Address to the Non-Slaveholders of the South Part 6

Such are the terrific visions which are constantly presenting themselves to the affrighted imaginations of the slaveholders; such the character which, _among themselves_, they attribute to their own domestics.

Attend to one more, and that one an extraordinary confession:

"We, of the South, are emphatically surrounded by a dangerous cla.s.s of beings--degraded and stupid savages, who, if they could but once entertain the idea, that immediate and unconditional death would not be their portion, would re-act the St. Domingo tragedy. But a consciousness, with all their stupidity, that a ten-fold force, superior in discipline, _if not in barbarity_, would gather from the _four corners of the United States_, and slaughter them, keeps them in subjection.

But to the _non-slaveholding States_ particularly, are we indebted for a permanent safeguard against insurrection.

Without their a.s.sistance, the white population of the South would be _too weak_ to quiet the innate desire for liberty, which is ever ready to act itself out with every rational creature."--_Maysville Intelligencer._

And now we ask you, fellow-citizens, if all these declarations and confessions be true--and who can doubt it--what must be your inevitable condition, should your soil be invaded by a foreign foe, bearing the standard of EMANc.i.p.aTION?

In perfect accordance with the above confession, that to the non-slaveholding States the South is indebted for a permanent safeguard against insurrection, Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, uttered these pregnant words in a debate, in 1842, in Congress, "THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION WILL BE THE DISSOLUTION OF SLAVERY."

The action of the Federal Government is, we know, controlled by the slave interest; and what testimony does that action bear to the military weakness of the South? Let the reports of its high functionaries answer.

The Secretary of War, in his report for 1842, remarked, "The works intended for the more remote Southern portion of our territory, particularly require attention. Indications are already made of designs of the worst character against that region, in the event of hostilities from a _certain quarter_, to which we cannot be insensible." The Secretary's fears had been evidently excited by the organization of _black_ regiments in the British West Indies, and the threats of certain English writers, that a war between the two countries would result in the liberation of the slaves. The report from the Quarter-Master, General Jessup, a Southern man, betrays the same anxiety, and in less ambiguous terms: "In the event of a war," says he, "with either of the great European powers possessing colonies in the West Indies, there will be danger of the peninsula of Florida being occupied by BLACKS from the Islands. A proper regard for the security of our _Southern States_ requires, that prompt and efficient measures be adopted to prevent such a state of things." The Secretary of the Navy, a slaveholder, _hints_ his fears in cautious circ.u.mlocution. Speaking of the event of a war with any considerable maritime power, he says, "It would be a war of incursions aimed at _revolution_. The first blow would be struck at us through our _inst.i.tutions_;" he means, of course, "the peculiar inst.i.tution." He then proceeds to show that the enemy would seek success "in arraying, what are supposed to be, the hostile elements of our _social system_ against each other;" and he admits, that "even in the best event, war on our own soil would be the more expensive, the more embarra.s.sing, and the more HORRIBLE in its effects, by compelling us at the same time to oppose an enemy in the field, and _to guard_ against all attempts to _subvert our social system_." In plain language, an invading enemy would strike the first blow at the slave system, and thus aim at revolution,--a revolution that would give liberty to two and a half millions of human beings; and that such a war would be very embarra.s.sing to the slaveholders, and the more horrible, because, as formerly in South Carolina, a large share of their military force would necessarily be employed, not in fighting the enemy, but in guarding the SOCIAL, that is, the "patriarchal system."

No persons are more sensible of their hazardous situation than the slaveholders themselves, and hence, as is common with people who are secretly conscious of their own weakness, they attempt to supply the want of strength by a bullying insolence, hoping to effect by intimidation what they well know can be effected in no other way. This game has long been played, and with great success, in Congress. It has been attempted in our negotiations with Great Britain, and has signally failed.

Your aristocracy, whatever may be their vaunts, are conscious of their military weakness, and shrink from any contest which may cause a foreign army to plant the standard of emanc.i.p.ation upon their soil. The very idea of an armed negro startles their fearful imaginations. This is disclosed on innumerable occasions, but was conspicuously manifested in a debate in the Senate. In July, 1842, a Bill to regulate enlistments in the naval service being under consideration, Mr. CALHOUN proposed an amendment, that negroes should be enlisted only as _cooks_ and _stewards_. He thought it a matter of _great consequence_ not to admit blacks into our vessels of national defence. Mr. BENTON thought _all arms_, whether on land or sea, ought to be borne by the white race.

