Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

almost universal belief now that these efforts would have succeeded gradually, but for the harsh and unjust criticisms of the Southern people by some of those at the North, and the outrageous, illegal, and incendiary interference, by the Abolitionists and their emissaries. As early as 1769 the House of Burgesses of Virginia tried to abolish slavery in Virginia, but was prohibited by the veto of George III., then King of England, “in the interests of English commerce." And throughout the period from 1776 to 1832, when the work of the Abolitionists first began to be felt, the question of how to accomplish emancipation engaged the thought of some of the most eminent men of Virginia and other Southern States.

Mr. George Lunt, a distinguished lawyer of Massachusetts, in his interesting work, entitled "Origin of the Late War," in which he shows that the North was the aggressor and wrongdoer throughout, says: "Slavery in the popular sense, was the cause of war, just as property is the cause of robbery."

Whilst we do not indorse this statement, looking at the subject from the view-point of a Southerner, yet if it were true, surely there is nothing in it from which the people of the North can take any comfort or credit to themselves.

But so anxious are our former enemies to convince the world that the South did fight for the perpetuation of slavery that some of them have, either wittingly or unwittingly, resorted to misrepresentations or misinterpretations of some of the sayings of our representative men to try to establish this as a fact. A noted instance of this is found in the oft-repeated charge that the late Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, had said in his famous speech, delivered at Savannah in February, 1861, that "slavery was the corner stone of the Confederacy.”

We have heard this charge made by one of the most enlightened and liberal men at the North, and yet we have at hand utterances from this same Northerner tantamount to what Mr. Stephens said in that speech. Mr. Stephens was speaking of the Confederacy, just then organized, and contrasting some of the principles on which it was founded with some of those of the Republican party,

"Our

then coming into power for the first time, and he said: government is founded on exactly the opposite idea (that the two races, black and white, are equal); its foundations are laid; its corner stone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not the equal of the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his (the negro's) natural and normal condition."

Now it will be observed in the first place, that Mr. Stephens said the "corner stone" of the Confederacy "rests upon the great truth that the negro is not the equal of the white man." And isn't this fact recognized as true to-day in every part of this land?

But hear now the utterances of this liberal and cultured Northerner on the same subject when he says as he does: The Africans are distinctly an inferior order of being, not only in the South, or slave States, but throughout the North also, not entitled to unrestricted pursuit on equal terms of life, liberty, and happiness."

Is there any difference in principle between these two utterances? If, as this distinguished Northerner asserts, and as every one knows to be true, the negroes are "distinctly an inferior order of being " and "not entitled to the unrestricted pursuit on equal terms [with the whites] of life, liberty, and happiness," does not this make 66 subordination to the superior race his natural and normal condition," as Mr. Stephen says?

But hear now what Mr. Lincoln, the great demigod of the North, had to say on this subject in a speech delivered at Charleston, Ill., in 1858, when he said: "I will say, then, that I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriage with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I believe, will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. Inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man."

Again we ask: Is there any difference in principle between what is here said by Mr. Lincoln and what was said by Mr. Stephens in his famous " corner stone" speech?

And, notwithstanding Mr. Lincoln issued his "Emancipation Proclamation" eighteen months later, he said in his first inaugural: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Could he have used stronger language to show, that he believed not only in the legality of the position of the South on the subject of slavery, but that he believed in the propriety of that position as well?

Mr. Toombs said in a speech delivered in Boston in 1856:

"The white is the superior and the black the inferior, and subordination, with or without law, will be the status of the African in this mixed society. Therefore it is to the interest of both, and especially to the black race, that this status should be fixed, controlled, and protected by law." And this is just as true to-day as it was when this statement was made by this great statesman in 1856.

But there is this remarkable fact in connection with slavery, and its relations to the war, which we have not seen elsewhere referred to, and which is to our mind a conclusive refutation of the charge that the continuation or the extinction of slavery, had any influence whatever on the conduct of the Southern people, and especially that of the Confederate soldier in that war.

