caste at the South, who were notoriously guilty of such a vicious way of life. During the whole progress of the long struggle, even after the President had promulgated his decree of emancipation, and when the armies of the United States had their most widely extended possession of the Southern territory, no symptom of insurrection is known to have manifested itself among the slaves. This fact shows either great indifference to the boon of freedom, on their part, or a singular degree of control exercised over them by their masters; perhaps both.

But no more striking exemplification could be furnished, of that former contentment or quiet state of things, on one side of the Southern line, and of the state of opinion among a certain class of persons, on the other side, than in the "raid" of John Brown. That fanatic imagined that he could stir up an insurrection capable of overthrowing "the slave power," with a force of twenty-one men! But, although with the advantage of a year's residence on the Virginia border, not a slave joined his band. In like manner, during the late war, it was chiefly from plantations abandoned by their proprietors, as the army advanced, that the negroes followed in the rear of its march, more for the sake of precarious relief to their present misery, thus produced, than from any definite idea of civil regeneration. In most cases, the "sudden wrench" from a state of comfortable maintenance to one of helpless independence must have produced an utter confusion of faculties inadequate to the exigencies of their novel condition; and it seems certain, that those who thus perished from helplessness and hopelessness and want, and the diseases incident to want and despair, are to be reckoned by not a few hundreds of thousands.

It is not necessary to consider the system of negro slavery, in the United States, as one of unmixed good-supposing such a human lot in this world were possible-in order to conceive that it had its alleviations; or that, however repulsive the idea of slavery of any description might be to a white citizen unaccustomed to observe its operation;

NATIONAL GREATNESS MORAL, NOT PHYSICAL.

177 yet, to a negro in the South, the benefits of such a condition far outweighed its drawbacks and disadvantages. To the white citizen, indeed, the grave question at hand presents itself in an aspect raised infinitely above any temporary or personal considerations. By bestowing freedom on the

negro, with all the consequences of freedom, the structu of the republic is to be settled upon a different basis from thas contemplated by its founders, and upon which it had risen to splendor and renown. Under the administration of

the superior race, its future of prosperity and glory might be deduced from the history of the past. If trammelled with the embarrassments inseparable from the mixture in its public affairs of a numerous race, intellectually and physically inferior, the introduction of a new and more formidable source of discord cannot fail to be the consequence. Its action will be disarranged, its progress checked, its position degraded. Immense physical force it may have, for a time, but its moral superiority will be gone. It will fall in the scale of nations, as the most powerful empires have heretofore fallen, and may see its proud preeminence exchanged for the secret, if not the open, derision of the world. Thus, the Chinese Empire, comprising a territory of immense extent, and a population double that of all Europe-distinguished in agricultural pursuits, skilful in those of commerce, ingenious and successful in cultivating many of the curious and most of the more useful arts of life, and inferior to few nations in diplomatic management and tact-is yet at the mercy of single European powers, for want of homogeneity of race, of an all-pervading sentiment of nationality, of the pride and vigor of a people animated by common memories and hopes, of an enlightened patriotism inspired by the elevated promptings of the moral nature, instead of a mere policy dictated by material and often conflicting interests, sym pathies, and passions.

8*

CHAPTER VII.

State of Public Sentiment at the Close of the Year 1849.-California and New Mexico.-Mr. Webster's Speech of March 7th, 1850.-Trimming Politicians.-Sentimental Politicians. -The Church as a Political Engine.-M. Clay's Compromise Resolutions.-Petition for Dissolution of the Union.-Mr. Hale, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Chase vote to receive it.— Washington's Farewell Address.-Mr. Calhoun's Resolutions.-Action of Southern Members of Congress.-Mr. Webster.-The Compromise Measures of 1850.-State Sovereignty. The Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 and of 1850.-The Missouri Compromise abrogated by the Measures of 1850.

Ar the beginning of the session of Congress, in December, 1849, both the North and the South had become wrought up to the highest pitch of excitement upon the slavery question. In the one section, the embers of the fires which had been kindled by the admission of Texas still remained a body of living coals. Other questions now arising, in regard to California and New Mexico, heaped upon them the fuel for another and a more fervent flame. Warmly as the North entered upon the discussion of this topic, the South, perhaps, even exceeded it in earnestness; for it was regarded in the latter quarter as a test point, which was to settle definitely the equality of their rights in the Union and, as they alleged, their future relation to the republic.

