CHAPTER V. DEMANDS IN THE NORTH FOR FURTHER CONCESSION AND COM PROMISE. Northern anxiety and alarm. Four classes. Republican policy. Horace Greeley's proposition. Effect at the South.-Thurlow Weed. - Albany "Argus." - New York "Herald." — Philadelphia. Its mayor and meeting. Conservative utterances. - Isaac Hazelhurst. Tweddle Hall Meeting. -Chancellor Walworth. — Horatio Seymour. - Patriotic utterance of George W. Clinton. - Conservative action. Proposition of Fernando Wood.Loyal action of New York legislature. — Mercantile class. — Memorial meeting and action at Cooper Institute. - Treasonable utterances. Proposed formation of a new Union. - Letter of Ex-Governor Price. - Society for Promotion of National Unity. — Address. - Letter of Franklin Pierce. Southern encour. agement. Responsibility. - THESE revolutionary movements at the South could not but produce the most profound impression and excite the most anxious interest and solicitude at the North. They not only excited the gravest apprehensions of threatened danger, but they involved an imperative demand for measures to avert, if it could be done, the threatened rupture, or, if that were not possible, to prepare for the unknown future big with the possi bilities of evil. The opinions entertained varied largely as men were affected by their surroundings, interests, prepossessions, and prejudices. There were, with many shades of difference, four distinct classes. One class, though a small one, was composed mainly of those who had supported the Breckinridge ticket. They were in favor of complete acquiescence in the demands of the secessionists. Another class, composed mainly of the supporters of Douglas and Bell, were clamorous for new concessions and new compromises. They clamored for the repeal of the personal-liberty acts, the rigid enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, and for acquiescence in the decisions of the Supreme Court, those already made and those that might be made. There was, too, a class of Republicans, representing largely the mercantile, manufacturing, and moneyed interests, who were in favor of making calm and conciliatory appeals to the excited exponents of Southern opinion. Some of them went so far as to favor a national convention for the readjustment of the jarring interests between the free and slave States. A much larger class, composed mainly of the Republican masses who had supported Mr. Lincoln upon the distinctive issues presented in their platform, adhered firmly to the opinions enunciated in the canvass, and avowed themselves, in temperate but firm language, in favor of maintaining the unity of the country, and the authority of the government, and of putting down rebellion with arms if need be. In addition to the natural expression of these different sentiments there were utterances and recommendations of those who allowed their individuality of character and independent modes of thinking to modify in greater or less degree their opinions and recommendations. Among them stood prominent Horace Greeley, of the New York "Tribune," perhaps at that time the leading journal of the country. Three days after the election he published a leading article intended to calm the excitement manifesting itself in South Carolina and in other cotton States. "If the cotton States," it said, "shall decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace." Admitting that the right to secede was a revolutionary one, and denying the right of any State to remain in the Union to nullify and defy its laws, it declared that "whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets." It indeed insisted that the steps to secession should be taken with "the deliberation and gravity befitting so momentous an issue," while it maintained that the measures taken in the Southern States with a view to secession had borne the unmistakable impress of haste, of passion, of distrust, and that they were calculated to precipitate the South into rebellion before "the baselessness of the clamors which have misled and excited her can be ascertained by the great body of the people." This article, however, instead of influencing the Southern politicians and presses to reflect and deliberate so that an act for secession should echo unmistakably the popular will, tended rather to stimulate and encourage the disunionists. The "Tribune" had always resisted the demands of the Slave Power with unfaltering zeal and unquestioned ability. Its new position was deemed by the secessionists as an evidence of weakness and fear, a shrinking from the threatened and impending conflict. The Albany "Evening Journal" was conducted by Thurlow Weed, an editor and politician of rare tact, ability, and influence. Believing that the election of Mr. Lincoln was the pretext for disunion and not the cause of it, that the Southern masses were acting in "utter ignorance of the intentions, views, and feelings of the North," and that the danger of disunion could "only be averted by such moderation and forbearance as will draw out, strengthen, and combine the Union sentiment of the whole country," Mr. Weed proposed concessions to calm passions, dispel illusions, and cherish the Union sentiments in the South. Believing that peaceable secession was not practicable, he recommended a convention of the people consisting of delegates appointed by the States. For many years a devoted friend and supporter of Mr. Seward, Mr. Weed was supposed to utter the sentiments of that statesman. His action excited much interest and criticism, though assurances were given that none but the editor could be compromised or harmed. This appeal against passion and violence, and in favor of moderation, while it excited no little uneasiness in the North, was deemed by the exponents of Southern opinion to be only another evidence of timidity, wavering, and indecision. Six days after the election, the Albany "Argus," a Democratic journal of large influence with the Democracy of New York, expressed the opinion that neither Mr. Buchanan nor Mr. Lincoln would employ force against the seceding States. "Any other course," it said, "would be madness. The first gun fired in the way of forcing a seceding State back to the Union would probably prove the knell of its final dismemberment." Other Democratic presses expressed like sentiments. The New York" Herald," as early as the 9th of November, in its leading editorial, said that the confederation was held together only by public opinion; and that "coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question." But whatever may have been the opinions, purposes, or plans of the conductors of these journals, it was clearly seen before the meeting of Congress in December, that they had encouraged rather than discouraged the champions of secession and disunion, as did similar utterances in that body after it came together. They tended to develop and encourage a policy of concession, compromise, surrender, and abasement in the North, especially among the business classes. This was painfully manifest in the tone of public meetings and in the results of municipal elections. The city of Philadelphia, though distinguished for its conservative tendencies, had given a small majority for Mr. Lincoln. On the 10th of December, her mayor, Alexander Henry, issued a proclamation calling a public meeting of citizens for the 13th, in Independence Square. Declaring that the Union was in peril, he counselled the people to cast off the spirit of party, avow their unfaltering fidelity to the Union, and proclaim their abiding faith in the Constitution and laws. An immense meeting was held, and a series of resolutions were adopted pledging the people of Philadelphia to recognize the binding obligation of the Fugitive Slave Act, and to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court touching the status of slavery in the Territories; at the same time asserting that denunciations of slavery were inconsistent with national brotherhood. Mayor Henry distinctly avowed that the teachings of the pulpit and lecture-room and the appeals of the press on the subject of slavery "must be frowned down by a just and law-abiding people." George W. Woodard, a leading Democratic lawyer, and the candidate of his party in 1863 for governor, declared that passion for liberty had burned out all memories of compromise and compact in Northern communities." The repeal of personal-liberty bills was demanded by Theodore Cuyler, one of the most eminent lawyers of the State. But amid these evidences of surrender, one voice spoke out in tones of manly courage. Isaac Hazelhurst avowed that Pennsylvania had "nothing to repent of," and that the Union should be preserved. With the most decided and unequivocal words he pledged himself and any sacrifices required in defence of the Constitution if assailed. George W. Curtis of New York, one of the most accomplished speakers of the times, and a devoted advocate of impartial liberty, had engaged to lecture in Philadelphia upon the "Policy of Honesty." His name, if not his theme, it was feared, might give offence to those who were striving to destroy their country. Mayor Henry hastened, on the same day he issued his proclamation for the meeting, to call upon the chairman of the People's Literary Institute, urging him not to permit the meeting to be held. This request was heeded, and freedom of speech in Philadelphia was sacrificed to placate the Slave Power, thus organizing rebellion. On the 31st of January, 1861, a Democratic State convention assembled in Tweddle Hall, at Albany, in compliance with a request of the Democratic State Central Committee. The convention was large in numbers, and strong in talent and character. Amasa J. Parker, the president, on taking the chair, declared that "the people of this State demand the peaceful settlement of the questions that have led to disunion, and they have a right to insist that there shall be conciliation, concession, compromise." The venerable Alexander P. Johnson sharply arraigned the Republicans, asserted that their "principles and conduct have produced the mischief," and avowed that "no guaranty will be unwelcomed that shall give the South and all its property the same rights that are, or shall be, possessed by the North and its property." Though six States had already seceded from the Union, and had seized forts, arsenals, and other national property, yet Reuben H. Walworth, eminent as a judge, philanthropist, and prominently connected with the missionary enterprise, after saying that civil war would not restore the Union, asserted that "it would be as brutal to send men to butcher our own brothers of the Southern States as it would be to massacre them in the Northern States." |