RESPONSIBILITY OF NORTHERN MEN.

93

Et TU, Brute! The "decision" here referred to, is that made by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church upon slavery, and this is one of the incidental evidences to show how that famous paper, of which Dr. Rice is the author, was regarded by the South Carolina type of proslaveryism.

RESPONSIBILITY OF NORTHERN MEN THUS DETERMINED.

We need not go further in our citations. The fact is undeniable, that a large and influential class among clergymen and editors in the Church of all branches at the North, exerted such an influence for a long course of years, whether so intended or not, as to foster that spirit, and countenance those claims put forth by the South, which led Southern demagogues to believe that they could rule the country according to their own peculiar notions, and could count upon their Northern friends to sustain them; or, failing to rule it, could divide the country, and still look with confidence to their support. Hence their pitiful cries when, in the hour of need, they found they were forsaken.

In regard to certain religious men at the North,-and perhaps the same may be said of politicians, who, Mr. Jefferson said, were "allies" of the South,-we accord to them a sincere, though, we think, a mistaken course of speech and action. Some of them have since frankly acknowledged that their course was wrong. It tended to deceive the Southern Church. Since the rebellion began, Southern divines have denounced this class of men most unsparingly, and so have Southern journals, both of the weekly and periodical press. They have even pronounced them hypocrites. All this is very natural, even though we admit it to be unjust. But of those who have always opposed their extravagant claims, they have spoken with

more respect, though, for them, they have manifested no warmer love.

It is likewise well known, that those Northern politicians who were Southern "allies," have been treated in no mild manner at the South, while the Republican party, and even the Abolitionists, have been spoken of with that higher consideration, comparatively regarded, which one esteemed an open foe always inspires. It is, for example, quite probable, that the reason why they so bitterly denounce General Butler, is as much owing to the fact that he was always so prominent and able in their political councils, and instead of taking a stand with them when the breach occurred, as they had hoped he would, was found in command of a Union army, as it was owing to the stringent rule he exercised in New Orleans. We do not hold this class of public men entirely responsible for the rebellion, though it is unquestionable, from the speeches of some of them, during the winter and spring of 1860-61, before the attack upon Fort Sumter, made in Congress and out of it, that the Southern leaders still counted upon them as "allies," believed they would stand by them in an open clash of arms, that the North would thus be divided, and that the rebellion would have an easy triumph. The fact cannot be denied, that there was good reason for believing that this reliance had a better foundation than many things that are taken for granted. It is undoubtedly true that the Southern leaders were so far forth deceived, and were thus emboldened to do what otherwise they might have been restrained from doing, and to this extent these Northern politicians were responsi ble; while, on the other hand, some of these "allies" were themselves deceived, believing that Southern men would not dare to strike the blow.*

We do not put General Butler in this category. He did not, at this period, take

RESPONSIBILITY OF NORTHERN MEN.

95

We have good reason to believe, also, that the leaders of the Southern Church, as we have already intimated, were stimulated to become active promoters of the rebellion, by virtue of the hold which they believed they still had upon their special friends at the North; supposing, at first, that their secession might be effected peaceably, or, if it came at last to an open clash of arms, that their faith ful "allies" would still stand by them.

The responsibility for the rebellion, so far as the North is concerned, is thus not difficult of adjustment. It rests not upon the abolitionists; the South themselves repudiate this idea. It rests rather upon those, in Church and State, who have countenanced Southern extremists, and who were claimed by them as favoring their views; the " adroitest debaters" in Congressional halls and Church courts, and who upon the stump and through the press were "distinguished as defenders of slavery and the South;" in this manner nourishing and sustaining Southern men up to such

