of the Creole. * * *

*

*

*

"It has invaded Virginia, and shed the blood of her citizens on her own soil. "It has announced its purpose of total abolition in the States and everywhere, as well as in the territories, and districts, and other places ceded."

4 The New York Herald, of November 11, 1860, tion, and prospects of the city of New York, as closes a glowing picture of the growth, condifollows:

"If, however, Northern fanaticism should triumph over us, and the Southern States should exercise their UNDENIABLE RIGHT to secede from the Union, then the city of New York, the river counties, the State of New Jersey, and, very