Page images
PDF
EPUB

free labor.1 From the constitutional point of view, questions of profound importance were discussed, involving the power of Congress in the territories, the admission of new states, the concept of United States citizenship. From the ethical side, inquiry was made to determine whether the relations of slave and master rested on a proper moral basis. There was also discussion from the standpoint of religion as to whether slavery was contrary to the principles of Christianity, and particularly as to whether slavery was sustained by the Scriptures. And finally, there was an animated controversy as to whether the status of slavery is consistent with the principles of political science. This is the inquiry which forms the subject of this chapter. Upon what theory was the practice of slavery defended, upon what principles was the attack upon it conducted? What was the political theory of the anti-slavery forces? What was the political theory of the pro-slavery party? How were they

related to each other?

The bitterest attacks on slavery were made by the Abolitionists, but they were not the only or perhaps the typical opponents of the system. The forms which the anti-slavery theory took were many and various, ranging from the statesmanlike views of such men as Lincoln to the radical utter

1 On this point see H. R. Helper's work, The Impending Crisis of the South (1859). With this compare Southern Institutes, by G. S. Sawyer, a member of the Louisiana Bar (1859).

ances of the extreme Abolitionists of the Garrisonian type.1

In this discussion an analysis will be made of three forms of the anti-slavery theory: first, the theory of the radical Abolitionists; second, the philosophic argument; and third, the doctrine of the statesmen. These theories are not very much different in final analysis, but in form they show divergences which should be noted. This method of classification is, no doubt, open to certain objections, but is perhaps useful in distinguishing the various shades of political thought.

The impulse to the anti-slavery crusade was given by the radical Abolitionists, and their doctrines and tendencies may therefore be first considered. This group of agitators differed from the conservative class in that they demanded the im

1 On this period, see James Schouler, History of the United States; Hermann von Holst, The Constitutional History of the United States; J. W. Burgess, The Middle Period; Henry Wilson, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power; J. F. Rhodes, History of the United States; J. C. Hurd, The Law of Freedom and Bondage. For statements of the anti-slavery theory, see William Jay, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery (1853); William Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery (1852); Richard Hildreth, Despotism in America (1854); Wendell Phillips, Works; Daniel R. Goodwin, Southern Slavery in its Present Aspects (1864); Albert Barnes, The Church and Slavery (1857), Scriptural Views of Slavery (1856); T. S. Goodwin, The Natural History of Secession (1865); Debates in Congress, especially Sumner on the crime against Kansas, 1856, 1st Session, 34th Congress, Appendix. An excellent summary of the situation is given by J. E. Cairnes in The Slave Power (1862).

mediate and unconditional abolition of slavery without concession or compromise. They differed from the philosophic group in that they reasoned in general less strictly and carefully, being given to action rather than to reflection. The fundamental premise of the Abolitionists was about the same as that expressed in the Declaration of Independence; namely, that all men are created equal and are endowed with a number of inalienable rights, which are independent of all government, and cannot justly be taken away by any government. They regarded liberty as a birthright of man, and not as a privilege to be enjoyed under certain conditions. Consequently, they looked upon slavery as a piece of monstrous injustice to those deprived of their natural liberty.

In the platform of the National Anti-Slavery Society (1833) the following declaration was made: "The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it, is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to his own body, to the products of his own labor, to the protection of the law, and to the common advantages of society." With this general statement of principle perhaps all the opponents of slavery could agree; but with the violent conclusion drawn, not all were in harmony. This conclusion was that "all those laws which are now in force, admitting the right of slavery, are, therefore, before God, utterly null and void." It was characteristic of the Abolitionists,

however, to be intolerant of delay, and to demand immediate emancipation. They did not believe in postponing the day of liberation, because they could not see the necessity for any long period of preparation. They considered that liberty is an innate faculty of man, and that he requires no special training for its effective exercise. "Liberty," said one, "being the birthright of every man, the natural and normal condition of his existence, all the preparation he needs for its enjoyment is born with him. He gets his fitness for liberty as he gets his hands and feet-not by education, but by inheritance." It was expressly denied that a good government is fit only for the best of people, that is, "the most wise, virtuous, and intelligent." If this were true, it was said, then one might, with equal logic, maintain that "bad children should have bad parents, or that sick people should have worse treatment than those in health." 1

To those holding such views, the argument for the postponement of emancipation because of the unfitness of the negro was looked upon as fallacious and dangerous. "Gradualism," as it was termed, was repudiated at every point. "Has not the experience of centuries shown," said Garrison, "that gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice?” Acting on this principle, they attacked and over

1 William Hosmer, The Higher Law (1852); see especially Chap. XIII, on the Capacity of Slaves for Civil Government.

66

threw the Colonization Society, denounced slavery as a "combination of death and hell," branded the Constitution of the United States as a covenant with death and an agreement with hell," and declared for a dissolution of the Union. Inability to see any possible justification for the institution of slavery led them to say of slaveholders: "They ought not to be allowed seats in Congress. No political, no religious copartnership should be had with them, for they are the meanest of thieves and the worst of robbers. We should as soon think of entering into a compact with the convicts at Botany Bay and New Zealand. . . . We do not acknowledge them to be within the pale of Christianity, of republicanism, of humanity."1

The ultra-radical wing of the Abolitionists did not stop at denunciation of slavery and of the United States government for failing to put an end to it. They went on to denounce all systems of government as such. This doctrine took the form of the "non-resistance" or "no-government theory," of which Garrison and Noyes were the great champions, and of which the New England NonResistance Society was an organized expression. This body declared in 1838 that its members could

1 Boston Liberator (1841). Garrison said on one occasion, that his manner of expressing himself was unpleasant because of its plainness and directness. He could, he said, “be as smooth and politic as any one, but I do not so choose, and much prefer nature to art." Life of Garrison, by W. P. and F. J. Garrison.

P

« PreviousContinue »