THERE are none who deny that slavery, in
some way, and in some sense, is the
principal cause of our civil war. For
they who - abroad and at home - allege that
it is caused by the actual and profound
diversity between the two sections of the
country as to their interest, their habits,
and their character, do not deny that this
diversity between the two sections of the
country as to their interests, their habits,
and their character, do not deny that this
diversity springs mainly from the existence
of slavery in one only of the parties.
And they who account for it by the angry and
persistent vehemence of abolitionism, will
not deny that if there were no slavery to be
abolished there could be no abolitionism.
It is not however worth while to use many
words in proving a fact, which the map of
our country demonstrates.
But if it be certain that slavery in some way is the
central cause of the civil war, it is by no
means certain how, or why, this cause has
produced this effect. If I offer for
consideration the views I hold on this
subject, it is because in this country
public opinion is a sovereign power, and the
humblest effort to introduce into this
opinion what seems to the offerer an element
of truth, may at least be pardoned.
What is Slavery? Its foundation is the power of
controlling any man without his consent and
concurrence. The absolute ownership by
one man of another man as it exists at the
South, is only the perfection and
consummation of this principle. There
are cases where immaturity demands guidance,
or crime deserves punishment. Putting
these cases aside, wherever this principle
exists and operates, and in whatever this
principle exists and operates, and in
whatever degree it exits, there is that
which may be called the essence of Slavery.
We are accustomed to confine the name to
absolute ownership. Nor do I insist
that the use of the
[pg. 4]
word slavery should be extended, if only I
am understood as believing that this
relation of man to man is but the completion
of a relation which exists in a greater or a
less degree when any man possesses the right
to coerce another into labor for his
benefit, without the consent of that other.
It might seem that this is, in some sort, the condition
of all men; for even in this busy land, few
work excepting because they must. But,
if we take an extreme case, it is one thing
to be able to say to a man, Work for me on
the terms which I offer, or starve, leaving
it to him to starve if he chooses, and a
very different thing, to have the right to
say to him, Work for me on my terms or no
terms, because I command you. These
two things differ in essence; they are as
different, as non-slavery and slavery.
The phrase in our Constitution, "held to
labor," marks the distinction between one
who is held to labor, and one who is
persuaded or induced to labor. This
phrase is, as it was intended to be, an
exact definition of a slave.
If it happens that these words present this idea to any
reader for the first time, it may seem to
him visionary, unreal, and unpractical, And
certainly such an idea as that a legal right
of thus compelling service is itself a
wrong, scarcely existed upon earth until a
few generations ago. If it existed in
some minds, and was uttered by some voices,
it had nowhere prevalence or recognition.
And to-day it can hardly be said to have
definite expression and acknowledged truth
in the old world. All class-right is,
to some extent, opposed to it; and indeed is
founded upon its opposite. And yet,
history, if we permit it to throw the light
of the past upon the present, may teach us
that mankind in all its progress, ahs been
constantly advancing towards this end,
towards the liberation of the human mind
from the thought, and of the human heart
from the desire, of standing over a
brother-man as his master and his owner.
And a reason why that goodness which has
ever led and watched the advancing footsteps
of our race has guided them in this
direction, is, that in proportion as the
thought and desire of ruling over our
brother pass away, they are replaced by the
thought and the desire of
[pg. 5]
standing by his side and working with him
for a common good.
Let us cast a glance - a very brief and rapid glance -
at the past. Beginning where history
begins, we see unqualified and unquestioned
depotism; now good and now evil, utterly
diverse in character and influence, but
always unquestioned, and unimpeded.
This was and is the Oriental idea of
government; Gibbon remarks that
Eastern languages have no words to express
any other mode of government. At
length Greece arose, and under the leading
of Alexander, conquered. It was
the conquest of Europe over Asia; of a
European way of thinking over Oriental
thought; it was a step away from the
Oriental idea that depotism was the only
cognizable for of government.
In Greece and Rome, whatever the abuses of certain
ages, there was always the pretence, and
often the reality of governing by law.
And then the feudal system advanced so far
as to give every man his place. For it
gave to every man his rights, such as they
were, and to no man the right of absorbing
all other rights into his own. The
feudal system had serfs, but not slaves.
The federal system grew, flourished, decayed, and is
passing away. A step further forward
was possible; but not possible in Europe.
Ages which had greatly varied the
institutions of feudalism, had indurated
them and the system of thought and feeling
adapted to them; and clothed them all with
steel, more impenetrable than the mail her
warriors once wore. Not in Europe
could the next step to be taken, - and
America was discovered. And in or near
the same age came the great discovery of
gunpowder, which has made it impossible that
the scenes Froissart so loves to
paint, where a few mailed knights routed and
slaughtered at their pleasure mobs of
peasantry, should ever be repeated.
And the compass which led Columbus to
America was given as the means of a commerce
which has already begun its work of binding
the nations into unity. And the press
was given, to give wings to thought.
And all these discoveries were gifts of the
same goodness and were given for the same
end, as that for which America was
discovered and
[pg. 6]
peopled. This end was - to express it
in the fewest words - that consent
might take the place of compulsion,
in all the ranks and regions and work of
human society.
To this end this nation was planted in the home made
ready for it; fostered until it was ready to
live in independence, and then gifted with
independence. It was ready for
nationality, and become a nation. And
then came to great American Invention -
greater in worth, in wisdom, and in its
beneficent influence over the whole future,
than all those I have above enumerated; the
invention of a Constitution.
The word is not a new one. It was applied to
political institutions before we used it,
and is now so applied elsewhere. But,
in its American sense, and in its purpose
and its work, a Constitution had no
existence, until it was called into being
for our needs, and our good; called into
being by the progress of humanity, and for
that progress.
It would of course be difficult, or rather, impossible,
to give here a full exposition of the
grounds on which an opinion rests, that may
seem to many, extravagant. This will
not be attempted. But some
illustration of it may be derived from a
comparison between the national feeling in
this country, and that in Europe, on one
point; it is, the loyalty of the nation.
There are those who think this word rightly used in
Europe, with an exact and definite sense;
but that here it can only be used in a kind
or figurative or rhetorical sense. I
think otherwise. Loyalty is everywhere
a supreme political virtue; if it can have
no existence here, we are most unfortunate.
If there be only one form of government in
which it can exist, the sooner that form of
government becomes ours, the better for us
and for our children.
The word loyal is the English form of the latin
legalis. The feudal vassal, of every
rank, was sworn to be fidelis et legalis,
or faithful or loyal, to his superior.
The oath then was that he would in good
faith acknowledge and defend all the rights
which the law gave to his superior, and obey
all the commands which the law authorized.,
[pg. 7]
This is the original idea, or the abstract idea, of
loyalty. It perhaps never entered into
the minds of the masses, and at all events
it soon took the form of personal loyalty.
Nor is it difficult to see how this occurred
and why it was well that it should occur.
The worst thing which can befall a man is to be
delivered up to the unchecked dominion of
his own selfhood, before that self-hood is
raised and regenerated into the perception
and the love of RIGHT. "Lord of
himself, a heritage of woe," he cannot then
but abuse the mastery he possesses, to his
own destruction. But when he is
prepared voluntarily to submit himself to
the law of right, and lets this law ripen
into a love for his neighbor and his
neighbor's rights, then a relief from
external compulsion is the best thing which
can happen. Therefore, that Devine
Providence, which by the necessity of an
infinite goodness seeks always the highest
good, is ever watchful to advance as far as
may be the preparation of man for this gift,
and to give it as he is prepared, and to
withhold it in the degree in which he is not
prepared. Between God and man, as
between man and man, CONSENT is better than
COMPULSION, and all progress is from
compulsion to consent.