Mr. BAGBY. "In the Southern portion of the Union, the great object was to _keep arms and a knowledge of arms_ out of the hands of the blacks.

The subject addressed itself to every Southern heart. Self-preservation was the first law of nature, and the South must look to that."

On the motion of Mr. PRESTON, the bill was so amended as to include the army.

And think you that men, thus in awe of their own dependents, shuddering at a musket in the hands of a black, and with a population of two millions and a half of these dreaded slaves, will expose themselves to the tremendous consequences of a union between their domestic and foreign enemies? Of the four who voted against the British treaty, probably not one would have given the vote he did, had he not known to a certainty that the treaty would be ratified.

Think not we are disposed to ridicule the fears of the slaveholders, or to question their personal courage. G.o.d knows their perils are real, and not imaginary: and who can question, that with a hostile _British_ army in the heart of Virginia or Alabama, the whole slave region would presently become one vast scene of horror and desolation? Heretofore the invaders of our soil were themselves interested in slave property: _now_ they would be zealous emanc.i.p.ationists, and they would be accompanied by the most terrific vision which could meet the eye of a slaveholder, regiments of _black troops_, fully equipped and disciplined. Surely such a state of things might well appal the bravest heart, and palsy the stoutest arm. But, fellow-citizens, what, in such a catastrophe, would be your condition? Your fate and that of your wives and children would then be linked to that of your lordly neighbors. One indiscriminate ruin would await you all. But _you_ may avert these acc.u.mulated horrors. You may change two and a half millions of domestic and implacable enemies into faithful friends and generous protectors. No sooner shall the negroes cease to be oppressed, than they will cease to hate. The planters of Jamaica were formerly as much afraid of their slaves, as your planters now are of theirs. But the Jamaica slaves, now freemen, are no long dreaded; on the contrary, they form the chief military force of the island; and should a foreign foe attack it, would be found its willing and devoted defenders. It rests with _you_ to relieve your country of its most dangerous enemy, to render it invulnerable to foreign a.s.saults, and to dissipate that fearful antic.i.p.ation of wrath and tribulation, which now broods over and oppresses the mind of every white who resides in a slave country.

We have called your attention to the practical influence of slavery on various points deeply affecting your prosperity and happiness. These are:

1. Increase of population.

2. State of education.

3. Industry and enterprise.

4. Feeling toward the laboring cla.s.ses.

5. State of religion.

6. State of morals.

7. Disregard for human life.

8. Disregard for const.i.tutional obligations.

9. Liberty of speech.

10. Liberty of the press.

11. Military weakness.

You will surely agree with us, that in many of these particulars, the States to which you belong are sunk far below the ordinary condition of civilized nations. The slaveholders, in their listlessness and idleness, in their contempt for the laws, in their submission to illegal and ferocious violence, in their voluntary surrender of their const.i.tutional rights, and above all in their disregard for human life, and their cruelty in taking it, are, as a civilized and professedly a Christian community, without a parallel, unless possibly among some of the anarchical States of South America.

When compelled to acknowledge the superior prosperity of the free States, the slaveholders are fond of imputing the difference to tariffs, or to government patronage, or to any other than the true cause.

Let us then inquire, whether the inferior and unhappy condition of the slave States can indeed be ascribed to any natural disadvantage under which they are laboring, or to any partial or unjust legislation by the Federal Government?

In the first place, the slave States cannot pretend that they have not received their full share of the national domain, and that the narrowness of their territorial limits have r.e.t.a.r.ded the development of their enterprise and resources. The area of the slave States is nearly _double_ that of the free. New York has acquired the t.i.tle of the _Empire_ State; yet she is inferior in size to Virginia, Missouri, Georgia, Louisiana, or North Carolina.

Nor can it be maintained that the free States are in advance of the slave States, because from an earlier settlement they had the start in the race of improvement. Virginia is not only the largest, but the _oldest_ settled State in the confederacy. She, together with Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina, were all settled before Pennsylvania.

Nor will any slaveholder admit, for a moment, that Providence has scattered his gifts with a more sparing hand at the South than at the North. The richness of their soil, the salubrity of their climate, the number and magnitude of their rivers, are themes on which they delight to dwell; and not unfrequent is the contrast they draw between their own fair and sunny land, and the ungenial climate and sterile soil of the Northern and Eastern States. Hence the moral difference between the two sections of our republic must arise from other than natural causes. It appears also that this difference is becoming wider and wider. Of this fact we could give various proofs; but let one suffice.

