A VICTORY OF PRINCIPLE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

REFUSAL TO COLORED PERSONS OF RIGHT OF PETITION.

It is difficult to treat this proposition, proceeding from a Committee of the Senate, except as you would treat a direct proposition of Atheism. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”; but it was only in his heart; the fool in Scripture did not openly declare it. Had he openly declared it, he would have been in a position hardly more offensive than your Committee.

There is a saying of antiquity, which has the confirming voice of all intervening time, that “whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.” And now, Sir, while humbled for my country that such a proposition should be introduced into the Senate, I accept it as the omen of that madness which precedes the fall of its authors.

At this moment the number of free persons, African by descent, in the United States, is almost half a million,—being a population two thirds larger than the white population in South Carolina, more than one third larger than the white population in Mississippi, and six times larger than the white population in Florida. I mention these facts in order to show at the outset the number of persons whose rights are now assailed.

Already, in several States, free negroes are threatened with expulsion, under the terrible penalty of being sold into Slavery. The Supreme Court of the United States has stepped forward, and by cruel decree declared that they are not citizens, and therefore are not entitled to sue in the courts of the United States. And now, to complete their degradation and exclusion from all rights, it is proposed to declare that their petitions cannot be received by the Senate.

The right of petition is not political, but personal,—born with Humanity, and confirmed by Christianity,—belonging to all, but peculiar to the humble, the weak, and the oppressed. It belongs even to the criminal; for it is simply the right to pray.

There is no country, professing civilization, where this right is not sacred. In Mahometan countries it is revered. One of the most touching stories of the East is where a petitioner in affliction came before the Sultan, crying out,—

To take this right away from any portion of our fellow-subjects—even if you say they are not fellow-citizens—will be barbarous. And when I consider under what influence this proposition is brought forward, I present it as a fresh illustration of the Barbarism of Slavery,—most barbarous in the unconsciousness of its Barbarism.

The outrage is apparent from a simple statement.

In all the States—even in the Slave States—a free colored man may hold property of all kinds, personal or real,—even land, in which citizenship strikes its strongest root; but you will not allow him the poor right of petition.

He may own stocks of the United States, Treasury notes, and in other ways be the creditor of the Government; but you will not allow him the poor right of petition.

He is strictly bound by every enactment upon our statute-book; and yet you will not allow him to appear before you with a prayer to modify or soften this statute-book.

He is rigidly held to pay his quota of taxes; but you will not allow him to ask for their reduction.

And still further, under all your pension laws for Revolutionary services, and for services in other wars, whether on land or sea, he is entitled to a pension precisely as if he were white; but you will not allow him to solicit aid under these laws.

Such is a simple statement of the injustice you are about to do. On this statement alone, without one word of argument or illustration, you will surely recoil.

But this proposition proceeds on two assumptions, each of which is radically false: first, that a free person of African descent is not a citizen of the United States; and, secondly, that none other than a citizen is entitled to petition Congress.

In support of the first assumption is the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott. But against that decision—so unfortunate for the character of the tribunal from which it proceeded,—which has degraded that tribunal hardly less than it sought to degrade the African race—I oppose the actual fact in at least six of the original thirteen States at the adoption of the Constitution.

First, in Massachusetts, where the present petitioners reside, all persons, without distinction of color, are treated as citizens by its Constitution adopted in 1780.

Secondly, in Virginia, the State represented by the Senator [Mr. Mason] who brings forward this decree of disfranchisement, the same principle prevailed at the same time. And here I call attention to the 11th volume of Hening’s Virginia Statutes, where, on page 322, may be found the law of October, 1783, which repeals that of 1779, limiting citizenship to whites, and enacts, “that all free persons born within the territory of this Commonwealth … shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth,” without one word referring to descent or color.

Thirdly, in New Hampshire, whose Constitution conferred the elective franchise upon “every inhabitant of the State having the proper qualifications,”—of which descent or color was not one.