But the child is necessarily subject to coercion,
because necessarily immature, and unready
for self-control. And in the earliest
nations which history tells us of, in the
childhood of man, this immaturity was
universal, and so complete that universal
despotism was necessary, and permitted.
As the necessity grew less, despotism was
modified; but in the old world, we have no
evidence yet, that the people are prepared
for a safe deliverance4 from a controlling
power. The time may come, possibly it
may be near, but it has not come yet.
The common phrase "King, by the grace of
God," is not without its meaning and its
truth. It is of the grace, or mercy of
God, that kings are given to those who need
kings.
We see the mastery of the father over the child, made
tender and useful by the parental love which
the Father of us all awakens in all at the
birth of the child. And so where it is
necessary for a people to have a king, or
personal sovereign, governing in his own
right, it is as neces-
[pg. 8]
sary and useful that there exist among the
people a strong sense of personal loyalty.
And it exists in Europe. Weakened
certainly, passing away possibly, but it has
not yet passed away.
And to what can we be loyal? Let me ask another
question, to what are they in England - to
take England for our illustration - to what
are they loyal? To their Queen.
No one who has been there, or has listened
to the description of what they saw and
heard who have been there can doubt that
there is - not everywhere - but in vast
masses of the English people, an intense
feeling of loyalty to their Queen. A
loyalty which would stir their hearts to
their depths and arm their hands with every
weapon they could grasp in her defence.
And what is their Queen! A symbol and
a personification of all lawful authority.
In the theory of their law, she is its
source; the judges of the law are her
representatives, the ministers of the law
her servants. She is their personal
sovereign; and she impersonates the
sovereignty of the state; the preservation
of all order; and the protection of all
property, all industry, all prosperity.
I do not supp9ose that in all men's minds there is a
definite intellectual apprehension of this
fact, or that such ideas are recognized by
them as the foundation of their loyalty.
But in many minds these ideas exist, and in
more hearts this feeling would have power.
Let there be a threat to-morrow of an
uprising which should shatter the throne,
and multitudes of the English - great
multitudes - I know not how many, I do not
even assert, although I believe a great
majority of the English, would feel that if
the throne went down, revolution,
convulsion, conflict and distress would fill
the land. For they would feel that if
the throne went down, there would go down
with it, for them, the foundation of all
law, and all security for order or for
property.
But what have we to be loyal to? No personal
sovereign, reigning in his own right.
What then have we?
When our fathers bent to the work of giving form and
order to our nationality, they did not begin
with the appointment of a personal
sovereign; but with something very
different. They selected those whom
they thought
[pg. 9]
their best and wisest, and commissioned them
to confer together and discover the
fundamental rights for which all law exists,
and which underlie and sustain and promote
all social good; and the principles from
which these rights forever flow. And
then to devise the best forms and rules for
a government which should forever
acknowledge and secure these rights by a
constant observance of these principles.
And the fabric in which all this is
contained and expressed and defined, they
called a Constitution. There it stood
the child of their own will. Embodying
the best wisdom they had; and resting on the
consent of all. There it stood, and
thank God there it stands. And this
substitution of a written Constitution, so
created, and so founded, is, in my most
profound belief, the greatest political step
ever yet taken in human progress, and a step
which He who loves us infinitely will never
permit to be retracted.
We live in the beginning of an age, of which the
characteristic, politically, will be
constitutional republican government.
We are only at its beginning; and already
discern questions we know not how to solve,
difficulties we know not how to meet,
mischiefs we know not how to prevent.
More, very many ore, will come up as time
rolls on. But this age, like every
other of those in history, will gradually -
perhaps slowly and through much error and
misfortune - develop itself into the forms
best adopted for the fullest operation of
its dominant principle. And that
principle is and will remain, the
substitution of Consent for Compulsion.
Let me go back again to England for a moment. Let
us compare English loyalty with our own, as
to its rounds and its reasonableness.
They are loyal to their sovereign.
Victoria, as queen, as mother, and as
matron, commands the respect of all in
America. When her son was here,
nothing struck me more, and I may say
nothing touched me more, than the way in
which that feeling was expressed. It
seemed as if we felt that the excellence of
English matronhood sat, in her person, on
the throne of England. Not a word
would I say, not a feeling have I which
would suggest a word in derogation of this
acknowledgement. But she must die.
Her son, whatever
[pg. 10]
may be hoped of him, has as yet only given a
promise of excellence. He too must
die. And the lives of his successors
must be subject to vicissitudes, of which
history, and none more plainly than the
History of England, tells the sad tale.
When Victoria's uncle, George IV.,
sat on the throne, the loyalty of England
was shocked, and almost killed, by his
wickedness, and selfishness, and the
unconcealed foulness of his life and
character. When such another sits
there, that loyalty may have a deeper, even
a fatal wound. To such chances and
such perils the personal loyalty of England
must submit.
And through all these ages - if we do not prove
unworthy of so great a blessing - will stand
in Constitution. Not, as some in
Europe who speak of it suppose, because it
is fixed and crystallized into forms which
may be broken but cannot change. The
exact opposite of this is the truth.
It is a living organism. It invites
and provides for change. It desires
all changes, in all time, which shall make
it ever more able to perform its great
functions. But it carefully provides
that these changes shall come only as a
common demand, shall be matured by a common
deliberation, and rest on a common consent;
common, not universal, for that it is too
wise to demand.
That it must be far easier to be loyal when the object
of our loyalty is a person, is certain.
It must be a great relief to the human mind,
in a certain condition, to have those
principles of order, law, and RIGHT, to
which loyalty is due, impersonated in one
who can be recognized and approached.
But the providence of God, as it is
manifested in the progress of humanity,
seeks to lift the human mind above the
condition in which it requires this relief,
this assistance. And the great
question for us this day, is, whether the
American mind and character are lifted to
the height of our own institutions. If
not, we need, and if we need we shall have,
a king.
The very foundation of our existence as a nation is
mutual desire, common consent. It has
been too little noticed, that this nation
stands alone on earth in one characteristic.
What other great nation exists, or ever has
existed, from the days of Nimrod, the hunter
of men, to this day, which did not acquire
its growth and more or
[pg. 11]
less of its dominion, by conquest, by
compulsion? Various have been the
forms and modes of this compulsion; but, in
some form, it has existed everywhere.
Our nation alone was formed without one atom
of this element. And if Texas and
California seem to have been added by
conquest, it was perhaps the introduction of
a new element; and it was, at all events,
the conquest of the land only, and not of
the people; and when the sparse population
we found there grew into a sufficient
magnitude, it was at their own request that
they were admitted to an equal share of all
our rights, all our advantages, all our
sovereignty. The idea of conquest and
subjugation seems to me utterly foreign to
the nature and working and life of our
political institutions.
But it may be asked how can we compel the rebels to
return within the Union, without conquest
and subjugation. What right have we to
compel them at all, if the very
essential characteristic of our institutions
is consent, instead of compulsion.
Before a government can be carried on upon the
principle of consent, it must be clearly and
practically understood, that consent
is perfectly consistent with contract,
and the obligations springing from contract.
As I have already said, I believe an immense step was
taken in the progress of our race, by the
establishment of our nationality, because
this nationality is founded upon the
principle of consent, and all our
institutions and laws and usages must rest
upon consent.
