CHARACTER OF THE SLAVE POWER.

63

exists in the Northern States; but, whatever be the merits or demerits of that form of government, it is desirable that it should be judged by its own fruits, and not by the fruits of a system which is its opposite -a system which, in place of conferring political power on the majority of the people, gives it, free from all control, to a small minority whose interests are not only not identical with those of their fellow-citizens, but directly opposed to theirs. Democracy, beyond all doubt, has been a powerful influence in moulding the character of the Americans in the Northern States; it would be absurd to deny this; but it would be no less absurd, and would be still more flagrantly in defiance of the most conspicuous facts of the case, to deny that that character has also been profoundly modified by the influence of Southern institutions, acting through the Federal government, in the persons of Southern men-institutions which I repeat are the reverse of democratic. It is the Slave Power, and not the democracy of the North, which for half a century has been dominant in the Union. It is this Power which has directed its public policy; which has guided its intercourse with foreign nations, conducted its diplomacy, regulated its internal legislation, and which, by working on its hopes and fears through the unscrupulous use of an enormous patronage, has exercised an unbounded sway over the minds of the whole people. Whatever other agencies may have contributed to shape the course of American politics, this at least has been a leading one; and whatever be the political character of the citizens, for that character this system must be held in a principal degree responsible.

To sum up in a few words the general results of the foregoing discussion: the Slave Power-that power which has long held the helm of government in the Union-is, under the forms of a democracy, an uncontrolled despotism, wielded by a compact oligarchy. Supported by the labour of four millions of slaves, it rules a population of five millions of whites-a population ignorant, averse to systematic industry, and prone to irregular adventure. A system of society more formidable for evil, more menacing to the best interests of the human race, it is difficult to conceive.

64

IN WHAT DIRECTION MOVING?

CHAPTER IV.

TENDENCIES OF SLAVE SOCIETIES.

In what direction is slave society, as presented in the States of the Confederation, moving? Towards a higher civilization, or towards barbarism? On the answer to this question, I apprehend, will principally depend the degree of indulgence which we may be disposed to extend to modern slavery. If the form of society springing from the institution be found to be but an incident of a certain stage of human progress, a shell of barbarism from which nations gradually work themselves free with the development of their moral and material life, an evil which will disappear by a spontaneous process-we shall probably be disposed to regard the institution with considerable leniency, to deprecate schemes for its overthrow, and, perhaps, in certain cases, even to look with favour on plans for its extension. If, on the other hand, it appear that the system is essentially retrograde in its character, contrived so as to arrest and throw back the development, moral and material, of the people on whom it is imposed, and to hold them in a condition of permanent barbarism, the sentiments with which we shall regard it, as well as our policy towards the countries which uphold it, will be of a very different kind.

Thus, to give the point a practical illustration, the mode of dealing with Mexico is at present a most perplexing question for European statesmen. In the present condition of that country-the prey of contending factions, whose alternate excesses prevent the growth of steady industry, deter European settlement, and deprive the world of the benefit which its great natural resources are calculated to confer-almost any change would be a change for the better. The establishment of an effective government of some kind, of a power capable of preserving the lives and properties of the inhabitants, is a matter of prime necessity, without which the first foundations of improvement cannot be laid. Now the most obvious method of effecting this purpose would be to hand the country over to the Southern Confederation;* and this arrangement would entirely fall in with the views of the leaders of that body. But Mexico, whatever be the vices of its political sys

*This is not a mere fanciful hypothesis. The plan has been suggested in terms sufficiently unambiguous by the Times. See a leading article of the Times, 31st July, 1861.

TENDENCIES OF SLAVE SOCIETIES.

65 tem, is a state in which labour is free; whereas, if annexed to the dominions of the Southern Confederation, it would at once become the abode of slavery. Nevertheless it can scarcely be doubted that this annexation would, in the first instance, be attended with some advantages. For the chieftains whose combined weakness and violence now keep the country in constant agitation there would be substituted a strong government -a government incompatible, indeed, with freedom of speech or writing, or with security of life or property for such as ventured to dissent from its principles, but still able to preserve order after a certain fashion-able to protect slaveholders in the enjoyment of their property, and to prevent revolutions. Under such a government productive industry might be expected to start forward with vigour; those products which are capable of being raised with profit by slave labour, and amongst these cotton, would be multiplied and cheapened in the markets of the world; the position of Mexican bondholders would be improved. Such would probably be the immediate effect of the annexation. But what would be its permanent consequences? To answer this question we must resolve the problem with which we started. We must determine the direction in which society in the Southern States is moving. If the "peculiar institution" be essentially temporary and provisional in its character, if it be not incompatible with the ultimate emancipation of those on whom it is imposed, as well as with the continued progress of the people among whom it is established, then the permanent as well as immediate consequences of the extension of Southern rule over Mexico, notwithstanding that it would be attended with the introduction of slavery into a country where labour at present is free, might perhaps be thought to be, on the whole, advantageous. But, if the institution of the South be a permanent thraldom, and if the form of society to which it gives birth be of a kind effectually to arrest the growth of the whole people among whom it is planted-under these circumstances, to hand over Mexico to the Southern Confederacy would be nothing less than, for the sake of certain material advantages to be reaped by the present generation, to seal the doom of a noble country -a country which, under better auspices, might become a perennial source of benefits for all future time, and a new centre of American civilization.

