RESPONSIBILITY OF ABOLITIONISTS.

83

major portion of the religious press, weekly and quarterly), who have wasted much time in trying to convince the passing generation of mortals, that, among Northern men, the abolitionists, and others whom they have stigmatized and misnamed such, have been the great fomenters of discord between the North and the South; predicting that their course would at length bring the country into open conflict; and, therefore, holding them now chiefly responsible for a fratricidal war. The world well knows how persistently such declamation has been uttered for many years past. But the most serious-minded men of the South openly deny this. They "hardly" regard such opposition to slavery as a "grievance," in the manner in which they have most commonly waged it. The real cause of their secession is quite another thing; in a word, the unwillingness of the whole people of the North and the National Government to yield to their exorbitant demands.

And here is just where Judge Robertson and others make a serious mistake in interpreting the sayings of certain men in the South Carolina Convention. They deny that the "ravings of the abolitionists" had disturb ed them seriously, just as the writer in the Review we have quoted does. But, at the same time, they present the fact that the Northern people and Government as a WHOLE were against them; that is, could not agree in admitting "their rights" upon the slavery question to the full extent to which they demanded them; and hence they were determined to remain in the Union with them no longer.

Instead of the abolitionists being held to the responsibility for what has occurred, so far as the revolt has any extenuation in the conduct of Northern men, it may yet be found that the chief responsibility rests upon quite another class; upon many of those who have been the loudest in

their denunciations of them, and who are ranked as leading men in the Church and in the State.

DISCUSSION THE GERM OF THE TROUBLING ELEMENT.

The real difficulty, so far as irritating the South is concerned, was far more wide-spread than any thing which could be charged upon the abolitionists. It was not so much that they would "agitate" and act in their peculiar way, as it was that any action whatever should be taken upon slavery. That man has been a poor observer of events who does not know that the offensive manner of dealing with the question was not the thing which gave the South uneasiness. It certainly was not, so far as the religious portion of the community was concerned. It was, rather, the discussion of the subject at all, in any manner, in any place, and by any persons. It had come to be fashionable to regard any entertainment of the subject as "agitation," and the term "abolitionist" was freely applied in order to frown down the most respectful inquiry. It had not been possible for many years to introduce the subject into any of the large religions bodies in which men of the extreme South were members, without giving mortal offence, and leading to threats of ecclesiastical secession. The pleas against it were specious and plentiful, and somewhat contradictory. The matter had been "acted upon and settled" by the Church, and therefore should be "let alone." It was a political question, with which the Church has nothing to do," and therefore should not be introduced. It was a "troublesome subject, and would rend the Church asunder." These and many more reasons were given; while Southern extremists, who would keep the subject out of the Church lest the Church should be defiled by its examination, were ever contending that it was an institution sanctioned and regulated by the word of God. Any

DISCUSSION THE TROUBLING ELEMENT.

85

form of its consideration, by the most serious minded men, except in the favoring interest of slavery, was stigmatized as "wicked agitation." Nothing but utter silence upon the question, unless in its favor, was pleasing to the class of slavery propagandists. We speak from personal knowledge and extended observation, and declare only what is notorious.

At the very same time, the South was teeming with publications, the newspaper, the sermon, the pamphlet, the quarterly and the octavo volume, put forth by her ablest writers, her Thornwells and Palmers, her Hammonds and Cobbs, her Elliotts and Bledsoes, her Armstrongs and Smylies, statesmen, lawyers, divines, vying with each other to sanctify and glorify the system of Southern bondage as a "blessing," socially, politically, religiously; while, in perfect accord with all this, in the North were found apologists and defenders of the system from the same classes and professions, and through the same means; and yet, many of these Northern men were ready to raise the hue and cry of " agitation" and "abolitionism" if any thing were said against the system, unless it were emasculated of all the pungency and pith which would give it force. In a word, although discussion was feared as a fiend, it could be tolerated, and even applauded, provided it were on the right side.*

*To give an illustration of what some great men thought about discussion on this subject, and how it could be disposed of, we refer to the proposition of a distinguished statesman. In the early part of 1861, soon after the secession of South Carolina, when many men in the Border States were striving to produce a "reconciliation between the North and the South," the Hon. John P. Kennedy, of Baltimore, published a pamphlet, entitled, "The Border States: Their Power and Duty," &c. He gives a series of propositions which the Border States should submit to the two sections, and among them this about discussing the subject of slavery: "Finally, a pledge to be given by the free States to exert their influence, as far as possible, to discourage discussions of slavery in a tone offensive to the interests of the slaveholding States." The alternative, on the failure of the proposed negotiations, is thus

It is a notorious fact, as regards the great body of the people of the United States who were in principle opposed to slavery, that the utmost they did to manifest their opposition was to discuss and determine its merits; and this they felt bound to do, especially in consequence of its more recent and extravagant claims. The measure of their responsibility for the rebellion and the war is thus easily gauged. It is equally notorious, that this discussion, and the conclusions formed concerning the system, were the chief things which gave the concocters of the rebellion mortal offence. Their responsibility is thus just as easily determined. Who, then, are responsible for this heritage of woes? Must the South bear it all? Is the North to bear no share of it?

presented: "But in the adverse event of these stipulations, or satisfactory equiva lents for them, being refused, the Border States and their allies of the South who may be disposed to act with them, will be forced to consider the Union impracticable, and to organize a separate Confederacy of the Border States, with the association of such of the Southern and free States as may be willing to accede to the proposed conditions." On a subsequent page he says, the italics being his own: "But let the free States everywhere, and the sober, reflective, and honest men in them, understand, that the old Union is an impossibility unless the agitation of slavery is brought to an end." These extracts are suggestive: (1.) Mr. Kennedy, like some other men in the Border slave States, takes the position that slavery was not the cause of the rebellion, and yet all his proposals for “reconciliation" are made with reference to slavery in some of its bearings; giving thus, unwittingly, the proof that slavery was in reality the cause. (2.) The real difficulty was not that the subject was discussed in a tone offensive," but that it was discussed at all. Discussion in any form or spirit was "offensive," unless it was in favor of the system. (3.) But the most remarkable thing here is, that so distinguished a gentleman, once a cabinet minister, should at any time have seriously proposed (and he is by no means the only statesman in this category) any State action, in a popular government, "to discourage discussion" on any subject; and especially with the alternative of dissolving the Union, unless his proposed concessions, demanded by the subject upon which discussion was to be precluded, were granted. But the country can well afford, at this later day, to pass over some things of this kind which then took strong hold of many minds; and of Mr. Kennedy this can be said on two grounds. He, like a large portion of his countrymen, has obtained some new ideas since then; and during the present year he has given his powers, with other leading men of Maryland, to the work of entirely removing slavery from that State. Some Border State men make no advance on the subject-unless it be backward.

RESPONSIBILITY OF POLITICIANS.

87

WHAT CLASS OF NORTHERN MEN RESPONSIBLE.

Here is where the case pinches, and yet the solution of the question is most easy. We freely concede that a certain part of the people of the North have a portion of this responsibility to bear, but it is not that small and uninfluential class whom Judge Robertson, and other writers who agree with him, would hold up to the public gaze; nor yet that larger number who manifested their dissent by discussion. It is rather that class of men in Church and State,-politicians, editors, divines, and others, who are always influential in forming, controlling, or echoing public opinion,-who have ever been crying out about an infringement of Southern rights, making apologies for the South, courting the smiles of the Southern people, and yielding, step by step, to their extreme demands. So far as provocative action may be charged with responsibility, in yielding to the clamors of Southern passion, and exciting Southern men to demand more and more in concession to slavery, this class may be justly held to a large measure of it.

RESPONSIBILITY AMONG POLITICIANS NORTH.

The "claims of the South" were always in the market. They were put up to the highest bidder in the political contests of the country. They formed the central plank in political platforms. We state nothing more than is known and read of all men, when we say that that party which for many years before the rebellion began had com. monly the control of the General Government, was always the successful competitor; and having once and long ago established with the South its subserviency and fidelity, it held its position undisputed. No slave was ever more obedient to his master. This was seen in its conventions,