I now say, that
consent means, nothing until something is
consented to: or, in other words, something
is agreed upon; or, again, consent comes
into effect and actual existence, when there
are agreements, made by and between
consenting parties; made with their consent
and concurrence. And then a
nationality founded upon consent, must have
as its very essence, the right and the power
of enforcing agreements, or contracts, made
by the consent of the parties.
For example. No man in Massachusetts is obliged
to buy or to sell anything excepting at his
own pleasure and by his own free choice.
But if he consents to buy or to sell,
and makes an agreement to that effect, then
he is
[pg. 12]
held absolutely, and if need be coercively,
to his obligation; that is, to deliver what
he sells when he is paid or to pay for what
he buys.
It must be perfectly obvious, that national
institutions cannot be founded upon and
characterized by the principle of consent,
unless it is a part of that principle,
embodied in the consent of the whole nation,
that when consent ripens into
contract, there shall exist the right,
the power and the duty of enforcing the
contract-obligation.
We apply and test this principle continually, in the
smaller matters of every-day occurrence.
We are now testing the same principle on the
largest scale.
All the States, and all the persons in every State,
have agreed to our national existence and
our national institutions. No matter
whether they have formally expressed their
consent, by oath, or voting, or otherwise.
They have lived under them; profited by
them; received their share of the good
derived from them. And common sense as
well as common law holds them to be
estopped from denying their consent;
their contract.
Rebellion is the last and most consummate violation of
contract-obligation. It is the
violation by force of the contract which is
the foundation on which our nationality
rests, and therefore upon which all order,
all society, all contract-obligation rests.
And therefore it is a violation of contract
against which the whole force of the nation
should be thrown, with a concentration of
all its might, and with unfaltering energy,
and unrelenting determination.
But conquest and subjugation do not enter into my idea
of either our right or our duty; for this
plain reason. We fight only against
rebellion; against the reels only because
they are and as they are rebels. And
ass soon as the rebellion is suppressed, as
soon as they cease to be rebels, they return
again within the Constitution; within its
obligations, within its penalties for
whatever crimes they have committed, but
also within its protection.
To regard them not as rebels, but as enemies in the
same sense in which strangers at war with us
would be our enemies, is to declare that
rebellion has succeeded; has done its work;
has separated them from us.
[pg. 13]
If consent was the foundation of our nationality, so it
was of the Constitution which gives to it
form and definition. The very heart
and essence of this constitution, as of
every State Constitution, is, that it is the
voluntary work of all, the expression of the
common will, resting upon common consent;
and so termination in a common contract, and
a common obligation.
The heart and essence of all constitutional
republicanism is CONSENT. The heart
and essence of all slavery is COMPULSION.
History does not exhibit, and the mind of
man cannot conceive, a more absolute
political antagonism, than that between
constitutional republican government,
and slavery. Hence this war. For
this war is nothing else than this
antagonism, uttering its voice, casting off
its disguise, taking up all the weapons of
conflict, and seeking success by FORCE.
The war, with all its fury, its slaughter,
its hatred, and its sacrifice, is but a
revelation of the war, eternally existing,
between the two principles of Freedom and
Slavery.
And yet our national constitution recognizes and
protects slavery. It does so; and it
was made to do so for a sufficient reason.
When our fathers framed it, they found
slavery not only existing, but universally
diffused; stronger in some places than in
others, but wholly absent almost nowhere.
They found also, that wherever slavery
existed, there co-existed with it, some
knowledge of its character, and something of
the fear and of the dislike that character
should inspire. Three courses, and
only three, were open to them. To
abandon the purpose of a union of the whole.
To violate the fundamental principle of
consent, and try what could be done by
compulsion. To accept the fact of
slavery as it stood with all its
concomitants, and its probable future, with
the hope that truth would gradually prevail
over falsehood, good over evil, and freedom
over slavery. They chose the last of
these alternatives, and they chose wisely
and well.
At that time a conflict between freedom and slavery in
this country would not have been safe; it
would not have so resulted as to promote the
progress of man towards freedom. Not
only was slavery, technically so-called,
nearly universal in some degree, but the
great principle,
[pg. 14]
so lately born among men, that it was not
well for any man to have the right of
compelling another to act without his own
concurrence, was dimly seen and feebly felt.
And therefore the kind and measure of
pro-slavery which claims and loves this
right, would have been found potent
everywhere, and all its sympathies would
have been, as they are now and ever must be,
with that consummated slavery which deems it
well for a man to own a man. The
conflict would not then have been safe.
Our fathers did well and wisely in not
exciting it. They left it for a future
day. It has come in our day. The
way in which it has come is this.
As the years passed on, slavery, from causes all of
which are not obvious, gradually withdrew
from a large part of the country, and
gradually became concentrated in another
part; and thus slavery and non-slavery
became to a great degree separated and
distinguished from each other.
In that part of the country where slavery was
concentrated, it flourished. It
produced an apparent prosperity, in which
the slaves had little share, and the mass of
poor whites round them even less, while it
made a few slave-owners rich in idleness.
But while it impoverished and degraded the
poor whites, it fed and gratified their
pride that even in their degradation they
could look down with utter contempt upon a
numerous class below them. And this
false and foolish pride kept up in their
minds a comparison of their condition as
freemen with that of the slaves, and they
did not know their degradation; and they
learned to love slavery, as well as the rich
men who were masters of the slaves without
disguise, and masters of the poor whites
under a thin disguise.
The consequences of this was inevitable. That
region became a slave region completely and
thoroughly. Not only was nearly all
its wealth slave-wealth, but in about the
same proportion its opinion became a
slave-opinion; its belief a slave-belief;
its reason a slave-reason; its conscience a
slave-conscience; its religion a
slave-religion. Not universally, but
prevailingly. And its policy, - for in
this the majority ruled, - became an
absolute, unqualified, slave-policy.
[pg. 15]
And in the meantime how fared it with the region from
which slavery had withdrawn? That
region also flourished; and while its
prosperity outran anything in human
experience and astonished the world, it was
a s remarkable for its diffusion as for its
amount. It was the result of the
co-operation of all, concurring in labor of
all kinds, but all resulting in a common
good, of which all had their share, and
nearly all a share proportionate to their
industry and intelligence.
With this there grew up, and into great strength, a
feeling and belief that this marvellous
prosperity was due to our nationality, which
alone could give it safety and permanence
and to the principles of human rights which
our Constitution expressed and protected.
The great marts of commerce felt that they
must decay with our national decay.
The owners of and the workers in the mills
to which our rushing streams are harnessed,
knew as well as if the sun-light wrote it on
their walls, that only in the preservation
of our nationality could they prosper.
The men who ploughed and planted and reaped
those wide Western fields which could feed a
world, felt that they could work in peace,
and find wealth in the product of their
labors, only on condition that our
nationality was preserved.
In all this there was alloy enough of selfishness.
But through it all, there also grew into
strength, and into habitual and common
thought, the notion that every man owned
himself, and had a right to employ himself
only with his own consent, however hard
might be the terms to which he chose to
consent; and that constitutional
republicanism was founded on this principal.
It is this thought which underlies all the true
democracy of this country. It may have
in the minds of the masses but little
precision of logical definition; it may be
quite too much allied with the degraded by
selfishness; and it often expresses itself
with great coarseness of word and act.
But there it is, right in itself, and a
sentiment of great power. Because it
has this power, there has grown up with it a
false democracy, which desires to confound
itself with the true democracy, that it may
use it as a tool; and it acquires the use of
it by false
[pg. 16]
pretenses. This false democracy
asserts vociferously a sympathy with the
true democracy, when in fact it is in exact
opposition to it; because its whole aim is
to use men without their actual consent; and
as this can no longer be done by violence,
it is done by fraud and falsehood.