It is therefore of extreme importance to ascertain the tenuencies of these slave societies, and what prospects they hold out of future advancement to the people who compose them. And, in approaching this question, it at once occurs that sla

66

ANCIENT AND MODERN SLAVERY.

very is not a new fact in the world. It prevailed, as we know, among all the nations of antiquity, of whom, nevertheless, some displayed great aptitude for intellectual cultivation, and attained a high degree of general civilization. It formed, at one time, an ingredient in the social system of all modern states, which, however, did not find it incompatible with a progressive career, and the last traces of slavery, in the mitigated form of serfdom, are but now disappearing from Europe. If slavery was not inconsistent with progressive civilization among the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Hebrews-if medieval Europe contrived to work itself free from this vicious element of its social constitution, it will perhaps be asked why need we despair of progress for the States of the Confederation. Why are we to suppose that they, under the influence of the same causes which operated in ancient and mediæval society, should not, in the same gradual fashion, emancipate their slaves, and ultimately reach the same level of general cultivation which those societies attained? Nay, it is possible that there may be those who, while holding slavery to be, as a permanent status, noxious, may nevertheless regard it as not incapable of performing a useful function towards people in a certain stage of their development, as a kind of probationary discipline suitable to their preparation for a higher form of civilized existence, and may consider its maintenance in the Southern States at present as defensible upon this ground. Some such notion, it seems to me, is at the bottom of much of the indulgence, and even favour, with which the cause of the South has come to be regarded in this country; and it is, therefore, worth while to consider how far this view of modern slavery is well-founded.

And here it may be advantageous to bear in mind the caution of De Tocqueville. "When I compare the Greek and Roman republics with these American States; when I remember all the attempts which are made to judge the modern republics by the assistance of those of antiquity, and to infer what will happen in our time from what took place two thousand years ago, I am tempted to burn my books, in order to apply none but novel ideas to so novel a condition of society." The truth is, between slavery, as it existed in classical

*

แ "Slavery," says a writer in the Saturday Review, appears to die away, or at least its most horrible incidents disappear in proportion as the community in which it exists becomes older, more wealthy, and therefore more dense. The best chance for the alleviation of the slave's condition lies in the increased wealth and prosperity of the South. In other words, its freedom to develop its own resources, without foreign intervention, is the slave's best hope. And it is agreed on all hands that a modified and alleviated slavery is a transitional state in which it is very difficult for the slaveowners to halt long."-Nov. 2nd, 1861.

DIFFERENCE OF RACE AND COLOUR.

67

and mediæval times and the system which now erects itself defiantly in North America, there exist the most deep reaching distinctions. I will mention three, which, as it seems to me, are in themselves sufficient to take the case of modern slavery entirely out of the scope of the analogies furnished by the former experience of mankind.

In the first place, there is the vital fact-the difference in race and colour between modern slaves and their masters-a difference which had nothing corresponding to it in the slavery of former times. The consequences flowing from this fact cannot be better stated than in the language of De Tocqueville. "The slave, amongst the ancients, belonged to the same race as his master, and he was often the superior of the two in eduIcation and instruction. Freedom was the only distinction between them; and when freedom was conferred, they were easily confounded together." "The greatest difficulty of antiquity [in the way of abolition] was that of altering the law; amongst the moderns it is that of altering the manners; and, as far as we are concerned, the real obstacles begin where those of the ancients left off. This arises from the circumstance that, amongst the moderns, the abstract and transient fact of slavery is fatally united to the physical and permanent fact of colour. The tradition of slavery dishonours the race, and the peculiarity of the race perpetuates the tradition of slavery. No African has ever voluntarily emigrated to the shores of the New World; whence it must be inferred, that all the blacks who are now to be found in that hemisphere are either slaves or freedmen. Thus the negro transmits the external mark of his ignominy to all his descendants. The law may cancel servitude, God alone can obliterate its brand.

"The modern slave differs from his master not only in his condition, but in his origin. You may set the negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than an alien to the European. Nor is this all we scarcely acknowledge the common features of mankind in this child of debasement whom slavery has brought amongst us. His physiognomy is to our eyes hideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes. The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack, and far less easy to conquer, than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of race, and the prejudice of colour."*

But, secondly, the immense development of international

* Democracy in America, vol. ii. pp. 215–217.