In fact, the Northern mind had become morbidly active on the subject. Various and powerful influences had been for some years at work to produce this effect; if not in express combination with each other, yet tending to the same general end, and conveying the impression of a united effort, in the free States, against even the constitutional guarantees of the slave States, which was very far from being the case.1

"I left the Department of State in May, 1843, and shortly after I learned,

MR. WEBSTER UPON CERTAIN SENATORS.

179 The manœuvres of certain leading politicians in the free States had a very great effect in producing this impression. In his great speech of March 7th, 1850, Mr. Webster pointedly alluded to this circumstance. He instanced, in particular, Mr. Dix, of New York, and Mr. Niles, of Connecticut, who, as members of the Senate, had been among the most strenuous and influential in insisting upon the extremest terms for the admission of Texas, and who had opposed and voted against a resolution introduced by Mr. Berrien, of Georgia, during the war with Mexico, which declared, that the war was not prosecuted for the acquisition of territory, or for the dismemberment of that power. Mr. Webster's further remarks upon this special point are too full of instruction, and too pointedly confirm the views already expressed in these pages, not to demand their citation. He proceeded to say:

"These two gentlemen, worthy and honorable and influential men--and if they had not been they could not have carried the measure-these two gentlemen, members of this body, brought in Texas, and by their votes also prevented the passage of the resolution of the honorable member from Georgia, and then they went home and took the lead in the Freesoil party. And there they stand, sir! They leave us here, bound in honor and conscience by the

though no way connected with official information, that a design had been taken up of bringing in Texas, with her slave territory and population, into the United States. I was here in Washington at the time; and the persons are now here who will remember, that we had arranged a meeting for conversation upon it. I went home to Massachusetts, and proclaimed the existence of that purpose; but I could get no audience, and but little attention. Some did not believe it, and some were engaged in their own pursuits. They had gone to their farms, or to their merchandise, and it was impossible to rouse any sentiment in New England, or in Massachusetts, that should combine the two great political parties against this annexation; and, indeed, there was no hope of bringing the Northern Democracy into that view, for the leaning was all the other way. But, sir, even with Whigs--and leading Whigs, I am ashamed to say-there was a great indifference toward the admission of Texas, with slave territory, into this Union. It went on."-Webster's speech in the Senate, March 7th, 1850.

But they were right. It was not indifference to human freedom which influenced them, but indisposition to engage in propagandism against the South, upon peace with which they felt the safety of the Union depended.

resolutions of annexation; they leave us here to take the odium of fulfill ing the obligations in favor of slavery, which they voted us into; or else the greater odium of violating those obligations, while they are at home making capital and rousing speeches for free soil and no slavery. [Laughter.] And therefore I say, sir, that there is not a chapter in our history, reflecting public measures and public men, more full of what should create surprise, more full of what does create in my mind extreme mortification, than that of the conduct of this Northern Democracy."

Subsequent events, however, showed clearly enough the course, the influence, and the result of these proceedings. The democratic masses, in general, stood firm to the last, though only too many of their leaders, known at a later date as War Democrats," were acting this double and mischievous part. On the other hand, most of the Whig leaders— some of them, doubtless, the gentlemen alluded to by Mr. Webster in the speech already cited-manifested their constancy to principle, at such sacrifices and hazards as sternly test men's characters; while the masses of the party exhibited the turn of their sentiments by voting for Fremont in 1856, and more numerously for Lincoln in 1860.

But in addition to political influences, thus able to divert men from steadfast adherence to those essential principles which had proved the source of the country's peace and prosperity, there had been other effective causes of antislavery agitation, which could not fail to attract the attention and engage the coöperation of a class of politicians strikingly vindicating their title to be reckoned "waiters on Providence." It was sometimes made a matter of boast by the Republican party, when it had reached such a height of power, that an argument with it, on this point, might be judged as inexpedient, as the Roman officer thought one would be with the master of thirty legions-that all the literature of the country, and all persons in it of any literary distinction, were on the antislavery side. This allegation was by no means literally true, though susceptible of confir mation to a very great extent. But, after all, it does not prove very much in favor of the cause. It may be presumed that almost all the literary leanings of Florence were on the