I have attempted a very general sketch of the condition
and sentiment of the two great regions of
this country, the slave region, and the
non-slave region. And when the greater
growth of the non-slave element warned the
slave element that it was on the way to
death, slowly and lingeringly perhaps, but
inevitably, the slave element rushed into a
conflict which it hoped would end in victory
that would give it permanent power and
therefore permanent existence. And it
may do this, unless the conflict ends, not
in the victory, but in the defeat of
slavery. I do not say its destruction,
but its defeat. And if it so ends
whatever form this defeat puts on, the death
of slavery is made more certain and brought
more near. Which of these results in
impending; the victory or the defeat of
Slavery; the success or the suppression of
Rebellion?
This must depend on the relative strength of the
parties; not merely the strength which each
party possesses, but the strength which each
party brings into the conflict. And
one important measure of this strength, is
the unity of each party.
The slave party was far from being unanimous at the
onset. The cautious and skilful
measures adopted by the leaders of the
rebellion to bring their States into the
attitude of rebellion without a popular vote
on the question, is, of itself, a sufficient
proof of this. Their earnest and
successful endeavors to fire the Southern
heart," showed that they thought it
needed to be fixed; and none could judge of
this so well as they could.
Undoubtedly there was much fear for the
possible consequences of war and for its
inevitable suffering and sacrifice; and some
the Southern heart has been fired. The
voice of opposite has been silenced, and
wherever necessary strangled with a rope.
And while the terrible distress, and
enormous sacrifice.
[pg. 17]
and extreme exhaustion which have attended
the rebellion must have produced much
effect, it may still be said, that so far as
we can judge from trust-worthy testimony,
there is now a very great degree of unity at
the South.
The guns of Sumter fired the Northern heart at once.
There was a wonderful uprising of the whole
people. Even the false democracy
saw instantly (and they are not usually
mistaken on such points) that they should
lose all hold of the true democracy, if they
did not join, with seeming heartiness at
least, in the defence of our nationality.
This uprising, in its unanimity, its earnestness, and
the proofs it gave of its reality, surprised
ourselves, astonished Europe, and most of
all amazed and disappointed the rebels.
Because the slave influence had made the
mind of that region a slave mind, they could
not, they cannot now, and they never will
comprehend it. But the fact was
patent, and to them fearful. But time
went on, and old differences revived, and
new ones came up. Different interests
and different regions began to look at each
other with watchfulness, perhaps with
jealousy and distrust. All opinion
finds expression here, and is confirmed by
expression; for here there can be no reign
of terror. Men grew angry; and as an
angry man is necessarily unwise, unwise
notions, unsound arguments, and mistaken
conclusions flew through the community.
Looking at the matter from some points of view, it
might seem as if the war had strengthened
the unity of the rebellion, and weakened
that of the resistance to it. But I am
not sure that it is so.
There are many sources of error on this point.
Thus, it is extremely difficult to know what
portion of the seeming disaffection is
nothing more than a mere discovery of the
disaffection existing at the beginning, but
then concealed, or at least not expressed.
Then again we may be deceived by the loud
and universal fault-finding, which has
reached an excess that would be ludicrous,
if it were not dangerous. But it may
not be so dangerous as it seems. Of
course no one can hope for a general
renunciation of the cheap and easy pleasure
of fault-finding. He who finds fault
with another, generally asserts by
implication his own belief (as unconscious
one perhaps) of his superiority, of
[Pg. 18]
his freedom from that which he rebukes.
He judges, he condemns, he looks from above,
down. And where is the human being to
whom this is not grateful? No.
We may hope for money, for effort, toil, and
courage to face any peril. But we must
not hope for so enormous a sacrifice as the
voluntary relinquishment of fault finding.
Of course it does not harm; but it may also
do some good; possibly in the rebuke of some
actual wrong, or the correction of some
actual mistake, or in the fact that it keeps
us awake and alive to existing exigencies.
But whatever uncertain good this reckless fault-finding
may do, it works one great and certain
mischief in the despondency which it
produces and diffuses.
Despondency is always the effect of weakness, and
always increases weakness. Therefore
it is never wise. And in times like
these it is most mischievous, most
dangerous. A very profound thinker has
said, "There is nothing I fear so much as
Fear. This saying, wise for most
times, is, for us in these times, brimful of
wisdom. The army of the people should
be what military men call "the supporting
force" of the army we have sent to the
front. And a panic in the one army may
be as fatal as a panic in the other.
We may be prudent and cautions; neither unduly elated
or depressed; moderate in our expectations;
and yet rational, firm and hopeful.
He who has given all the money he can spare, and set
his sons to battle, while his wife and
daughters toil for the comfort and health of
the soldiers, ahs yet the most difficult of
all. It is, to repel Democracy from
his own mind, and protect all whom he can
from his moral palsy. Not more certain
is it that red-handed Treason has brought us
to the past, than that, among the loyal,
Despondency is the servant of Treason, doing
its work where no thought of treason could
gain admittance. Much of this work has
been done; but I am sure, for all the
moaning and groaning which echoes around us,
that the heart of New England still beats
with strong and steady pulse.
And then it must be remembered, that the difference
exhibited among us, are to an immense
extent, differences.
[pg. 19]
as to the means and not differences as to
the end. Behind nearly all of them,
and urging them on, is the determination
that the country must be saved. It is
easy to mistake in this matter. Thus,
recent elections have given the opposition a
majority in some large States. But the
most potent "cry" employed by the victors
was against the government for its lack of
energy in the prosecution of the war.
And yet a political victory, gained by the
expression of a vehement desire that the war
should be urged with the utmost energy, and
by a passionate appeal to this ruling desire
of the people, is regarded by some, and made
use of by some, at home and abroad, as
evidence that this very desire is feeble and
dying out! Some even of the leaders
who won this victory in this way would have
it mean "erring sisters go in peace."
But our erring sisters understand these
matters better than some of do; they are not
deceived, if we are.
The most fervent loyalty, the most elevated patriotism,
are so fortified on this point by every
motive of interest, of selfishness, and mere
expediency, that I cannot doubt their
ultimate success. In the loyal States
there is an infinite diversity of interests,
sentiments, habits, motives and opinions.
And this diversity is one of degree as well
as of kind. Not only is there loyalty
of the loftiest and purest character, and
also the most unmitigated selfishness, but
there is loyalty in every degree, from the
highest to the lowest, and selfishness of
every degree from the lowest upwards.
And there is an equal diversity of opinion
as to the principles upon which the conflict
is to be urged, and as to the means to be
used in the suppression of the rebellion,
and as to the way in which those means
should be employed. All this diversity
is doubtless a disturbing and retarding
force. It must make the struggle
longer and more difficult, and our success
less perfect. But, will it defeat the
struggle, will it prevent our success?
I think not. I believe we shall
succeed.
But, what do I mean by success? or, what success
is it that I look for? On the one side
of this conflict is slavery; and with it
disruption of the Union, and rebellion
against the Constitution. But these
three are one, and that one is Rebellion.
On the other side are three things also.
