Изображения страниц







Slavery under the Constitution-Slaves first brought to the Western Hemisphere by Spain-American Colonies all owned slaves-Patrick Henry bitterly opposed to slavery-Three-fifths representation-Fugitive slave law-Continuance of the slave trade under the Constitution for a period of twenty years-General Washington's account of the "bargain" by which this was effected, and the "two-thirds vote measure defeated-Mr. Madison's record of the proceedings-All of the Southern States but two opposed to the bargain.

The Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, was the first surrender of the great vital principle of political equality between the States of the American Union, and the first authorized demarkation of a sectional line between them; this line was drawn by Congress itself, was its first interference with the rights of the people of the States in the Territories of the United States, and was an exercise by Congress of powers not delegated to that body under the Constitution.

The Repeal of that Act (or, rather, a portion of it), in 1854, meant a restoration of that lost equality, the elimination of that line and of sectionalism; the restoration to the people of their just rights, and the annulment of that arbitrary exercise of power; and was dictated by the loftiest patriotism and the purest love of country.

The history of the Missouri Compromise includes the cause of the late war between the States.

That cause was slavery.

Darkly and in bold relief it stands out in the records of the past hundred years as the point whence all sectional animosities arose, and upon which all sectional jealousies and hatreds were concentred.

This Gordian Knot of the nineteenth century could, perhaps, only have been cut, as it was, by the sword, for several reasons in the first place, the South never saw the day when she would have surrendered her property to force without a fight, and the Northern people were never willing for the government to pay the South for her slaves in order to their deportation and freedom-every proposition to that effect being rejected by the Northern majority in Congress, even though made by Northern members. It was, moreover, a question of land, for which the Anglo-Saxon race will always fight. The South wanted the territory from which she had been unjustly excluded by act of Congress, as a place of exodus for her surplus blacks, whose increase was daily becoming more and more a burden; whilst the North wanted the fertile fields of the South, from which her people were excluded by the existence of slave labor as effectually as though by act of Congress, for the maintenance of her surplus white population which was increasing every year by the thousands, owing to foreign emigration. And last, but not least, the political equality of the States became a point of honor with the South, as well as a means of self-preservation, for which her people preferred to fight, even if they lost, rather than to surrender it tamely and without a struggle.

Some very distinguished and able men have expressed the belief that, as Alexander Stephens said, "slavery was only an incident of the war," and not the cause of it. But this appears to the writer to be a mistaken view. It would seem, on the contrary, that slavery had hitherto been the only question of difference between the States

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »