The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus · Chapter 100Part 100
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
Slavery has advanced to its present position by steps that were, at first, gradual, and, for a long time, almost unnoticed; afterward, it made its way by intimidating or corrupting those who ought to have been forward to resist its pretensions. Up to the time of the "Missouri Compromise," by which the nation was wheedled out of its honor, slavery was looked on as an evil that was finally to yield to the expanding and ripening influences of our Constitutional principles and regulations. Why it has not yielded, we may easily see, by even a slight glance at some of the incidents in our history.
It has already been said, that we have been brought into our present condition by the unfaithfulness of Congress, in not exerting the power vested in it, to stop the domestic slave-trade, and in the abuse of the power of admitting "new states" into the Union. Kentucky made application in 1792, with a slave-holding Constitution in her hand.--With what a mere technicality Congress suffered itself to be drugged into torpor:--She was part of one of the "Original States"--and therefore entitled to all their privileges.
One precedent established, it was easy to make another. Tennessee was admitted in 1796, without scruple, on the same ground.
The next triumph of slavery was in 1803, in the purchase of Louisiana, acknowledged afterward, even by Mr. Jefferson who made it, to be unauthorized by the Constitution--and in the establishment of slavery throughout its vast limits, actually and substantially under the auspices of that instrument which declares its only objects to be--"to form a more perfect union, establish JUSTICE, insure DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity."[A]
[Footnote A: It may be replied, The colored people were held as property by the laws of Louisiana previously to the cession, and that Congress had no right to divest the newly acquired citizens of their property. This statement is evasive. It does not include, nor touch the question, which is this:--Had Congress, or the treaty-making power, a right to recognise, and, by recognising, to establish, in a territory that had no claim of privilege, on the ground of being part of one of the "Original States," a condition of things that it could not establish directly, because there was no grant in the constitution of power, direct or incidental, to do so--and because, to do so, was in downright oppugnancy to the principles of the Constitution itself? The question may be easily answered by stating the following case:--Suppose a law had existed in Louisiana, previous to the cession, by which the children--male and female--of all such parents as were not owners of real estate of the yearly value of $500, had been--no matter how long--held in slavery by their more wealthy land-holding neighbors:--would Congress, under the Constitution, have a right (by recognising) to establish, for ever, such a relation as one white person, under such a law, might hold to another? Surely not. And yet no substantial difference between the two cases can be pointed out.]
In this case, the violation of the Constitution was suffered to pass with but little opposition, except from Massachusetts, because we were content to receive in exchange, multiplied commercial benefits and enlarged territorial limits.
The next stride that slavery made over the Constitution was in the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union. She could claim no favor as part of an "Original State." At this point, it might have been supposed, the friends of Freedom and of the Constitution according to its original intent, would have made a stand. But no: with the exception of Massachusetts, they hesitated and were persuaded to acquiesce, because the country was just about entering into a war with England, and the crisis was unpropitious for discussing questions that would create divisions between different sections of the Union. We must wait till the country was at peace. Thus it was that Louisiana was admitted without a controversy.
Next followed, in 1817 and 1820, Mississippi and Alabama--admitted after the example of Kentucky and Tennessee, without any contest.
Meantime, Florida had given some uneasiness to the slaveholders of the neighboring states; and for their accommodation chiefly, a negociation was set on foot by the government to purchase it.