[pg. 20]
One of these is the opposition to slavery;
another, the determination to save our
nationality; the third, loyalty to the
Constitution. And these three things
are also one, and that one is the
suppression of Rebellion. To many
minds these three things seem to be
distinct, and they have indeed assumed, to
some extent, an attitude of antagonism to
each other. But, to my mind, they are
as closely connected, as indissolubly one in
their nature and their influence, as are the
three elements of the rebellion. And,
therefore, as rebellion is the one thing in
which its three elements are waging war
against us, so a suppression of the
rebellion is the one thing in which the
elements of our resistance should combine.
That should be the constant end; and all
other things regarded only as the means to
this end. Let me try to show how the
three elements of our resistance to
rebellion are one.
The preservation of our nationality will be
necessarily, at some time and in some way,
the death of slavery. For the heart
and essence of our national existence is the
principle of freedom. This principle
has grown in development and strength beyond
the principle of slavery, not by any
accident, but because it could not be
otherwise in a nation founded as ours was,
and characterized and circumstanced as ours
has been, and is, and must continue to be as
long as we are one nation. The South
felt this. The Southern mind has
become essentially a slave-mind. Many
persons there are probably unable to form a
conception of nationality or civilization
without slavery; and some have avowed this.
This hatred of the "accursed Yankees" is
only an expression of the love of slavery;
Yankeeism being with them an impersonation
of non-slavery. They saw plainly, or
they felt instinctively, that slavery would
perish if our nationality should continue.
The death of slavery seems to them their own
death. They are fighting for life.
They are fighting to destroy our
nationality, because if our nationality
lives, slavery must die. In all this
they are not mistaken. The only
strange thing is, that we do not see this as
plainly as they do.
Then, as to our Constitution. If we continue to
be a nation, we must have, as I think,
inevitably, a constitutional republican
government; and between such a con-
[pg. 21]
stitutional government and slavery, there
must be, forever and inevitably, antagonism.
And this is what I mean, when I say, that
the three elements of our resistance to the
rebellion, opposition to slavery,
determination to preserve our nationality,
and loyalty to the Constitution, are in
their nature and essence, One.
'Shall we preserve our nationality? I can only
say, there seem to me reasons why we should,
and influences leading to that result, of
such irresistible weight and force that I do
not believe they can fail. Against
them all comes the disrupting force of
slavery. And while I write there are
jealousies, intrigues, outcries, threatening
to separate the West from the East; they are
strongly reinforced by something which calls
itself, and may believe itself a defence
of a Constitution; and the whole is used
energetically by the demagoguism, which
would sacrifice everything that came between
it and its prey. But I do not greatly
fear such things. The power of evil
can do much, but there are barriers it
cannot pass. I believe that if the
Mississippi were open to-day, and the
Eastern Atlantic closed against the West,
they would fight as desperately to reopen it
as they are fighting now to reopen the
Mississippi. They need both; no matter
which they need most; they need both
absolutely.
But shall we preserve our present Constitution as it
is? In my judgment, that
Constitution has not yet been violated, in
any way or to any extent, greater or less.
But there are those who think otherwise.
There are some who are very angry about
this; or who express a great deal of
eloquent anger, in hopes to excite some
anger among those who hear or read them.
I do not say they do not believe what they
say. There are persons, not
infrequently met with, who, when they want
to say a thing strongly, begin with making
themselves believe it. With some minds
this is an easy process, and a useful one;
for it enables them to give to what they say
the earnestness, and force, and influence of
honesty - of honesty of a certain kind.
It may not be very wise in me, or in any
one, to contemplate remote and imaginable
perils, which, if they are not mere follies,
are only not impossibilities. I do not
believe that the various elements
[pg. 22]
of opposition to the government, and of
friendship for the rebels can so
coalesce and inflame each other, as to make
it necessary for the government to sacrifice
our nationality or sacrifice or
Constitution; but, if this choice must
be made, then, with as much love and
reverence for the Constitution as my nature
is capable of, I should still say, our
nationality must not be lost, and rebellion
must not prevail.
The Senate has been recently agitated by a case, where
a man supposed to be an active sympathizer
with the rebels, was arrested and
imprisoned. The President and
Commander-in-Chief in this war upon the very
life and being of the country, had suspended
the Habeas Corpus, and imprisoned him.
Then the man utterly denied his sympathy, or
at all events his active sympathy with the
rebels. And thereupon the President
(always through his agents) offered to
release him at once, if only he would take
the oath of allegiance to the United States.
And he would not; and remained under arrest.
Now I wish to repeat most emphatically, that
there was not, in my judgment, any violation
of the Constitution here, of any kind or any
degree whatever. But if there was any
violation whatever, I am sure it was not a
substantial violation. I am willing to
say farther, that if I must choose
between that defence of the Constitution
which holds it always on the hand and uses
it as a tool, and has it always on the lips
and makes it a means for obstructive
agitation, and ostentatiously clings to its
letter while it is weakening the defence of
its very existence; - if I must choose
between this and that other defence of this
Constitution which would preserve its vital
principles, and the allegiance due to it,
even at the cost of some violation of the
letter, I should not choose the former.
I would not save the body at the expense of
the soul.
Some of the ""Defenders of the Constitution" of the
present day, use with much emphasis the
phrase, "The Constitution makes us a
nation." It suits my way of thinking
better to say, our nationality made the
Constitution. "We, the people of the
United States," determined to become a
nation. By our agents we determined
also upon the principles and the forms which
should manifest
[pg. 23]
our nationality to ourselves and to the
world, and govern us in all the working of
our national life. These principles
and forms are expressed in the Constitution.
I am willing to say almost anything of it,
excepting that it makes our
nationality. The Constitution proves
our nationality, defines it, expresses it,
guards it, protects it, but does not make
it. I can sympathize heartily,
with any defence of our Constitution which
seems to me honest and rational. It
may be honest and rational, although I do
not think so. But if it does not seem
so to me, I cannot sympathize with it.
I can discern no limits to a nation's right of
self-salvation. A man may save his own
life by any effort or any means, not
prohibited by the laws of God even in that
extremity. I am sure that this right,
and this duty, belong equally to a nation.
Success then I hope for. Success in retaining our
nationality. Success in preserving the
life of our Constitution. And I also
hope for success against slavery, because
this is involved in the preservation of our
nationality and our Constitution.
Would that I were able to impress my convictions on
this last point, upon the community. A
mistake in relation to it seems to me to be
doing great mischief.
The divisions of opinion which weaken our efforts may
be reduced into two classes. I will
designate them, for my own convenience, as
the anti-slavery party, and the opposition
party; although each of the parties of whom
I would speak includes those whom these
words would not accurately describe. I
think the mistake they make is one, although
it assumes two very different aspects.
The anti-slavery party believes it will advance its
purposes by a direct attack on slavery; they
say, let us kill slavery and rebellion will
die. If they believed as I do, that
our nationality and our Constitution were
the very best possible instruments through
which slavery might be assailed and
extirpated, in the best time and in the best
way whatever that may be, they might adopt a
different course.
The opposition would treat slavery tenderly, in hopes
to allure or entice the slave States back.
They do not realize
[pg. 24]
that our national life has been, from its
beginning, working against slavery.
That, while it permitted slavery to acquire
great extent and power, it built up the
prosperity of the free States at a far
greater rate, and strengthened the element
of non-slavery against slavery, until the
supremacy of the latter disappeared; and
that the slave States saw this clearly and
perfectly; saw and knew beyond all doubt or
question, that slavery must die if it did
not escape from the Union; saw and knew that
the hour had come when only the struggle was
possible, because delay would make even the
struggle impossible. They therefore
sprang into rebellion; and this day, they
see and know, every man of them, that a
return to the Union involves the decay and
certain death of slavery before a very long
time. Between this peril, and the
chances of war, they chose, and must choose.
