summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/39720-h/39720-h.htm
blob: 77d587abddc2058345ac2b6a1f947a9eca3bffa3 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" />
<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Abolition Crusade and Its Consequences, by Hilary Abner Herbert</title>
    <style type="text/css">

body {
    margin-left: 10%;
    margin-right: 10%;
}

    h1,h2,h3,h4 {
    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
    clear: both;
}

p {
    margin-top: .75em;
    text-align: justify;
    margin-bottom: .75em;
}

hr {
    margin: 3em auto 3em auto;
    height: 0px;
    border-width: 1px 0 0 0;
    border-style: solid;
    border-color: #dcdcdc;
    width: 500px;
    clear: both;
}

table {
    margin-left: auto;
    margin-right: auto;
}

table.toc {
    margin: auto;
    width: 50%;
}

td.c1  {
    text-align: right;
    vertical-align: top;
    padding-right: 1em;
}

td.c2  {
    text-align: left;
    margin-left: 0em;
    padding-left: 2em;
    text-indent: -2em;
    padding-right: 1em;
    vertical-align: top;
}

td.c3 {
    text-align: right;
    padding-left: 1em;
    vertical-align: bottom;
}

td  { padding: 0em 1em; }
th  { padding: 0em 1em; }

    .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
        /*  visibility: hidden;  */
        position: absolute;
        left: 92%;
        font-size: smaller;
        text-align: right;
        color: #999;
} /* page numbers */

    .blockquot {
        margin-left: 5%;
        margin-right: 10%;
}

    .center   {text-align: center;}

    .smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}

    .u        {text-decoration: underline;}

    .caption  {font-weight: bold;}

    .gap { margin-top: 1em; }

/* Images */
    .figcenter {
        margin: auto;
        text-align: center;
}

/* Transcriber Notes */
div.tn {
    background-color: #EEE;
    border: dashed 1px;
    color: #000;
    margin-left: 20%;
    margin-right: 20%;
    margin-top: 5em;
    margin-bottom: 5em;
    padding: 1em;
}

ul.corrections {
    list-style-type: circle;
}

/* Footnotes */
div.fn {
    background-color: #EEE;
    border: dashed 1px;
    color: #000;
    margin-left: 20%;
    margin-right: 20%;
    margin-top: 5em;
    margin-bottom: 5em;
    padding: 1em;
}

    .footnote {
        margin-left: 10%;
        margin-right: 10%;
        font-size: 0.9em;
}

    .footnote .label {
        position: absolute;
        right: 84%;
        text-align: right;
}

    .fnanchor {
        vertical-align: super;
        font-size: .8em;
        text-decoration: none;
}

/* Poetry */
    .poem {
        margin-left: 10%;
        margin-right: 10%;
        text-align: left;
}

    .poem br { display: none; }

    .poem .stanza { margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em; }

    .poem span.i0 {
        display: block;
        margin-left: 0em;
        padding-left: 3em;
        text-indent: -3em;
}

    .poem span.i1 {
        display: block;
        margin-left: 1em;
        padding-left: 3em;
        text-indent: -3em;
}

    .poem span.i2 {
        display: block;
        margin-left: 2em;
        padding-left: 3em;
        text-indent: -3em;
}

    .signature {
        text-align: right;
        margin-right: 5%;
}

/* INDEX */
ul.index { list-style-type: none;
    width: 20em;
    margin: 2em auto;
}