any course to deceive the rebels, nor was he himself deceived as to their designs. On the contrary, in December, 1860, soon after the secession of South Carolina, "General Butler went to Senator Wilson of Massachusetts, an old acquaintance, though long a political opponent, and told him that the Southern leaders meant war, and urged him to join in advising the Governor of their State to prepare the militia of Massachusetts for taking the field." "One thing he considered absolutely certain there was going to be a war between Loyalty and Treason; between the Slave Power and the Power which had so long protected and fostered it. He found the North anxious, but still incredulous. He went to Governor Andrew, and gave him a full relation of what he had seen and heard at Washington, and advised him to get the militia of the State in readiness to move at a day's notice. He suggested that all the men should be quietly withdrawn from the militia force who were either unable or unwilling to leave the State for the defence of the Capital, and their places supplied with men who could and would. The Governor, though he could scarcely yet believe that war was impending, adopted the suggestion. About one-half the men resigned their places in the militia; the vacancies were quickly filled; and many of the companies, during the winter months, drilled every evening in the week, except Sundays.”—Parton's Butler in New Orleans, ch. ii. It was unquestionably owing to General Butler's suggestions, as above related, that so large a number of Massachusetts troops were able to obey the call of the President so promptly, in April, 1861, occasioned by the attack upon Fort Sumter.

a point of preposterous demand for their claims, that at length the masses of the people rose in their sovereign majesty to throw off the incubus, and restore the Government to its true and original status.

NORTHERN RESPONSIBILITY IN ANOTHER LIGHT.

It has often been said that the people of the North had no business to trouble themselves about the question of slavery in any aspect of the case, as the South were alone responsible for the institution. This has been the short argument, many a time, employed against Northern men: "It is none of your business; if it is a sin, the Southern people only are guilty of it; if it is a social evil, or a polit ical matter, it is wholly their concern; therefore, let it alone."

These are radical errors; and yet, so shrewd a man as Dr. Thornwell sustains them. He

says:

The responsibility of slavery is not upon the non-slaveholding States. It is not created by their laws, but by the laws of the slaveholding States; and all they do in the case of the fugitive from his master, is to remand him to the jurisdiction of the laws from which he has escaped. They have nothing to do with the justice or injustice of the laws themselves. -Fast-Day Sermon, Nov. 21, 1860.

We have no complaint to make of the opinions of the North considered simply as their opinions. They have a right, so far as human authority is concerned, to think as they please. The South has never asked them to approve of slavery, or to change their own institutions and to introduce it among themselves. The South has been willing to accord to them the most perfect and unrestricted right of private judgment. But what we do complain of, and what we have a right to complain of, is, that they should not be content with thinking their own thoughts themselves, but should undertake to make the Government think them likewise. So. Pres. Rev., Jan., 1861.

These are erroneous opinions, in any true consideration of the case and most flagrantly so in view of the changes

SLAVERY MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE NORTH. 97

which have occurred, within a recent period in our history, in Southern sentiment, upon the social, moral, and political status of slavery.

SLAVERY MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE NORTH.

These are errors, politically considered. Dr. Thornwell's argument, in both the articles above quoted, is to show that slavery is national. He says, as before given: "The Constitution covers the whole territory of the Union, and throughout that territory has taken slavery under the protection of law." Admitting for the sake of the argument that this is so, it follows that slavery is a matter for the consideration of the whole people, and their responsi bility is involved in every national aspect of the institu tion; to see that its relations to the Constitution are understood aright and are properly maintained. His premises being admitted, the conclusion is inevitable. But without admitting the extreme views which Southern politicians have often advanced in more recent times, which are not sustained by the founders of the Government, and which we presume Dr. Thornwell intends to cover by the sentence just quoted, all statesmen agree that in any true relation of the Constitution to slavery, the institution, in some of its most important bearings, is one of national concern and national responsibility. More especially is this true in the light of Southern claims which are believed to be totally at variance with the Constitution. It was incumbent on every Northern statesman, and upon every Northern citizen, to note whither such sentiments were tending, and to act accordingly. It is perfectly immaterial, however, to the present point, which construction of the Constitution is right, the Northern or the SouthIn either case, slavery is a matter for national conIn a purely political light, therefore, Dr.

ern.

sideration.