They know, if we do not, that the public
sentiment of this country will never permit
such immunities and securities for slavery
as would give it enduring vitality and
permanent power, even if such were possible,
which I do not believe. The opposition
party deceive themselves if they think they
can bring back the slave States by any other
means whatever than by making the chances of
war valueless to them. And yet it is
this very opposition, and the division in
our counsels and our conduct that it
produces, which alone give to the rebels all
the hope they have, all the chance they
have. For if they have any hope now of
foreign intervention, they know, if we do
not, that it is this division alone, which
will make intervention possible.
I think our government makes a mistake allied to this.
The President knows that there is a divided
sentiment in the country, and that we can
only succeed by bringing the whole strength
of the loyal States to bear on the
rebellion. And he labors, honestly and
earnestly, to reconcile, or at least
combine, the two great parties which he
recognizes. His mistake is, not to
recognize, and not to throw himself upon, a
much stronger party.
Each of these parties desires and demands that the
rebellion shall be put down, in its own
way. The great mass of the people
desire and demand only that the REBELLION BE
PUT DOWN. A year ago this great party
comprehended
[pg. 25]
almost everybody. Now, the
anti-slavery party have persuaded many that
the rebellion can be put down only by direct
assault upon slavery. The opposition
have persuaded many that it can be put down
only by treating slavery tenderly. But
I believe the great mass of the people
stands where it stood. If Abraham
Lincoln, in whose absolute honesty of
purpose every one has confidence, and as to
whose capacity doubts have arisen only from
his seeming vacillation, would adopt and
declare his own policy, his own
method of putting down the rebellion, on no
other ground and with no other thought and
no other motive whatever, than that he
verily believed it to be the best way to
SUPPRESS THE REBELLION, he would find
himself at once at the head of this great
party, the people. Then, they would be
glad to see him carry out this policy
vigorously and unrelenting, destroy what he
might, or save what he might. They
would not be led away from his by the
outcries of the leaders of any parties, or
of all parties. If he removed from
office, civil or military, every man whom he
has a right to dismiss, and who would not
act energetically and cordially in carrying
out his policy; and if he would throw the
whole force of the government into it,
without hindrance, stop, or stay, the people
would go with him.
A few days since I had this conversation with a most
excellent and intelligent lady. She
said to me, -
"Do you not expect that this war will be the death of
slavery?"
I answered, "I have no opinion about that."
"But do you not hate slavery?"
"Yes, as much as I can."
"Do you not believe God hates slavery as much as you
do?"
"Infinitely more."
"Then, if you do not believe that this war will put an
end to slavery, you must lack faith in
Providence; either that He does not hate
slavery as it should be hated; or that His
imperfect wisdom does not tell Him how to
extirpate it; or that His power is
inadequate to the work He would do."
[pg. 26]
I replied, "I hope my answer will not offend you; but,
perhaps the difference between us may be,
not that I have less faith in God, but less
faith in myself, less faith in the purity of
my motives, in the accuracy of my
perceptions, in my judgment as to what is
best, and as to the best means of
accomplishing the best results."
Slavery has been permitted to exist almost always and
almost everywhere, as technical, or absolute
slavery. But against it Christianity
strove from the beginning; or, as I should
say, our Father worked through Christianity
to lead men away from it. How much is
signified by the little fact, that in the
year 321 the Edict of Constantine, which
established the worship of the Lord's day,
by prohibiting on that day, and for that
purpose, the sitting of the courts and all
judicial proceeding, makes one exception.
It is, in favor of the proceedings by which
a slave was formally made free. So has
Christianity ever worked against Slavery,
with great and continued success; not yet
with entire success. But it is certain
that if Christianity does not ultimately
succeed in conquering slavery, slavery will
succeed in conquering Christianity; for
their essential antagonism is eternal.
I am sure that Christianity will ultimately
conquer slavery. By what means, by
what steps, or at what rate of progress,
Christianity will advance in its conquest of
slavery, - that I do not know.
It certainly seems to me probable that slavery must be
materially weakened by this conflict and its
results. It seems to me possible, and
not improbable, that it may receive a wound
that is obviously fatal, and be brought near
to inevitable death. It seems to me
possible, but not probable, that it may
utterly perish, and once for all disappear
from this whole country to be seen here no
more.
I know, certainly, only this. It is now our duty,
the most absolute duty of all in the free
States, TO FIGHT. To fight against
Rebellion. To fight against it by
every weapon we can use, whether it be
forged of steel, or impelled by fire; or
only by words winged with the fire of
loyalty to God and to our country; or only
by thoughts and feelings which find no
utterance. Fight against the serried
ranks of Rebellion if our place be there;
fight
[pg. 27]
against the errors or malignities which
sympathize with Rebellion if our place be at
home; fight, even in our own hearts, against
prejudices, or passions, or interests, or
habits, or hatreds, which, not intentionally
or consciously, but in fact, paralyze our
efforts, strengthen and envenom our
dissensions, and give aid and comfort to
Rebellion.__________________________
Slavery is compatible with much excellence
of heart and character and conduct. I
have no doubt whatever, that there are many
slaveholders who are kind and just men.
That they heartily acknowledge their duty to
their slaves, and endeavor conscientiously
to discharge their duty. But wherever
this goodness exists within slavery it must
be exceptional. It must exist, not
because of slavery, but in despite of it.
And I suppose that such slave-owners are not
among those who believe that slavery is
essentially a good thing, and who love
slavery. Because it seems to me this
love can have no other origin than the love
of dominion and mastery, grounded in pure
selfishness.
So also, as I admit that compulsion is good while there
is an immaturity which demands it,
slaveholders will tell me that the negro
race is incapable of maturity; and therefore
the best thing for it is and will
always be the guidance and guardianship and
protection of slavery. This I do not
believe. I lay aside all inquiry into
the origin of the negro, or into the
differences which separate him from the
white man. I am sure of this; he has,
or is capable of having human affections and
human thoughts. He is therefore a Man.
And therefore he is or may become something
which should not be a slave.
I have repeatedly spoken of slavery as existing
technically and avowedly, and as the
absolute ownership of a man by a man; and
then we call it slavery. And as also
existing in its elements and its essence
wherever a right exists of coercing a man to
labor for another in any way, without his
own consent and concurrence. This may
be called compulsion. I will not
insist that it be called imperfect,
[pg. 28]
modified, disguised slavery, because I might
then sue a word which may impart to the
thing itself, a character which does not
belong to it. I will call it
compulsion.
It is very possible to see the deformity of slavery,
when it is undisguised, and to hate what is
thus seen, and all the while to love and
cling to that right of compulsion which is
similar in essence. To illustrate my
meaning, I will go again to England.
There, hatred of slavery has appeared to be
dominant and zealous, and it has certainly
been eloquent with some and vociferous with
many. But our civil war has applied a
touchstone to the English hatred of slavery.
It has brought it into conflict with the
interests, the prejudices, the jealousies
and the fears of the ruling classes.
In all conflicts it is the weakest party
which yields; and in this conflict, the
hatred of slavery appears to have yielded in
the minds of these classes. The reason
seems to me plain enough; because the fact
seems to me certain, that, while technical
slavery has no existence in England, and
while every Englishman rejoices in the boast
that if a slave stands upon English soil his
chains fall from him, the very essential
principle of slavery exists and operates in
England, and has great favor there.
What I mean is, that the South, and the
whole Southern mind and character, are not
more permeated and dominated by the
principle of Slavery, than the English mind
is permeated and dominated by the principle
of Servility.