Missouri was next in order in 1821. She could plead no privilege, on the score of being part of one of the original states; the country too, was relieved from the pressure of her late conflict with England; it was prosperous and quiet; every thing seemed propitious to a calm and dispassionate consideration of the claims of slaveholders to add props to their system, by admitting indefinitely, new slave states to the Union. Up to this time, the "EVIL" of slavery had been almost universally acknowledged and deplored by the South, and its termination (apparently) sincerely hoped for.[A] By this management its friends succeeded in blinding the confiding people of the North. They thought for the most part, that the slaveholders were acting in good faith. It is not intended by this remark, to make the impression, that the South had all along pressed the admission of new slave states, simply with a view to the increase of its own relative power. By no means: slavery had insinuated itself into favor because of its being mixed up with (other) supposed benefits--and because its ultimate influence on the government was neither suspected nor dreaded. But, on the Missouri question, there was a fair trial of strength between the friends of Slavery and the friends of the Constitution. The former triumphed, and by the prime agency of one whose raiment, the remainder of his days, ought to be sackcloth and ashes,--because of the disgrace he has continued on the name of his country, and the consequent injury that he has inflicted on the cause of Freedom throughout the world. Although all the different Administrations, from the first organization of the government, had, in the indirect manner already mentioned, favored slavery,--there had not been on any previous occasion, a direct struggle between its pretensions and the principles of liberty ingrafted on the Constitution. The friends of the latter were induced to believe, whenever they should be arrayed against each other, that theirs would be the triumph. Tremendous error! Mistake almost fatal! The battle was fought. Slavery emerged from it unhurt--her hands made gory--her bloody plume still floating in the air--exultingly brandishing her dripping sword over her prostrate and vanquished enemy. She had won all for which she fought. Her victory was complete--THE SANCTION OF THE NATION WAS GIVEN TO SLAVERY![B]
[Footnote A: Mr. Clay, in conducting the Missouri compromise, found it necessary to argue, that the admission of Missouri, as a slaveholding state, would aid in bringing about the termination of slavery. His argument is thus stated by Mr. Sergeant, who replied to him:--"In this long view of remote and distant consequences, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) thinks he sees how slavery, when thus spread, is at last to find its end. It is to be brought about by the combined operation of the laws which regulate the price of labor, and the laws which govern population. When the country shall be filled with inhabitants, and the price of labor shall have reached a minimum, (a comparative minimum I suppose is meant,) free labor will be found cheaper than slave labor. Slaves will then be without employment, and, of course, without the means of comfortable subsistence, which will reduce their numbers, and finally extirpate them. This is the argument as I understand it," says Mr. Sergeant; and, certainly, one more chimerical or more inhuman could not have been urged.]
[Footnote B: See Appendix, E.]
Immediately after this achievement, the slaveholding interest was still more strongly fortified by the acquisition of Florida, and the establishment of slavery there, as it had already been in the territory of Louisiana. The Missouri triumph, however, seems to have extinguished every thing like a systematic or spirited opposition, on the part of the free states, to the pretensions of the slaveholding South.
Arkansas was admitted but the other day, with nothing that deserves to be called an effort to prevent it--although her Constitution attempts to perpetuate slavery, by forbidding the master to emancipate his bondmen without the consent of the Legislature, and the Legislature without the consent of the master. Emboldened, but not satisfied, with their success in every political contest with the people of the free states, the slaveholders are beginning now to throw off their disguise--to brand their former notions about the "evil, political and moral" of slavery, as "folly and delusion,"[A]--and as if to "make assurance double sure," and defend themselves forever, by territorial power, against the progress of Free principles and the renovation of the Constitution, they now demand openly--scorning to conceal that their object is, to advance and establish their political power in the country,--that Texas, a foreign state, five or six times as large as all New England, with a Constitution dyed as deep in slavery, as that of Arkansas, shall be added to the Union.
[Footnote A: Mr. Calhoun is reported, in the National Intelligencer, as having used these words in a speech delivered in the Senate, the 10th day of January:--
"Many in the South once believed that it [slavery] was a moral and political evil; that folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world."
Mr. Hammond, formerly a Representative in Congress from South Carolina, delivered a speech (Feb. 1, 1836) on the question of receiving petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In answering those who objected to a slaveholding country, that it was "assimilated to an aristocracy," he says--"In this they are right. I accept the terms. It is a government of the best. Combining all the advantages, and possessing but few of the disadvantages, of the aristocracy of the old world--without fostering, to an unwarrantable extent, the pride, the exclusiveness, the selfishness, the thirst for sway, the contempt for the rights of others, which distinguish the nobility of Europe--it gives us their education, their polish, their munificence, their high honor, their undaunted spirit. Slavery does indeed create an aristocracy--an aristocracy of talents, of virtue, of generosity, of courage. In a slave country, every freeman is an aristocrat. Be he rich or poor, if he does not possess a single slave, he has been born to all the natural advantages of the society in which he is placed; and all its honors lie open before him, inviting his genius and industry. Sir, I do firmly believe, that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society, that has ever existed on the face of the earth."
That this retraxit of former follies and delusions is not confined to the mere politician, we have the following proofs:--
The CHARLESTON (S.C.) UNION PRESBYTERY--"Resolved. That in the opinion of this Presbytery, the holding of slaves, so far from being a sin in the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his holy word; that it is in accordance with the example, or consistent with the precepts, of patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; and that it is compatible with the most fraternal regard to the good of the servants whom God has committed to our charge."--Within the last few months, as we learn from a late No. of the Charleston Courier, the late Synod of the Presbyterian Church, in Augusta, (Ga.) passed resolutions declaring "That slavery is a CIVIL INSTITUTION, with which the General Assembly [the highest ecclesiastical tribunal] has NOTHING TO DO."