Fourthly, in New York, where the Constitution conferred the elective franchise upon “every male inhabitant of full age who shall have personally resided,” &c., “if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder,” &c.,—without any discrimination of descent or color.

Fifthly, in New Jersey, by whose Constitution the elective franchise was conferred upon “all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation money, clear estate,”—also without any discrimination of descent or color.

Sixthly, in North Carolina, where Mr. Justice Gaston, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State in the case of The State v. Manuel, declared that “the Constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax; and it is a matter of universal notoriety, that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise, until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution.”[145]

To these authoritative precedents, drawn from the very epoch of the National Constitution, I might add other illustrations. I content myself with referring to the Constitution of Missouri, which, in speaking of “every free white male citizen,”[146] admits by implication that colored persons may be citizens, and to the Code of Alabama, which declares that certain sections “do not apply to or affect any free person of color who by the Treaty between the United States and Spain became a citizen of the United States, or the descendants of such.”[147]

But not only in six of the old thirteen States all freemen without distinction of color were citizens, but also under the Articles of Confederation they were citizens. By the fourth article it was expressly declared that “the free inhabitants of each of these States (paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted) shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” The meaning of this clause, which is clear on its face, becomes clearer still, when it is known, that, while it was under discussion, on the 25th of June, 1778, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend it by inserting between the words “free inhabitants” the word “white,” so that the character of a citizen should be restricted to white persons. This proposition was rejected,—two States only voting for it, eight States against it, and the vote of one State being divided; so that the term “free inhabitants” was left in its full significance, without any distinction of descent or color.

The Constitution of the United States next followed. And it contains not a sentence, phrase, or word of disfranchisement on account of descent or color, any more than on account of religion.

If the present question depended upon citizenship, you could not refuse to receive the petition. But it does not depend upon citizenship. The right to petition Congress is not an incident of the elective franchise. It exists where the elective franchise does not exist. The Constitution expressly secures it, not simply to citizens, but broadly and completely to THE PEOPLE, declaring, in the first article of its Amendments, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The term people here naturally means all, without distinction of class, who owe allegiance to the Government. It is the American equivalent for subjects. If there were any doubt on this point, it would be removed by the clear and irresistible meaning of the term in other parts of the Constitution. Thus, in the clause constituting the House of Representatives, it is declared that it “shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.” Here is an obvious difference between the “people” and “electors.” The former is broader than the latter. It is the former that constitutes the basis of representation, and the Constitution then proceeds to declare that this basis “shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” Whatever may be the position of the fractional class, nothing can be clearer than that all free persons, without distinction of color or descent, belong to the people, and, so belonging, they are solemnly and expressly protected by the Constitution in the right of petition.

The Constitution next provides for the “enumeration” of the people, and under this provision there is a decennial census of the whole people, without distinction of color or descent; and yet, while including all of African descent in your population, you refuse to receive their petitions.

The present proposition is aggravated by well-attested facts in our history. A colored man, Crispus Attucks, was the first martyr of our Revolutionary struggle. Throughout the long war of seven years, while national independence was still doubtful, colored men fought sometimes in the same ranks with the whites, and sometimes in separate companies, but always with patriotic courage, and often under the eye of Washington. The blood of the two races mingled, and, dying on the same field, they were buried beneath the same sod. And this same association was continued throughout the War of 1812, in all our naval contests, and especially in the Battle of Lake Erie under Perry, and of Lake Champlain under Macdonough, where colored men performed a conspicuous part. But no better testimony can be presented than the eloquent proclamation of General Jackson, before the Battle of New Orleans, where he calls upon the “free colored inhabitants of Louisiana” to take part in the contest as American soldiers, and speaks of them by implication as “fellow-citizens.”[148] “American soldiers” and “fellow-citizens”: such is the language of Andrew Jackson, when speaking of those whom you would despoil of a venerable right.

Thus, Sir, throughout our history, you have used these men for defence of the country, you have coined their blood into your own liberties; but you deny them now the smallest liberty of all,—the last which is left to the miserable,—the liberty to pray. In the history of misfortune or of tyranny nothing can surpass this final act of robbery. The words of the classic poet are fulfilled:—

There is a story of General Washington which illustrates by contrast the wrong of the present proposition. On a certain occasion, being engaged late at the quarters of his aid, Colonel Pickering, of Massachusetts, he proposed to pass the night, if the colored servant, Primus Hall, whom I remember at Boston in my childhood, could find straw and a blanket. Of course they were found; but it was by the surrender of the servant’s own blanket. In the course of the night, the General, becoming aware of the sacrifice, most authoritatively required the servant to share the blanket, saying, “There is room for both, and I insist upon it”; and on the same straw, beneath the same blanket, the General and the faithful African slept till morning sun.[150] You not only refuse to share your liberties with the colored man, but you now propose to take from him his last blanket.

This is not the time to dwell on the character of the colored race; for the right of petition can never depend on the character of the petitioner, while in criminal cases liberty and life even may. But I mention two facts which speak for this much injured people. The first, Sir, is the official census, by which it appears that throughout the Free States among the colored population a much larger proportion attend school than among the whites of the Slave States, and this contrast becomes still more apparent when we consider the small attendance upon school by the whites in South Carolina. The other fact appears in the last will and testament of Mr. Upshur, of Virginia, Secretary of State under President Tyler, where he thus speaks:—

I do not dwell on precedents; for Senators willing to entertain this proposition can have little regard for any precedents in favor of Human Rights. I content myself with saying, that never before has this assault on Human Rights been made,—that petitions from colored persons have been often presented and refused, precisely as other petitions. Here, for example, is an instance on the Journals of the Senate:—

But I have said enough. Most earnestly and sincerely do I protest against this attempt, on three grounds: first, because, being essentially barbarous in character, it must be utterly shameful to a government boasting Christianity and professing Civilization; secondly, because it is a flagrant violation of the constitutional rights of more than half a million of American people; and, thirdly, because, in the present case, it is an insult to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where these petitioners reside in the free enjoyment of all the rights of citizens,—among others, of voting for Members of Congress. I am unwilling to weaken this argument for Human Rights by any appeal to State Rights; but I cannot fail to observe that this proposition, which tramples down State Rights in order to assail Human Rights, proceeds from a Senator [Mr. Mason] who always avows himself the defender of State Rights.

For myself, Sir, my course is plain. Whatever may be the action of the Senate, I shall continue to present such petitions. And permit me to say, that I should be little worthy of the place I now hold, if, at any time hereafter, receiving such petitions, I hesitate in the discharge of this sacred duty.

THE LATE HONORABLE JOHN SCHWARTZ, OF PENNSYLVANIA.

His presence in the other House was a protest. All who saw him there knew that he came from a constituency which had always been represented by an unhesitating member of the Democratic party, while he openly denounced that party,[153] and associated himself cordially and completely with those who, founding themselves on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, sought to bring the National Government to the ancient ways. I mention this circumstance, because it is an essential part of his too brief public life, while it illustrates his character, and proclaims his title to honor. The powerful party leader, “with a Senate at his heels,” is less worthy of love and consideration than the simple citizen, who, scorning party ties, dares to be true and just.

But never did man, who had broken down a party at home, and taken his seat as representative of Opposition, wear his signal success more gently. Though decided and firm in conduct, he was winning and sweet in manner, and by beautiful example showed how to unite two qualities which are not always found together. Winter was not sterner, summer was not softer.