The cement which holds the fabric of English society
together, is Servility. An Englishman
looks upon those higher than himself in
class-position, with a humility and
subservience, that to a stranger who sees it
or reads of it, is either disgusting or
amazing or amusing. But he looks down
on those below him in class-position, and
demands and receives the same humility and
subservience. We read of the castes in
India, and wonder at them. But in
England the noble families are far above the
untitled in all social arrangements.
The landed gentry will not meet on equal
terms with the merchant. And the
merchant looks down with the same
self-complacency upon the retail trader.
A shopkeeper would be a phenomenon in a
great house, if he had not been sent for to
exhibit his wares. And all look down,
alike, upon their
[pg. 29]
servants. It is true the question of
wealth runs through all this, because now,
in England, mere wealth, however come by,
gives a spurious kind of rank, which some
acknowledge and some do not.
When chemists speak of a substance differing from
another in that one of its many elements is
changed for another which occupies precisely
its place and enters into all its relations,
they say the new element has replaced
the former. It is precisely in this
sense, that I say the Servility of England
replaces the Slavery of our Southern
States. for servility enters into the
relations of English society, and affects
the various classes of the nation, with a
close analogy to the place and influence of
slavery in the South.
For example, no one would say that the four millions of
slaves love slavery. There are
slave-owners who say it, but they do not
think it, and cannot expect any person to
suppose that they believe it. And yet
slavery must have affected the minds of
these millions. Many of them doubtless
value the protection, the food and shelter
it gives them; and they dread the
consequences of any agitation for freedom.
So, in England, more than as many millions are utterly
without voice or vote or political rights,
and are nothing more than the producers of
wealth for the residue, for wages which only
sustain life. They cannot love the
institutions which bring upon them this
constant degradation and frequent suffering.
But they are accustomed to their condition.
They know not how otherwise to get the means
of even living. And they fear change,
for they have lost the capacity of hoping
for anything better.
We supposed that the negroes would move in some way in
furtherance of their deliverance. I
did not expect insurrection; I did not
desire it, nor do I know any person who did
desire it. But I supposed that a
movement like that which has actually taken
place in some parts of the slave region,
would have become, by this time, general.
It is, in substance, a refusal of the slaves
to work unless for wages and on terms agreed
upon. Such a movement would have been
a fearful calamity for the Rebels. The
negroes could not have been coerced without
the aid of
[pg. 30]
soldiers who could not be spared from their
armies. And a compliance with their
demands would have struck at the heart of
slavery. But the slaves have not
moved.
So it is often said that England is "on a volcano," and
that her laborers and her poor must rise up
and seize the first opportunity of breaking
their bondage. I do not believe they
would. What keeps the slaves quiet,
would keep them quiet. Fear and habit
have great power.
Again. In the South the slave-owners are not all
of one mind. Some among them,
certainly, dislike "the peculiar
institution." They consider it as
fastened upon them, and know not how to cast
it off without utter ruin. But they
would be glad to have it mitigated, and
improved, or removed if possible. So
in England, of the governing classes there
are some, we know, and more, we suppose, who
do not believe that civilization demands
that the exuberant wealth of a few should
co-exist with the enormous mass of misery,
destitution and degradation festering at the
base of English society. Nor do these
persons love the Servility which
characterizes their country. They
wish, some of them act, for the mitigation
and improvement of this state of things.
But they look upon this evil as fastened
upon them, and so rooted in the whole fabric
of English society, that it could not be
taken away without bringing the fabric
itself to ruin.
Again. Russell's Diary gives us conclusive
evidence, that the leading conspirators of
the South desire, earnestly desire, a
monarchy. And slavery must desire a
monarchy. The very nature of the case
makes it certain, that if slavery should
ever become the acknowledged "corner-stone,"
as Mr. Vice-President Stephens calls
it, of a State, at its summit there must
stand, whatever title he may bear, a despot.
But servility, which is only modified
slavery, differs from slavery, which is
intensified servility, in this. It does not
require a despot. Less will satisfy
its needs. Hence England requires and
has a "constitutional monarch."
What does this phrase practically mean? The king
(or queen) of England reigns on condition
that he will not govern nor attempt to
govern. Queen Victoria has less
political power than any one of her most
prominent
[pg. 31]
and influential subjects. Indeed she
has none. It is the universally
recognized proof of her sagacity and her
fitness for her place, that she abstains
from any interference with the government of
the country. While I write, the
"London Times," which speaks for and to the
aristocracy of England, inculcates, somewhat
rudely, the same abstinence upon the Prince
of Wales. Where then is the actual
power of the State, for it must be
somewhere? It is in the hands of an
aristocracy, who are the possessors of
unquestioned power, and are, of late years,
beginning to cast off their disguise.
This aristocracy is, partly an aristocracy
of rank, and partly an aristocracy of
wealth. Keen observers say that the
last is gaining on the first, and getting
the mastery. It is difficult to say
how this is, because they work with so much
harmony. The aristocracy of rank seeks
to bring wealth within its "order," by
marrying the possessors of wealth, or
ennobling them. The aristocracy of
wealth seeks to add the advantage of rank,
by marriage alliances, or by getting titles.
But considering them as one, this
aristocracy is the absolute master of
England; more absolutely its master, than
Louis Napoleon is of France, or
Alexander is of Russia. The
aristocracy appoints and sustains and
directs the ministers. The Prime
Minister is their chief servant. The
Queen, who calls these ministers her
servants, is but the servant of their
masters. And this is in perfect
harmony with English institutions and
English character. Everything in that
nation depends upon class distinctions and
class rights; and it is necessary that the
highest class should be the master of the
rest.
A Constitution is a supreme law alike obligatory upon
the Executive, the Legislative, and the
Judicial departments, and upon the whole
people; to be violated by none, and upon the
whole people; to be violated by none, and to
be changed only by common consent. Of
this, or anything like this, they have
absolutely nothing in England.
Parliament, which is controlled by the
aristocracy, may enact what law it will.
The veto-power of the king has been
abandoned for many reigns and many
generations, and is dead. Whatever
Parliament enacts, every executive officer,
every magistrate, every judge, and every
subject MUST regard as law and obey as law.
The
[pg. 32]
"Constitutional King of England" is
therefore a king who reigns on condition
that he will be only a pageant and not a
king, and whose kingdom is utterly destitute
of a Constitution.
All this is perfectly consistent with a vast amount of
moral worth, with individual and national
energy, and with all the splendor and grace
which intellectual ability and culture of
the highest order can impart. All
these are there, abundantly and certainly.
I do not doubt in the least that all are
there; I am only endeavoring to state and
illustrate the principle which runs through
them all.
Our fathers were Englishmen. They brought with
them English blood and character, - although
not then precisely such as these are now.
I cannot enlarge upon this difference, nor
consider the modifications these elements of
character must have undergone while more
than six generations have lived and died
under circumstances very different from
those of the English people. But we
remained her colonies, and politically a
part of England, until we won our
Independence. Since then we have not
been politically her colonies. But we
have stood in what was very near to a
colonial relation and dependence in other
respects. Her mind and her manners and
usages and judgments about men and things
have influenced ours in a degree and in a
way that few of us have been aware of.