ul.index2 { list-style-type: none; }

li.pad { padding-top: 2.0%; }

    hr.full { width: 100%;
              margin-top: 3em;
              margin-bottom: 0em;
              margin-left: auto;
              margin-right: auto;
              height: 4px;
              border-width: 4px 0 0 0; /* remove all borders except the top one */
              border-style: solid;
              border-color: #000000;
              clear: both; }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Abolition Crusade and Its Consequences,
by Hilary Abner Herbert</h1>
<p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at <a
href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a></p>
<p>Title: The Abolition Crusade and Its Consequences</p>
<p>       Four Periods of American History</p>
<p>Author: Hilary Abner Herbert</p>
<p>Release Date: May 17, 2012  [eBook #39720]</p>
<p>Language: English</p>
<p>Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1</p>
<p>***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ABOLITION CRUSADE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES***</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h4>E-text prepared by Charlene Taylor, Julia Neufeld,<br />
    and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team<br />
    (<a href="http://www.pgdp.net">http://www.pgdp.net</a>)<br />
    from page images generously made available by<br />
    Internet Archive/American Libraries<br />
    (<a href="http://archive.org/details/americana">http://archive.org/details/americana</a>)</h4>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<table border="0" style="background-color: #ccccff;margin: 0 auto;" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td valign="top">
      Note:
    </td>
    <td>
      Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
      <a href="http://archive.org/details/abolitioncrusade00herbrich">
      http://archive.org/details/abolitioncrusade00herbrich</a>
	</td>
  </tr>
</table>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<hr class="full" />
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>

<h1>
THE ABOLITION CRUSADE<br />
AND ITS CONSEQUENCES</h1>

<h3>FOUR PERIODS OF AMERICAN HISTORY<br /><br />

BY</h3>
<h2>HILARY A. HERBERT, LL.D.</h2>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p class="center"><br /><br />NEW YORK<br />
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS<br />
1912</p>


<hr style="width: 15%;" />

<p class="center">
<span class="smcap">Copyright, 1912, by</span><br />
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS<br />

Published April, 1912</p>
<div class="figcenter" style="width: 125px;">
<img src="images/titledecorative.jpg" width="125" height="143" alt="logo" title="logo" />
</div>
<hr style="width: 15%;" />


<p class="center">TO MY GRANDCHILDREN<br />

THIS LITTLE BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED
IN THE HOPE THAT ITS PERUSAL
WILL FOSTER IN THEM, AS CITIZENS OF THIS GREAT
REPUBLIC, A DUE REGARD FOR THE CONSTITUTION
OF THEIR COUNTRY
AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
</p>


<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[vii]</a></span></p>

<h2>PREFATORY NOTE<br />
BY JAMES FORD RHODES</h2>


<p>"Livy extolled Pompey in such a panegyric
that Augustus called him Pompeian,
and yet this was no obstacle to their
friendship." That we find in Tacitus. We
may therefore picture to ourselves Augustus
reading Livy's "History of the Civil
Wars" (in which the historian's republican
sympathies were freely expressed), and
learning therefrom that there were two
sides to the strife which rent Rome. As
we are more than forty-six years distant
from our own Civil War, is it not incumbent
on Northerners to endeavor to see
the Southern side? We may be certain
that the historian a hundred years hence,
when he contemplates the lining-up of five
and one-half million people against twenty-two
millions, their equal in religion, morals,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[viii]</a></span>
regard for law, and devotion to the common
Constitution, will, as matter of course, aver
that the question over which they fought
for four years had two sides; that all the
right was not on one side and all the wrong
on the other. The North should welcome,
therefore, accounts of the conflict written
by candid Southern men.</p>

<p>Mr. Herbert, reared and educated in the
South, believing in the moral and economical
right of slavery, served as a Confederate
soldier during the war, but after Appomattox,
when thirty-one years old, he told
his father he had arrived at the conviction
that slavery was wrong. Twelve years
later, when home-rule was completely restored
to the South (1877), he went into
public life as a Member of Congress, sitting
in the House for sixteen years. At the end
of his last term, in 1893, he was appointed
Secretary of the Navy by President Cleveland,
whom he faithfully served during his
second administration.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[ix]</a></span>Such an experience is an excellent training
for the treatment of any aspect of the
Civil War. Mr. Herbert's devotion to the
Constitution, the Union, and the flag now
equals that of any soldier of the North
who fought against him. We should expect
therefore that his work would be pervaded
by practical knowledge and candor.</p>

<p>After a careful reading of the manuscript
I have no hesitation in saying that the expectation
is realized. Naturally unable to
agree entirely with his presentation of the
subject, I believe that his work exhibits a
side that entitles it to a large hearing. I
hope that it will be placed before the
younger generation, who, unaffected by any
memory of the heat of the conflict, may
truly say:</p>

<p class="center">Tros Tyriusve, mihi nullo discrimine agetur.</p>

<p class="signature">
<span class="smcap">James Ford Rhodes.</span><br />
</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Boston</span>, <i>November</i>, 1911.</p>



<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[xi]</a></span></p>
<h2>PREFACE</h2>


<p>In 1890 Mr. L. E. Chittenden, who had
been United States Treasurer under President
Lincoln, published an interesting account
of $10,000,000 United States bonds
secretly sent to England, as he said, in 1862,
and he told all about what thereupon took
place across the water. It was a reminiscence.
General Charles Francis Adams in
his recent instructive volume, "Studies
Military and Diplomatic," takes up this
narrative and, in a chapter entitled "An
Historical Residuum," conclusively shows
from contemporaneous evidence that the
bonds were sent, not in 1862, but in 1863,
but that, as for the rest of the story, the
residuum of truth in it was about like the
speck of moisture that is left when a soap
bubble is pricked by a needle.</p>

<p>General Adams did not mean that Mr.
Chittenden knew he was drawing on his imagination.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">[xii]</a></span>
He was only demonstrating that
one who intends to write history cannot
rely on his memory.</p>

<p>The author, in the following pages, is
undertaking to write a connected story of
events that happened, most of them, in his
lifetime, and as to many of the most important
of which he has vivid recollections;
but, save in one respect, he has not relied
upon his own memory for any important
fact. The picture he has drawn of the relations
between the slave-holder and non-slave-holder
in the South is, much of it,
given as he recollects it. His opportunities
for observation were somewhat extensive,
and here he is willing to be considered in
part as a witness. Elsewhere he has relied
almost entirely upon contemporaneous written
evidence, memory, however, often indicating
to him sources of information.</p>

<p>Nowhere are there so many valuable lessons
for the student of American history as
in the story of the great sectional movement
of 1831, and of its results, which have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">[xiii]</a></span>
profoundly affected American conditions
through generation after generation.</p>

<p>An effort is here made to tell that story
succinctly, tracing it, step after step, from
cause to effect. The subject divides itself
naturally into four historic periods:</p>

<p>1. The anti-slavery crusade, 1831 to
1860.</p>

<p>2. Secession and four years of war, 1861
to 1865.</p>

<p>3. Reconstruction under the Lincoln-Johnson
plan, with the overthrow by Congress
of that plan and the rule of the negro
and carpet-bagger, from 1865 to 1876.</p>

<p>4. Restoration of self-government in the
South, and the results that have followed.</p>

<p>The greater part of the book is devoted to
the first period&mdash;1831 to 1860, the period of
causation. The sequences running through
the three remaining periods are more briefly
sketched.</p>

<p>Italics, throughout the book, it may be
mentioned here, are the author's.</p>

<p>Now that the country is happily reunited<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiv" id="Page_xiv">[xiv]</a></span>
in a Union which all agree is indissoluble,
the South wants the true history of the
times here treated of spread before its children;
so does the North. The mistakes that
were committed on both sides during that
lamentable and prolonged sectional quarrel
(and they were many) should be known of
all, in order that like mistakes may not be
committed in the future. The writer has,
with diffidence, attempted to lay the facts
before his readers, and so to condense the
story that it may be within the reach of
the ordinary student. How far he has succeeded
will be for his readers to say. The
verdict he ventures to hope for is that he
has made an honest effort to be fair.</p>

<p>The author takes this occasion to thank
that accomplished young teacher of history,
Mr. Paul Micou, for valuable suggestions,
and his friend, Mr. Thomas H. Clark,
who with his varied attainments has aided
him in many ways.</p>

<p class="signature">
<span class="smcap">Hilary A. Herbert.</span><br />
</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Washington</span>, D. C., <i>March</i>, 1912.</p>



<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<h2>CONTENTS</h2>

<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Contents">
<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="left">CHAPTER</td><td align="right"><small>PAGE</small></td></tr>
<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Introduction</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_3">3</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">I.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Secession and Its Doctrine</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_15">15</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">II.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Emancipation Prior to</span> 1831</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_37">37</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">III.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">The New Abolitionists</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_56">56</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">IV.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Feeling in the South</span>&mdash;1835</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_77">77</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">V.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Anti-Abolition at the North</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_84">84</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">VI.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">A Crisis and a Compromise</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_93">93</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">VII.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Efforts for Peace</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_128">128</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">VIII.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Incompatibility of Slavery and Freedom</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_147">147</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">IX.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Four Years of War</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_180">180</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">X.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Reconstruction, Lincoln-Johnson Plan and Congressional</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_208">208</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">XI.</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">The South under Self-Government</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_229">229</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Index</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_245">245</a></td></tr>
</table></div>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<h2>THE ABOLITION CRUSADE AND ITS<br />
CONSEQUENCES</h2>



<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span></p>
<h2>INTRODUCTION</h2>


<p>The Constitution of the United States
attempts to define and limit the power
of our Federal Government.</p>

<p>Lord Brougham somewhere said that
such an instrument was not worth the
parchment it was written on; people would
pay no regard to self-imposed limitations
on their own will.</p>

<p>When our fathers by that written Constitution
established a government that was
partly national and partly federal, and that
had no precedent, they knew it was an
experiment. To-day that government has
been in existence one hundred and twenty-three
years, and we proudly claim that the
experiment of 1789 has been the success of
the ages.</p>

<p>Happy should we be if we could boast
that, during all this period, the Constitution
had never been violated in any respect!</p>

<p>The first palpable infringement of its
provisions occurred in the enactment of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span>
the alien and sedition laws of 1798. The
people at the polls indignantly condemned
these enactments, and for years thereafter
the government proceeded peacefully; the
people were prosperous, and the Union and
the Constitution grew in favor.</p>

<p>Later, there grew up a rancorous sectional
controversy about slavery that lasted
many years; that quarrel was followed
by a bloody sectional war; after that war
came the reconstruction of the Southern
States. During each of these three trying
eras it did sometimes seem as if that old
piece of "parchment," derided by Lord
Brougham, had been utterly forgotten.
Nevertheless, and despite all these trying
experiences, we have in the meantime advanced
to the very front rank of nations,
and our people have long since turned, not
only to the Union, but, we are happy to
think, to the Constitution as well, with
more devotion than ever.</p>

<p>It may be further said that, notwithstanding
all the bitter animosities that for
long divided our country into two hostile
sections, that wonderful old Constitution,
handed down to us by our fathers, was always,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span>
and in all seasons, in the hearts of
our people, and that never for a moment
was it out of mind. Even in our sectional
war Confederates and Federals were both
fighting for it&mdash;one side to maintain it over
themselves as an independent nation; the
other to maintain it over the whole of the
old Union. In the very madness of reconstruction
the fundamental idea of the
Constitution, the equality of the States,
ultimately prevailed&mdash;this idea it was that
imperatively demanded the final restoration
of the seceded States, with the right of
self-government unimpaired.</p>

<p>The future is now bright before us. The
complex civilization of the present is, we
do not forget, continually presenting new
and complex problems of government, and
we are mindful, too, that, for the people
who must deal with these problems, a
higher culture is required, but to all this
our national and State governments seem to
be fully alive. We are everywhere erecting
memorials to our patriotic dead, we have
our "flag day" and many ceremonies to
stimulate patriotism, and, throughout our
whole country, young Americans are being<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span>
taught more and more of American history
and American traditions.</p>

<p>The essence of these teachings presumably
is that time has hallowed our Constitution,
and that experience has fully shown the
wisdom of its provisions. In this land of
ours, where there are so much property and
so many voters who want it, and where the
honor and emoluments of high place are so
tempting to the demagogue, there can be
no such security for either life, liberty, or
property as those safeguards which our
fathers devised in the Constitution of the
United States.</p>

<p>Our teachers of history must therefore
expose fearlessly every violation in the past
of our Constitution, and point out the penalties
that followed; and, above all, they
cannot afford to condone, or to pass by in
silence, the conduct of those who have heretofore
advocated, or acted on, any law which
to them was <i>higher than the American Constitution</i>.</p>