In character he did honor to the brave and pure German stock, which, even from that early day when first revealed to history in the sharp and clean-cut style of Tacitus, has preserved its original peculiarities untouched by change, showing, that, though the individual is mortal, the race is immortal. American by birth, and American in a generous patriotism, he was German in his clear blue eye, in his physical frame, in the warmth of his affections, and in the simplicity of his life. To him alone our tribute is now due; but, in pronouncing the name of John Schwartz, we cannot forget the “fatherland” of his ancestors, which out of its abundance has given to our Republic so many good heads, so many strong arms, with so much of virtue and intelligence, rejoicing in freedom, and calling no man master.

UNHESITATING ASSERTION OF OUR PRINCIPLES.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY:
ITS ORIGIN, NECESSITY, AND PERMANENCE.

Fellow-Citizens of New York:—

Of all men in our history, there are two whose influence at this moment is peculiar. Though dead, they yet live, speak, and act in the conflict of principle which divides the country,—standing face to face, like two well-matched champions. When I add that one was from South Carolina and the other from Massachusetts, you cannot fail to see that I mean John C. Calhoun and John Quincy Adams.

Statesmen, both, of long career, marked ability, and unblemished integrity,—acting together at first,—sitting in the same Cabinet, from which they passed, one to become Vice-President, and the other President,—then, for the remainder of their days, battling in Congress, and dying there,—each was a leader in life, but each is now in death a greater leader still.

Mr. Calhoun possessed an intellect of much originality and boldness, and, though wanting the culture of a scholar, made himself felt in council and in debate. To native powers unlike, but not inferior, Mr. Adams added the well-ripened fruits of long experience in foreign lands and of studies more various and complete than those of any other public man in our history, besides an indomitable will, and that spirit of freedom which inspired his father, when, in the Continental Congress, he so eloquently maintained the Declaration of Independence, making himself its Colossus on that floor.

Sitting together in the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe, they concurred in sanctioning the Missouri Prohibition of Slavery as constitutional, and so advised the President. But here divergence probably began, though for a long time not made manifest. The diary of Mr. Adams shows that at that early day, when Slavery had been little discussed, he saw its enormity with instinctive quickness, and described it with corresponding force. The record is less full with regard to Mr. Calhoun; but when they reappeared, one in the Senate, and the other in the House of Representatives, each openly assumed the position by which he will be known in history,—one as chief in all the pretensions of Slavery and Slave-Masters, the other as champion of Freedom.

Mr. Calhoun regarded Slavery as a permanent institution; Mr. Adams regarded it as something transitory. Mr. Calhoun vaunted it as a form of civilization; Mr. Adams scorned it as an unquestionable barbarism. Mr. Calhoun did not hesitate to call it the most stable basis of free government; Mr. Adams vehemently denounced it as a curse, full of weakness and mockery, doubly offensive in a boastful Republic. Mr. Calhoun, not content with exalting Slavery, proceeded to condemn the early opinions of Washington and Jefferson as “folly and delusion,” to assail the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence as “absurd,” and then to proclaim that human beings are “property” under the Constitution, and, as such, may be transported into the Territories and there held in Slavery; while Mr. Adams added to the glory of his long and diversified career by persistent efforts which are better for his fame than having been President,—upholding the great rights of petition and of speech,—vindicating the early opinions of the Fathers, and the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence,—exposing the odious character of Slavery,—insisting upon its prohibition in the Territories,—denying the asserted property in man,—and especially, and often, exhibiting the unjust power in the National Government usurped by what he called “the little cluster” of Slave-Masters, whose yoke was to him intolerable.

Such, most briefly told, were antagonist opinions of these two chiefs. Never was great conflict destined to involve a great country more distinctly foreshadowed. All that the Republican party now opposes may be found in John C. Calhoun; all that the Republican party now maintains may be found in John Quincy Adams. Choose ye, fellow-citizens, between the two.