I certainly was not. Therefore I
consider this war a second war of
Independence. That chain is broken, at
all events; and its links can never be
welded together. I hope that the anger
which now exists may pass away, and be
succeeded by kindness; and I hope we shall
learn to make due allowance for the
governments of Europe. The growth and
prosperity of a nation founded upon Consent
must be a constant menace, and an
ever-growing peril for institutions founded
upon Compulsion. If our institutions
attract to us the sympathies of the governed
classes, so much the more must they repel
the governing classes. We should
indeed ask of these governing classes to be
more than human, if we ask them not to look
upon our institutions with dislike, our
prosperity with jealousy and fear, our
perils with hope, and our decay - if that
shall come - with rejoicing.
Let us be just to the aristocracy of England.
Their
[pg. 33]
hostility to the free States and their
sympathy with the slave States, astonished,
grieved and angered us. But let us not
forget that the suppression of the rebellion
and the restoration of our prosperity under
a constitutional government, would be, for
that aristocracy, a peril, only less, if
less, then the rebellion itself is for the
United States.
I hope this war will complete our independence of
England. For with the most sincere
acknowledgement of great and various
excellence in the English character, I am
quite sure that her influence has been, on
some important points, quite injurious to
us.
Servility includes the two ideas of the sentiment
servility on the part of those who look up,
and the love of servility on the part of
those who look down. And no doubt we
have imported a good deal of servility from
England. Of the love of servility in
those who look down, I fear we are not quite
rid yet. We do not all cordially
accept the principles of American
institutions as those under which we must
live, whether we like them or not, as long
as we live here. I fear that some of
us subject ourselves to much discomfort, in
the vain effort to establish for ourselves
and our households, habits and relations
which we can no more import from England
than we can import her climate. I have
been amused to see some persons trying to
live, as to their habits of food and
clothing and exercise and exposure, as they
do in England, and because they do so
in England. This is of no great
consequence. More mischief comes from
the endeavor to insist upon English
relations, where the effort can produce only
continual irritation. Class-rights
cannot flourish here. If one of my
readers happens to know a man who seeks to
treat all within his reach as his servants,
and all his servants as slaves, I am sure he
knows a very uncomfortable man.
From the servility which looks up, we are pretty well
rid. We see it seldom, except in
new-comers, who brought the habit with them,
and have not yet learned their American
lessons. But they learn these lessons
very soon. Perhaps they do not learn,
perhaps they come to a school where it
might, at present, be difficult to learn,
[pg. 34]
what should take the place of servility when
that passes away. The best lover of
this country will hope that it may pass
away. But he will also hope that as it
passes away, a recognition of the rights of
others, fidelity to duty, the love of
usefulness, and courtesy and kindness and
civility will take the place of servility.
Some at home, and more who visit us, complain of the
manners of this country. So far as I
can judge, our manners are, in the main,
good. It is not fair nor reasonable to
apply to them the standards of foreign
usages or of factitious refinement.
The true test is, are they, in general,
expressive of a courteous and kind feeling.
I think they are. We meet sometimes
with coarseness and rudeness; but equally in
all classes of society; and in every class
it seems to me an exception, and not the
rule.
But I am not so well contented with another
characteristic of our country. It is
the feebleness of the sentiments of Respect
and Reverence. It is difficult to
speak aright of these topics, and perhaps I
ought to distrust my own conclusions.
I will only say that I should be glad to see
my fellow-citizens treat each other with
more Respect; and manifest more respect for
many things, and among them, for place,
office, function. These exist only for
the good of society. This is their
end, however imperfectly it be attained, and
however it may be concealed or obstructed by
self-seeking and self-love in all their
various forms. But it is certain that
this end must be imperfectly attained, if
the rights which belong to them are not
honestly acknowledged and Respected.
And so as to Reverence. Of this I would say even
less. But the common consent of all
times has ever declared that age should be
held in Reverence; that the paternal
relation should be held in Reverence.
I will only ask is a sentiment of this kind
very strong and general among us; is it
stronger in this generation than in the
preceding; was it stronger in that than in
its predecessor? I will let others
answer. I fear some may answer, it is
not strong, and that is well. It is
growing weaker, and that too is well.
But all the Reverence I have spoken of is nothing, in
[pg. 35]
comparison with the Reverence which is due
to God. I do not fear an avowal that
this Reverence also is a poor and foolish
thing; but I do fear, that in point of fact,
it is, in general, a feeble sentiment.
We live in an age of marvellous prosperity; of an
activity of the human intellect and an
energy of human action, and a perpetual
progress in discoveries and in utilizing
discoveries, which has had not precedent in
history. But it is also a
characteristic of the age, that the idea of
God has quite too little distinctness and
force in any of the departments of human
thought; and, most of all has this idea
disappeared from politics. This word
seems to mean at the highest, only a regard
for the mere material interests of men; and,
at the lowest, gambling with the minds and
passions of men for the cards, and public
office or the public purse for the stakes.
This condition of things seems to me like
one where the Sun is darkened; a condition
in which there is no light from above, and
no light but that of the lamps we make, and
kindle and feed with our own hands; a
condition, which gives us little reason to
help for much wisdom of opinion, conclusion
or action.
Were I to permit myself to dwell on this subject, it
would be with especial reference to the
godlessness of that spirit of reform, which
is so powerful among us. How many good
and earnest men I know now active in their
conflicts with the demon of Intemperance,
and the worse demon of Ignorance, and, to
bring the matter nearer to my specific
topic, with Slavery itself. Do they
seem, generally, to walk and work in the
light of the truth that if their work be a
good work, it must be God's work; and that
if they would work with Him, they must work
as His instruments, and in His own way?
This conviction would leave them zealous to
be His instruments; to do His work; to
hasten the time; to open the way. But
it would cause, I think, a great change in
the manner of their working. How much
more cautious would their conduct be; how
much kinder their words; how much less
hatred would their words express and excite;
how much more, and how much better, would be
their success.
This characteristic of the times seems to me more sad,
and more alarming, because never yet was
there so much
[pg. 36]
need of the recognition of God, as at this
day, among us. What else can have
power to quell the raging storm and bid the
heaving sea of passion be still, before it
wrecks the best hopes of our country, and of
our race.
I will not permit myself to pursue this topic. I
will say only, for the few, if there be
indeed any, who would follow out this train
of thought in their own minds, that, in my
judgment, constitutional Republicanism
cannot enter upon its completion and
consummation, until it becomes a Theocracy;
and that it is not, in very fact and deed,
advancing towards its completion, when it is
not advancing towards this end. Let
not those who are startled by this word
suppose I mean a restoration of the old
Jewish Theocracy. In the Theocracy I
desire, the altar will not be built with
hands, but will be in the heart; the
offerings will be of acknowledgment,
obedience, and reverence, and love.
The House of God to which we shall go up, to
worship, our Father and listen to His
answers, will be His Word, in which He
dwells forever.
And what of the conflict, which I began with saying was
in some way caused by slavery? How
will it end, and when will it end?
I do not deny that there is much which would lead me to
fear that vices and falsities prevail among
us, and are so indurated by time and habit
and our past prosperity, that we may need a
long period of distress and discipline, and
may now be only entering upon a cycle of
suffering, which in its intensity and in its
length will equal the years of our
prosperity.
But my hope is stronger than my fear. I think I
see much among us that is good, and that is
earnestly seeking to be better. Much
that shows, that if we have abused our
prosperity in part, we have also, in part,
used it for our own good and for the world's
good. And then I believe that we shall
SUCCEED. That Rebellion will be
suppressed; that the value and force of our
Constitution will be proved; that our
loyalty will be enlightened and invigorated;
and that by all these means, a firm
foundation may be laid for a wider and
loftier prosperity than we have yet known. |