Again:--The CHARLESTON BAPTIST ASSOCIATION, in a memorial to the Legislature of South Carolina, say--"The undersigned would further represent, that the said Association does not consider that the Holy Scriptures have made the FACT of slavery a question of morals at all." And further,--"The right of masters to dispose of the time of their slaves, has been distinctly recognised by the Creator of all things."
Again:--The EDGEFIELD (S.C.) ASSOCIATION--"Resolved, That the practical question of slavery, in a country where the system has obtained as a part of its stated policy, is settled in the Scriptures by Jesus Christ and his apostles." "Resolved, That these uniformly recognised the relation of master and slave, and enjoined on both their respective duties, under a system of servitude more degrading and absolute than that which obtains in our country."
Again we find, in a late No. of the Charleston Courier, the following:--
"THE SOUTHERN CHURCH.--The Georgia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at a recent meeting in Athens, passed resolutions, declaring that slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil, and is a civil and domestic institution, with which Christian ministers have nothing to do, further than to meliorate the condition of the slave, by endeavoring to impart to him and his master the benign influence of the religion of Christ, and aiding both on their way to heaven."]
The abolitionists feel a deep regard for the integrity and union of the government, on the principles of the Constitution. Therefore it is, that they look with earnest concern on the attempt now making by the South, to do, what, in the view of multitudes of our citizens, would amount to good cause for the separation of the free from the slave states. Their concern is not mingled with any feelings of despair. The alarm they sounded on the "annexation" question has penetrated the free states; it will, in all probability, be favorably responded to by every one of them; thus giving encouragement to our faith, that the admission of Texas will be successfully resisted,--that this additional stain will not be impressed on our national escutcheon, nor this additional peril brought upon the South.[A]
[Footnote A: See Appendix, F.]
This, the present condition of the country, induced by a long train of usurpations on the part of the South, and by unworthy concessions to it by the North, may justly be regarded as one of the events of the last few years affecting in some way, the measures of the abolitionists. It has certainly done so. And whilst it is not to be denied, that many abolitionists feel painful apprehensions for the result, it has only roused them up to make more strenuous efforts for the preservation of the country.
It may be replied--if the abolitionists are such firm friends of the Union, why do they persist in what must end in its rupture and dissolution? The abolitionists, let it be repeated are friends of the Union that was intended by the Constitution; but not of a Union from which is eviscerated, to be trodden under foot, the right to SPEAK,--to PRINT--to PETITION,--the rights of CONSCIENCE; not of a Union whose ligaments are whips, where the interest of the oppressor is the great interest, the right to oppress the paramount right. It is against the distortion of the glorious Union our fathers left us into one bound with despotic bands that the abolitionists are contending. In the political aspect of the question, they have nothing to ask, except what the Constitution authorizes--no change to desire, but that the Constitution may be restored to its pristine republican purity.
But they have well considered the "dissolution of the Union." There is no just ground for apprehending that such a measure will ever be resorted to by the South. It is by no means intended by this, to affirm, that the South, like a spoiled child, for the first time denied some favourite object, may not fall into sudden frenzy and do herself some great harm. But knowing as I do, the intelligence and forecast of the leading men of the South--and believing that they will, if ever such a crisis should come, be judiciously influenced by the existing state of the case, and by the consequences that would inevitably flow from an act of dissolution--they would not, I am sure, deem it desirable or politic. They would be brought, in their calmer moments, to coincide with one who has facetiously, but not the less truly remarked, that it would be as indiscreet in the slave South to separate from the free North, as for the poor, to separate from the parish that supported them. In support of this opinion, I would say:
First--A dissolution of the Union by the South would, in no manner, secure to her the object she has in view.--The leaders at the South, both in the church and in the state, must, by this time, be too well informed as to the nature of the anti-slavery movement, and the character of those engaged in it, to entertain fears that, violence of any kind will be resorted to, directly or indirectly.[A] The whole complaint of the South is neither more nor less than this--THE NORTH TALKS ABOUT SLAVERY. Now, of all the means or appliances that could be devised, to give greater life and publicity to the discussion of slavery, none could be half so effectual as the dissolution of the Union because of the discussion. It would astonish the civilized world--they would inquire into the cause of such a remarkable event in its history;--the result would be not only enlarged discussion of the whole subject, but it would bring such a measure of contempt on the guilty movers of the deed, that even with all the advantages of "their education, their polish, their munificence, their high honor, their undaunted spirit," so eloquently set forth by the Hon. Mr. Hammond, they would find it hard to withstand its influence. It is difficult for men in a good cause, to maintain their steadfastness in opposition to an extensively corrupt public sentiment; in a bad one, against public sentiment purified and enlightened, next to impossible, if not quite so.
[Footnote A: "It is not," says Mr. Calhoun, "that we expect the abolitionists will resort to arms--will commence a crusade to deliver our slaves by force."--"Let me tell our friends of the South, who differ from us, that the war which the abolitionists wage against us is of a very different character, and far more effective. It is waged, not against our lives, but our character." More correctly, Mr. C. might have said against a system, with which the slaveholders have chosen to involve their characters, and which they have determined to defend, at the hazard of losing them.]
Another result would follow the dissolution:--Now, the abolitionists find it difficult, by reason of the odium which the principal slaveholders and their friends have succeeded in attaching to their name, to introduce a knowledge of their principles and measures into the great mass of southern mind. There are multitudes at the South who would co-operate with us, if they could be informed of our aim.[A] Now, we cannot reach them--then, it would be otherwise. The united power of the large slaveholders would not be able longer to keep them in ignorance. If the Union were dissolved, they would know the cause, and discuss it, and condemn it.
[Footnote A: There is abundant evidence of this. Our limits confine us to the following, from the first No. of the Southern Literary Journal, (Charleston, S.C.):--"There are many good men even among us, who have begun to grow timid. They think, that what the virtuous and high-minded men of the North look upon as a crime and a plague-spot, cannot be perfectly innocent or quite harmless in a slaveholding community."
This, also, from the North Carolina Watchman:--
"It (the abolition party) is the growing party at the North. We are inclined to believe that there is even more of it at the South than prudence will permit to be openly avowed."
"It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that there is a LARGE, RESPECTABLE and INTELLIGENT PARTY in Kentucky, who will exert every nerve and spare no efforts to dislodge the subsisting rights to our Slave population, or alter in some manner, and to some extent, at least, the tenure by which that species of property is held."--Speech of the Hon. James T. Morehead in the Kentucky Legislature, last winter.]
A second reason why the South will not dissolve the Union is, that she would be exposed to the visitation of real incendiaries, exciting her slaves to revolt. Now, it would cover any one with infamy, who would stir them up to vindicate their rights by the massacre of their masters. Dissolve the Union, and the candidates for "GLORY" would find in the plains of Carolina and Louisiana as inviting a theatre for their enterprise, as their prototypes, the Houstons, the Van Rennsselaers, and the Sutherlands did, in the prairies of Texas or the forests of Canada.
A third reason why the South will not dissolve is, that the slaves would leave their masters and take refuge in the free states. The South would not be able to establish a cordon along her wide frontier sufficiently strong to prevent it. Then, the slaves could not be reclaimed, as they now are, under the Constitution. Some may say, the free states would not permit them to come in and dwell among them.--Believe it not. The fact of separation on the ground supposed, would abolitionize the whole North. Beside this, in an economical point of view, the demand for labor in the Western States would make their presence welcome. At all events, a passage through the Northern States to Canada would not be denied them.
A fourth reason why the South will not dissolve is, that a large number of her most steady and effective population would emigrate to the free states. In the slave-selling states especially, there has always been a class who have consented to remain there with their families, only in the hope that slavery would, in some way or other, be terminated. I do not say they are abolitionists, for many of them are slaveholders. It may be, too, that such would expect compensation for their slaves, should they be emancipated, and also that they should be sent out of the country. The particular mode of emancipation, however crude it may be, that has occupied their minds, has nothing to do with the point before us. They look for emancipation--in this hope they have remained, and now remain, where they are. Take away this hope, by making slavery the distinctive bond of union of a new government, and you drive them to the North. These persons are not among the rich, the voluptuous, the effeminate; nor are they the despised, the indigent, the thriftless--they are men of moderate property, of intelligence, of conscience--in every way the "bone and sinew" of the South.
A fifth reason why the South will not dissolve, is her weakness. It is a remarkable fact, that in modern times, and in the Christian world, all slaveholding countries have been united with countries that are free. Thus, the West Indian and Mexican and South American slaveholding colonies were united to England, France, Spain, Portugal, and other states of Europe. If England (before her Emancipation Act) and the others had at any time withdrawn the protection of their power from their colonies, slavery would have been extinguished almost simultaneously with the knowledge of the fact. In the West Indies there could have been no doubt of this, from the disparity in numbers between the whites and the slaves, from the multiplied attempts made from time to time by the latter to vindicate their rights by insurrection, and from the fact, that all their insurrections had to be suppressed by the force of the mother country. As soon as Mexico and the South American colonies dissolved their connexion with Spain, slavery was abolished in every one of them. This may, I know, be attributed to the necessity imposed on these states, by the wars in which they engaged to establish their independence. However this may be--the fact still remains. The free states of this Union are to the slave, so far as the maintenance of slavery is concerned, substantially, in the relation of the European states to their slaveholding colonies. Slavery, in all probability, could not be maintained by the South disjoined from the North, a single year. So far from there existing any reason for making the South an exception, in this particular, to other slave countries, there are circumstances in her condition that seem to make her dependence more complete. Two of them are, the superior intelligence of her slaves on the subject of human rights, and the geographical connexion of the slave region in the United States. In the West Indies, in Mexico and South America the great body of the slaves were far below the slaves of this country in their intellectual and moral condition--and, in the former, their power to act in concert was weakened by the insular fragments into which they were divided.
Again, the depopulation of the South of large numbers of its white inhabitants, from the cause mentioned under the fourth head, would, it is apprehended, bring the two classes to something like a numerical equality. Now, consider the present state of the moral sentiment of the Christianized and commercial world in relation to slavery; add to it the impulse that this sentiment, acknowledged by the South already to be wholly opposed to her, would naturally acquire by an act of separation on her part, with a single view to the perpetuation of slavery; bring this sentiment in all its accumulation and intensity to act upon a nation where one half are enslavers, the other the enslaved--and what must be the effect? From the nature of mind; from the laws of moral influence, (which are as sure in their operation, if not so well understood, as the laws of physical influence,) the party "whose conscience with injustice is oppressed," must become dispirited, weakened in courage, and in the end unnerved and contemptible. On the other hand, the sympathy that would be felt for the oppressed--the comfort they would receive--the encouragement that would be given them to assert their rights, would make it an impossibility, to keep them in slavish peace and submission.
This state of things would be greatly aggravated by the peculiarly morbid sensitiveness of the South to every thing that is supposed to touch her character. Her highest distinction would then become her most troublesome one. How, for instance, could her chivalrous sons bear to be taunted, wherever they went, on business or for pleasure, out of their own limits, with the cry "the knights of the lash!" "Go home and pay your laborers!" "Cease from the scourging of husbands and wives in each others presence--from attending the shambles, to sell or buy as slaves those whom God has made of the same blood with yourselves--your brethren--your sisters! Cease, high minded sons of the 'ANCIENT DOMINION,' from estimating your revenue by the number of children you rear, to sell in the flesh market!" "Go home and pay your laborers!" "Go home and pay your laborers!" This would be a trial to which "southern chivalry" could not patiently submit. Their "high honor," their "undaunted spirit" would impel them to the field--only to prove that the "last resort" requires something more substantial than mere "honor" and "spirit" to maintain it. Suppose there should be a disagreement--as in all likelihood there soon would, leading to war between the North and the South? The North would scarcely have occasion to march a squadron to the field. She would have an army that could be raised up by the million, at the fireside of her enemy. It has been said, that during the late war with England, it was proposed to her cabinet, by some enterprising officers, to land five thousand men on the coast of South Carolina and proclaim liberty to the slates. The success of the scheme was well thought of. But then the example! England herself held nearly a million of slaves at no greater distance from the scene of action than the West Indies. Now, a restraint of this kind on such a scheme does not exist.
It seems plain beyond the power of argument to make it plainer, that a slaveholding nation--one under the circumstances in which the South separated from the North would be placed--must be at the mercy of every free people having neither power to vindicate a right nor avenge a wrong.[A]
[Footnote A: Governor Hayne, of South Carolina, spoke in high terms, a few years ago, of the ability that the South would possess, in a military point of view, because her great wealth would enable her, at all times, to command the services of mercenary troops. Without stopping to dispute with him, as to her comparative wealth, I would remark, that he seemed entirely to have overlooked this truth--that whenever a government is under the necessity of calling in foreign troops, to keep in subjection one half of the people, the power of the government has already passed into the hands of the Protectors. They can and will, of course, act with whichever party will best subserve their purpose.]
A sixth reason why the South will not dissolve the Union, is found in the difficulty of bringing about an actual separation. Preparatory to such a movement, it would seem indispensable, that Union among the seceding states themselves should be secured. A General Convention would be necessary to adjust its terms. This would, of course, be preceded by particular conventions in the several states. To this procedure the same objection applies, that has been made, for the last two or three years, to holding an anti-abolition convention in the South:--It would give to the question such notoriety, that the object of holding the convention could not be concealed from the slaves. The more sagacious in the South have been opposed to a convention; nor have they been influenced solely by the consideration just mentioned--which, in my view, is but of little moment--but by the apprehension, that the diversity of sentiment which exists among the slave states, themselves, in relation to the system, would be disclosed to the country; and that the slaveholding interest would be found deficient in that harmony which, from its perfectness heretofore, has made the slaveholders so successful in their action on the North.