The rule of “Principles and not Men” is hardly applicable to a man whose name, bearing the sacred seal of death, has become the synonym of Principle; yet I do not hesitate to say that our cause is best appreciated in its precise objects and aims. Proud as we are to tread where John Quincy Adams leads the way, there is a guide of more commanding authority—found in the eternal law of Right, and the concurring mandate of the Constitution itself, when properly interpreted—that teaches the duties of a good citizen. Such is the guide of the Republican party, which, I say fearlessly, where most known, will be most trusted, and, when understood in its origin, will be seen to be no accidental or fugitive organization, merely for an election, but an irresistible necessity, which in the nature of things must be permanent as the pretensions, moral and political, which it seeks to constrain and counteract.

All must admit, too, that, if no Republican party existed now,—even if that halcyon day had come, so often promised by cajoling politicians, when the Slavery Question was settled,—still there would be a political necessity for a great party of Opposition to act as check on the Administration. A kindred necessity was once expressed by an eminent British statesman, who gave as a toast, “A strong Administration and a strong Opposition.” Parties are unknown in despotic countries. They belong to the machinery of free governments. Through parties public opinion is concentrated and directed; through parties principles are maintained above men; and through parties men in power are held to a just responsibility. If ever there was occasion for such a party, it is now, when the corruptions of the Administration are dragged to light by Committees of Congress. On this ground alone good men might be summoned to rescue the government of our country.

It is an attested fact that Mr. Buchanan became President through corruption. Money, familiarly known as a “corruption fund,” first distilled in small drippings from clerks and petty officials, was swollen by larger contributions of merchants and contractors, and with this accumulation votes were purchased in Philadelphia, enough to turn the election in that great metropolis, and in the chain of cause and effect to assure the triumph of the Democratic candidate. I speak now only what is proved. Fraudulent naturalization papers in blank, by which this was perpetrated, were produced before a Committee of Congress. It was natural that an Administration thus corrupt in origin should continue to exercise power through the same corruption by which power was gained; but nothing else than that insensibility to acts of shame produced by familiarity can explain how all this has been done with such absolute indecency of exposure, so as to recall the words of the poet,—

A letter from a local politician, addressed to the President himself, urging without disguise the giving of a large contract for machinery to a particular house in Philadelphia, employing four hundred and fifty mechanics, with a view to the approaching election, was sent to the Secretary of the Navy, with this indorsement, in a well-known handwriting, signed by well-known initials: “Sept. 15, 1858. The enclosed letter from Colonel Patterson, of Philadelphia, is submitted to the attention of the Secretary of the Navy. J. B.” Thus did the President of the United States, in formal written words, now of record in the history of the country, recommend the employment of the public money, set apart for the public service, to influence an election. Here was criminality as positive as when his supporters purchased votes in the streets. From one learn all; and from such a characteristic instance learn the character of the Administration. But there are other well-known instances; and the testimony before the Congressional Committees discloses the President on Sundays in secret conclave with one of his corrupt agents, piously occupied discussing the chances of an election, and how its expenses were to be met, while, at the same time, like another Joseph Surface, he was uttering in public “fine sentiments” of political morality, and lamenting the prevalence of the very indecencies in which he was engaged.

It was natural that a President, who, with professions of purity on the lips, made himself the pander of such vulgar corruption, should stick at nothing needful to carry his purposes. I shall not dwell on the Lecompton Constitution; but it belongs to this chapter. You all know its wickedness. Concocted originally at Washington, with the single purpose of fastening Slavery upon the people of Kansas, it was by execrable contrivance so arranged as to prevent the people, when about to become a State, from voting on that question. Next sanctioned by a convention of usurpers, who in no respect represented the people of Kansas, then fraudulently submitted to the people for their votes, it was fraudulently adopted by stuffing ballot-boxes on a scale never before known. Thus, at the Delaware Crossing, where there were but forty-three legal voters, four hundred were returned; at Oxford, where there were but forty-two legal voters, a thousand were returned; and at Shawnee, where there were but forty legal voters, twelve hundred were returned. And yet this Constitution, disowned by the very Governor who had gone to Kansas as agent of the President,—rotten with corruption, gaping with falsehood, and steaming with iniquity,—was at once recognized by the President, urged upon Congress in a special message, and pressed for adoption by all the appliances of unprincipled power. If the words of Jugurtha, turning his back upon Rome, cannot be repeated, that the Republic is for sale, and soon to perish, if it shall find a purchaser,[154] nor the sharper saying of Walpole, that every man has his price, it was not from any forbearance in the President. A single editor was offered the printing of Post-Office blanks worth at least eighty thousand dollars, if by an article no larger than a man’s hand he would show submission to the Administration. Bribes of office were added to bribes of money. As the votes of electors had been purchased to make Mr. Buchanan President, the votes of Representatives were now solicited to carry out his scheme of corruption, and the Halls of Congress were changed into a political market-house, where men were bought by the head. Is not all this enough to arouse the indignation of the people?

It is true that the President, whose power began in corruption, and who is responsible author of the corruption by which his administration has been debased, is no longer a candidate for office. Already judgment begins. His own political party discards him. The first avenging blow is struck. Incorruptible history will do the rest. The tablet conspicuously erected in Genoa to expose the crimes of certain Doges, branding one as Fur Magnus and another as Maximus Latronum, will not be needed here. The exposed corrupter, the tyrant enslaver, and the robber of Human Freedom cannot be forgotten. Unhappy President! after a long career of public service, not only tossed aside, but tossed over to perpetual memory as an example to be shunned! Better for him the oblivion of common life than the bad fame he has won!

But, though not himself a candidate for office, his peculiar supporters, animated by his spirit, linked with him in misrule, are embodied as a party, and ask your votes. Simply to resist this combination, and to save the Republic from its degrading influence, would justify the formation of the Republican party; and I doubt not that there are many who will be content to unite with us on this ground alone, anxious to put the National Government once again in pure hands. To all such, welcome!

While this consummation necessarily enters into the present purposes of the Republican party, while we naturally begin by insisting upon purity in the Government, and make this one of our urgent demands, it is obvious that the quickening impulse of the party is to be found in other purposes, which cannot pass away in a single election. The Republican party seeks to overthrow the Slave Oligarchy in the National Government, and especially at this moment to stay its aggressions in the Territories, which, through a corrupt interpretation of the Constitution, it threatens to barbarize with Slavery. But all who seek purity in the National Government must unite in this purpose; for only by the overthrow of this base Oligarchy, which, beginning in the denial of all human rights, necessarily shows itself in barbarism and villany of all kinds, can a better order prevail. It is out of Slavery that all our griefs proceed; nor can the offences of the present Administration be fully comprehended without considering the nature of this Evil, and its chronic influence over our Government, reaching everywhere by subtle agencies, or more subtle, far-reaching example, but still in itself the original and all-sufficient activity. As well attempt to explain the Gulf Stream without the Gulf of Mexico, or the Origin of Evil without the human heart, as attempt to explain the present degraded character of the National Government without Slavery. As well attempt the play of “Othello” without the Moor. And permit me to say that our warfare with these iniquities will be feeble, unless we attack them in their origin.

At the beginning of our history Slavery was universally admitted to be an Evil. Nobody then so hardy as to vindicate it. In the Convention which framed the Constitution it was branded as “a nefarious institution,” or more mildly called “wrong”; and these generous voices came from the South as well as from the North. Out of the Convention there was a similar accord. I shall not quote the words of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, or Jay, for they are familiar to all. Even as they spoke others spoke, and I might occupy the whole evening simply reciting this testimony. Nor were these declarations confined to public life. The Colleges all, by definite action, arrayed themselves against Slavery, especially the University of William and Mary, in Virginia, which conferred upon Granville Sharp, the acknowledged chief of British Abolitionists, the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. The Literature of the land, such as it was, agreed with the Colleges. The Church, too, added its powerful voice; and here, amid diversities of religious faith, we hail that unity of spirit which animated all. Quakers, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists seemed to vie with each other in this pious testimony.