At the first census in 1790, the free population of the present free States and Territories was 1,930,125 " of the slave States and Territories, 1,394,847 --------- Difference, 535,278

By the last census, 1840, the same population in the free States and Territories was 9,782,415 In the slave States and Territories, 4,793,738 --------- Difference, 4,988,677

Thus it appears that in 1790 the free population of the South was 72 per cent. of that of the North, and that in 1840 it was only 49 per cent.; while the difference in 1840 is more than _nine_ times as great as it was in 1790.

Thus you perceive how unequal is the race in which you are contending.

Fifty years have given the North an increased preponderance of about four and a half millions of free citizens. Another fifty years will increase this preponderance in a vastly augmented ratio. And now we ask you, why this downward course? Why this continually increasing disparity between you and your Northern brethren? Is it because the interests of the slaveholders are not represented in the national councils? Let us see. We have already shown you that your _free_ population is only 49 per cent. of that of the Northern States; that is, the inhabitants of the free States are more than _double_ the free inhabitants of the slave States. Now, what is the proportion of members of Congress from the two sections?

In the Senate, the slave States have precisely as many as the free; and in the lower House, their members are 65 per cent. of those from the free States.[13]

[13] 135 from the free and 88 members from the slave States.

According to _free_ population, the South would have only 66 members.

The Senate has a veto on every law; and as one half of that body are slaveholders, it follows, of course, that no law can be pa.s.sed without their consent. Nor has any bill pa.s.sed the Senate, since the organization of the government, but by the votes of slaveholders. It is idle, therefore, for them to impute their depressed condition to unjust and partial legislation, since they have from the very first controlled the action of Congress. Not a law has been pa.s.sed, not a treaty ratified, but by their votes.

Nor is this all. Appointments under the federal government are made by the President, with the consent of the Senate, and of course the slaveholders have, and always have had, a veto on every appointment.

There is not an officer of the federal government to whose appointment slaveholding members of the Senate have not consented. Yet all this gives but an inadequate idea of the political influence exercised by the _people_ of the slave States in the election of President, and consequently over the policy of his administration. In consequence of the peculiar apportionment of Presidential Electors among the States, and the operation of the rule of _federal numbers_--whereby, for the purpose of estimating the representative population, five slaves are counted as three white men--most extraordinary results are exhibited at every election of President. In the election of 1848, the Electors chosen were 290: of these 169 were from the free, and 121 from the slave States.

The popular vote in the free States was 2,029,551 or one elector to 12,007 voters.

The popular vote in the slave States was 845,050 or one elector to 7,545 voters.[14]

[14] South Carolina had 9 electors, chosen by the Legislature.

These are deducted in the calculation.

Even this disproportion, enormous as it is, is greatly aggravated in regard to particular States.

New York gave 455,761 votes, and had 36 electors.

Virginia } Maryland } gave 242,547 " " 36 "

N. Carolina } Ohio gave 328,489 " " 28 "

Delaware } Georgia } Louisiana } Alabama } gave 237,811 " " 38 "

Arkansas } Florida } Texas }

These facts address themselves to the understanding of all, and prove, beyond cavil, that the slave States have a most unfair and unreasonable representation in Congress, and a very disproportionate share in the election of President.

Nor can these States complain that they are stinted in the distribution of the _patronage_ of the national government. The rule of _federal numbers_, confined by the Const.i.tution to the apportionment of representatives, has been extended, by the influence of the slaveholders, to other and very different subjects. Thus, the distribution among the States of the surplus revenue, and of the proceeds of the public lands, was made according to this same iniquitous rule.

It is not to be supposed that the slaveholders have failed to avail themselves of their influence in the federal government. A very brief statement will convince you, that if they are now feeble and emaciated, it is not because they have been deprived of their share of the loaves and fishes.

By law, mids.h.i.+pmen and cadets, at West Point, are appointed according to the Federal ratio; thus have the slaveholders secured to themselves an additional number of officers in the Army and Navy, on account of their slaves.

Reflect for a moment on the vast patronage wielded by the President of the United States, and then recollect, that should the present inc.u.mbent (General Taylor) serve his full term, the office will have been filled no less than _fifty-two_ years out of sixty-four by slaveholders![15]