The writer belonged to one of the three companies in the army, the personnel of which is so vividly described by the author of "Four Years under Marse Robert," in which there were serving as privates, many full graduates of the University of Virginia, and other leading colleges, both North and South. In these companies a variety of subjects pertaining to the war, religion, politics, philosophy, literature, and what not, were discussed with intelligence, and often with animation and ability, and yet neither he, nor any of his comrades can recall the fact, that they ever heard the subject of

slavery, or the relations of the slaves to the war, referred to in any way during that period, except that, when it was determined to put slaves in our army, a violent protest against doing so went up from the ranks, and the only thing which even partially reconciled our men to this proposed action, was the knowledge of the fact that it had the sanction and approval of General Lee. We have inquired of comrades of various other commands about this, and with the like result. Do men fight for a thing or a cause they never speak of or discuss? It seems to us that to ask this question is to furnish the answer.

Not only is the foregoing statement true, but with the exception of the steps taken to send negroes to help erect fortifications, employing them as laborers, etc., but little consideration seems to have been given them, or of their status to the war, either by the Congress or the Cabinet of the Confederacy. The reasons for this are manifest to those of us who lived in those days, but a word of explanation may be necessary to those who have since come on the stage of life. In the first place slavery, as it existed in the South, was patriarchal in its character; the slaves (servants, as we called them) were regarded and treated as members of the families to which they severally belonged; with rare exceptions, they were treated with kindness and consideration, and frequently the relations between the slave and his owner, were those of real affection and confidence. As Mr. Lunt, the Boston writer, from whom we have already quoted, says: "The negroes were perfectly contented with their lot. In general they were not only happy in their condition, but proud of it."

Their owners trusted them with their families, their farms, and their affairs, and this confidence was rarely betrayed-scarcely ever, unless the slaves were forced to violate their trusts by coming in contact with the Federal armies, or were beguiled and betrayed themselves by mean and designing white men. The truth is, both the white and the black people of the South, regarded the Confederate cause alike as their cause, and looked to its success with almost, if not equal, anxiety and delight. A most striking illustration of

this and of the readiness of the slaves to fight even, if necessary, for the Confederate cause is furnished by the following incident: In February, 1865, when negro troops had been authorized to be enrolled in the Confederate army, there were employed at Jackson Hospital, near Richmond, seventy-two negro men (slaves). The surgeon in charge, the late Dr. F. W. Hancock, of Richmond, had these men formed in line; and after asking them "if they would be willing to take up arms to protect their masters' families, homes, and their own, from an attacking foe, sixty out of seventy-two responded that they would volunteer to go to the trenches and fight the enemy to the bitter end." ("War Rebellion Records," Series IV., Volume II., p. 1193.)

At the date here referred to, we know, that the life of the confederate soldier was one of the greatest hardship and peril, and the fact that, five out of every six of these negroes, were then ready to volunteer and go to the trenches, showed conclusively how truly they regarded the Confederate cause as their cause as well as that of the white people of the South. Indeed, we doubt if a larger per cent. of the whites, in any part of the country, would have volunteered to go to the front at that stage of the war. If, then, it were true, as alleged, that the white people of the South were fighting for slavery, does it not necessarily follow that the slaves themselves were ready and willing to fight for it too? One of these propositions is just as true as the other.

We think we have shown then that even if we admit that slavery was, as falsely charged, the "cause of the war" the South was in no way responsible for the existence of that cause; but it was a condition forced upon it, one recognized by the supreme law of the land, one which the South dealt with legally and justly, as contemplated by that law, and history shows that in every respect, and in every instance, the aggressions and violations of the law were committed by the North. Mr. Lunt says: "Of four several compromises between the two sections of country since the Revolutionary War, each has been kept by the South and violated by the North." Indeed, we challenge the North to point out one single instance in

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »