Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

more fertile lands should be found, and the value of his own reduced. He is surrounded by friends, local associations, and some of the comforts of life. Is it desirable to abandon all these, in order to plunge into a wilderness of hardship and barbarism? Can he be supposed to do this, except reluctantly, and from some overruling necessity? Obviously, his interest, and that of his State, lie in the avoidance of competition with themselves, and in the preservation of the value of their soil; in other words, in restricting, instead of expanding the growth of cotton. As an end, an object of desire, nothing could be further from their wishes than this expansion. It is an unfortunate result of the complex politics of the Union, that the political instinct of the South is driven to oppose its material interest. It must expand whilst the North expands, or succumb. It cannot seek expansion from choice or interest, but is driven to it by the impulse of political self-preservation.

The attempt to invest with a moral sentiment this question of Slavery in the territories, will become little less than ridiculous, if we look into the facts. New Mexico, the most important of all the territories, has been organized more than ten years. It is open to Slavery-the Supreme Court protects it, the Government has fostered it there. Its climate is suitable, it lies at the extreme South, and adjoins a Slave State-Texas. With all these advantages, it is clear that Slavery will have made rapid progress, if the spread of it be really an

object of desire. What are the facts? New Mexico has an area of 200,000 square miles, and at the end of ten years there are upon it 22 slaves, and of these only 12 are domiciled. Are we then to suppose that the conscience of the North is so framed that it grieves over this poor dozen, at the same time that it endures four millions close at home? Or can we suppose that there is any real desire in the people of the South to extend Slavery, for its own sake, when, under every conceivable advantage, they advance, in occupying a region four times as large as England, at the rate of one slave per annum?

In this we see the truth of Dr. Mackay's observation—the question is political on both sides, and nothing else. The moment the South has secured the vote of New Mexico, its people care little to go there, or to take slaves there, for the reasons we have named. The object of the North is the same-the vote of the State in the Senate. The name of Slavery is used as a telling cry, as an electioneering manœuvre. Those who want a pretext, naturally adopt the most specious. To suppose them in earnest in this cry, would really be to mock their intelligence; for we must assume them to be outraged and excited by an evil, at a distance of 2,500 miles, which they endure in their own metropolis, crawling on the steps of the Capitol. What is the language even of those who profess to be acting for conscience' sake?

In Mr. Helper's book, to which we shall have

presented to a The real object now wrest from That is a fair

further occasion to allude, we find this passage: "Too long have we yielded a submissive obedience to the tyrannical domination of an inflated oligarchy; too long have we tolerated their arrogance and self-conceit, their unjust and savage exactions. Let us now wrest from them the sceptre of power, and establish liberty and equal rights throughout the land." The close of this sentence will not blind many. The first French Republic went forth to enslave its neighbours, in the name of "liberty and equal rights." We can find no instance where liberty was ever people at the point of a sword. comes out incautiously-" let us them the sceptre of power." political object, but why cloak it under a sham? And there is another proof that Slavery extension is merely a party watchword. The whole continent is now mapped out from the Atlantic to the Pacific-which is the territory that now produces anxiety to the conscience? The North has already surrendered to the South the whole of the territories in which Slavery could exist. Kansas is a settled question. From its western boundary Utah stretches across to California, the destiny of which latter is also decided. Is it to be supposed that the people of the South would cross the vast regions of Kansas and Utah, in order to reach the wilds and winter's cold of Nebraska, or Dacotah? There are but two territories left to which the question could apply-New Mexico and Arizona,

and both of those are already given up to Slavery. Thus, as a matter of practical bearing, the whole question is perfectly idle. The North has surrendered the whole of the South to Slavery, and also the whole of the territories into which it can be carried. They object to its extension where it cannot be extended. As a theme of party declamation this is intelligible enough, but it seems strange that any can be found without sufficient penetration to discern its merits as a moral question.

That the small number of the Northern people who are really earnest should desire to stay the expansion of Slavery, repugnant as it is to the civilization of the present day, is very natural; and in the principles they profess we sympathize. But it does not follow that their views are permitted by the law, or in accordance with the Constitution. On the contrary, the territories are possessed for the common good of the whole of the States. Because one section of the country entertains now a sincere but novel belief, this confers no right to force it upon the other. By the Constitution, Slavery is not only protected, but, amongst other means, by that of all conceivable, the most offensive to freemen. The owner of a slave can pursue him into a Free State, where Slavery is prohibited by law, and take him back thence into bondage. In the face of this, can it be asserted that he may not take him into a territory where no such prohibition exists, which is not a Free State, and which of right belongs to him or

his State, as much as to any other? The avowed object of the North is to preserve the Constitutionyet it departs altogether from its spirit. And this is not mere opinion. It has been decided by the Supreme Court-the great tribunal of the country, whose decision is above the law, for it can annul it-and final, for it is without appeal. In the Dred Scott case, a negro demanded his freedom on the ground of legal residence, beyond the latitude of 36° 30′ North. This was a strong case, inasmuch as Slavery had been prohibited by Congress beyond that line. The Supreme Court pronounced that Congress had no power to make that law; that it was therefore null and void; and declared "that the Constitution recognizes the right of property in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen;" and further, that every citizen had the clear right to go into any territory, and take with him that which the Constitution recognized as his property.

Thus the doctrine upon which Mr. Lincoln was elected has been declared illegal by the supreme authority of the country. And how could any other decision be given? A great court of justice cannot alter the terms, or pervert the meaning of a bond, in order to meet the wishes of a client. It must take the instrument as it stands. Let any one, who has no interest to sway him, take the Constitution of the United States, and try if it be possible for him, upon the obvious spirit of that instrument, to arrive at any other conclusion than

« ZurückWeiter »