The Constitution was adopted, but the word Slave was not allowed to pollute its text; and this was in declared deference to the prevailing opinion, which regarded Slavery as temporary, destined soon to pass away. All looked to the glad day as almost at hand. In harmony with this expectation, Slavery was prohibited in all existing territories of the Union, so that, when Washington, as first President of the United States, at his inauguration here in New York took his first oath to support the Constitution, the flag of the Republic nowhere on the land within the jurisdiction of Congress covered a single slave. Little then did the Fathers dream that the Evil which they regarded with shame and exerted themselves to prohibit would elevate its obscene crest as it now does, and flaunt its monstrous pretensions before the world. Little did they dream that the Constitution, from which they had carefully excluded the very word, would be held, in defiance of reason and common sense, to protect the thing, so exceptionally that it could not be reached by Congressional prohibition, even within Congressional jurisdiction. Little did they dream that the text, which they left so pure and healthful, would, through corrupt interpretation, be swollen into such an offensive Elephantiasis.

Two circumstances, civilizing in themselves, exercised an unexpected influence for American Slavery: first, the abolition of the slave-trade, which by taking away the supply increased the value of slaves; and, secondly, the increased cultivation of cotton, stimulated by the invention of new machinery. The latter has been of especial moment. Indeed, it is hardly too much to say that out of this slender cotton fibre are formed the manacles of the slave. Thus, through sinister activity, and the wickedness of men, is good made the minister of wrong. Next after Christopher Columbus, who by sublime enterprise opened a pathway to the New World, Eli Whitney, who discovered the cotton gin, has been indirectly and unconsciously a chief agent in the bondage of the African race on the North American continent; and surely proper gratitude for the advantages we enjoy in such large store from these two discoveries must prompt us to increased activity for the welfare of those who, alas! have been such losers, where we have been such gainers.

The change of opinion, so disastrous in result, was gradual. Though in its successive stages easily detected by the careful inquirer, it did not become manifest to the whole country till 1820, when it burst forth in the Missouri Question. Then, for the first time, Slavery showed itself openly violent, insolent, belligerent. Freedom was checked, but saved something by a compromise,—announced, at the moment of its adoption, by Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, as a triumph of the South,—where, in consideration of the admission of Missouri as a Slave State, thus securing additional preponderance to the Slave Power, it was stipulated that Slavery should be prohibited in certain outlying territory, at that time trodden only by savages. Then came a lull, during which the change was still at work, until, contemporaneously with the abolition of Slavery in the British West Indies, the discussion was lighted anew. Meanwhile slaves augmented in price, and slave-masters became more decided. In timid deference to the world, they at first ventured no defence of Slavery in the abstract; but at last, bolder grown under the lead of Mr. Calhoun, they threw aside all reserve, openly assailed the opinions of the Fathers, audaciously denied the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence, and by formal resolution asserted the new dogma of Slavery in the Territories. This was as late as 1847. A letter of that day, from Mr. Calhoun, addressed to a member of the Alabama Legislature, shows that there was an element of policy in this exaggeration. His desire was “to force the Slavery issue” on the North, believing that delay was dangerous, as the Slave-Masters were then relatively stronger, both morally and politically, than they would ever be again.

At last the end has come. Slavery is openly pronounced, at one time, the black marble keystone of our National Arch,—at another time, the corner-stone of our Republican edifice; then it is vaunted as the highest type of civilization,—then as a blessing to the master as well as the slave,—and then again as ennobling to the master, if not to the slave. It is only the first step which costs, and therefore the authors of these opinions, so shocking to the moral sense, do not hesitate at other opinions equally shocking to the reason, even to the extent of finding impossible sanctions for Slavery in the Constitution. Listening to these extravagances, who would not exclaim, with Ben Jonson in the play?—