<p>One of the most serious troubles in the
past, many think our greatest, was our terrible
war among ourselves. Perhaps, after
the lapse of nearly fifty years, we can all<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span>
now agree that if our people and our States
had always, between 1830 and 1860, faithfully
observed the Federal Constitution we
should have not had that war. However
that may be, the crusade of the Abolitionists,
which began in 1831, was the beginning
of an agitation in the North against the existence
of slavery in the South, which continued,
in one form or another, until the
outbreak of that war.</p>

<p>The negro is now located, geographically,
much as he was then. If another attempt
shall be made to project his personal status
into national politics, the voters of the
country ought to know and consider the
mistakes that occurred, North and South,
during the unhappy era of that sectional
warfare. This little book is a study of that
period of our history. It concludes with a
glance at the war between the North and
South, and the reconstruction that followed.</p>

<p>The story of Cromwell and the Great
Revolution it was impossible for any Englishman
to tell correctly for nearly or quite
two centuries. The changes that had been
wrought were too profound, too far-reaching;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span>
and English writers were too human.
The changes&mdash;economic, political, and social&mdash;wrought
in our country by the great
controversy over slavery and State-rights,
and by the war that ended it, have been
quite as profound, and the revolution in
men's ideas and ways of looking at their
past history has been quite as complete as
those which followed the downfall of the
government founded by Cromwell. But we
are now in the twentieth century; history
is becoming a science, and we ought to
succeed better in writing our past than the
Englishmen did.</p>

<p>The culture of this day is very exacting in
its demands, and if one is writing about our
own past the need of fairness is all the more
imperative. And why not? The masses
of the people, who clashed on the battlefields
of a war in which one side fought for
the supremacy of the Union and the other
for the sovereignty of the States, had honest
convictions; they differed in their convictions;
they had made honest mistakes
about each other; now they would like
their histories to tell just where those mistakes
were; they do not wish these mistakes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>
to be repeated hereafter. Nor is there
any reason why the whole history of that
great controversy should not now be written
with absolute fairness; the two sections
of our country have come together in a most
wonderful way. There has been reunion
after reunion of the blue and the gray. The
survivors of a New Jersey regiment, forty-four
years after the bloody battle of Salem
Church, put up on its site a monument to
their dead, on one side of which was a tablet
to the memory of the "brave Alabama
boys," who were their opponents in that
fight. One of those "Alabama boys" wrote
the story of that battle for the archives of
his own State, and the State of New Jersey
has published it in her archives, as a fair
account of the battle.</p>

<p>The author has attempted to approach
his subject in a spirit like this, and while
he hopes to be absolutely fair, he is perfectly
aware that he sees things from a
Southern view-point. For this, however,
no apology is needed. Truth is many-sided
and must be seen from every direction.</p>

<p>Nearly all the school-books dealing with
the period here treated of, and now considered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span>
as authority, have been written
from a Northern stand-point; and many of
the extended histories that are most widely
read seem to the writer to be more or less
partisan, although the authors were apparently
quite unconscious of it. Attempts
made here to point out some of the errors
in these books are, as is conceived, in the
interests of history.</p>

<p>Of course it is important that readers
should know the stand-point of an author
who writes at this day of events as recent
as those here treated of. Dr. Albert Bushnell
Hart, professor of history in Harvard
University, in the preface to his "Slavery
and Abolition" (Harper Brothers, 1906),
says of himself: "It is hard for a son and
grandson of abolitionists to approach so explosive
a question with impartiality." Following
this example, the writer must tell
that he was born in the South, of slave-holding
parents, three years after the Abolition
crusade began in 1831. Growing up
in the South under the stress of that crusade,
he maintained all through the war,
in which he was a loyal Confederate soldier,
the belief in which he had been educated&mdash;that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span>
slavery was right, morally and
economically.</p>

<p>One day, not long after Appomattox, he
told his father he had reached the conclusion
that slavery was wrong. The reply
was, to the writer's surprise, that his
mother in early life had been an avowed
emancipationist; that she (who had lived
until the writer was sixteen years old) had
never felt at liberty to discuss slavery after
the rise of the new abolitionists and the
Nat Turner insurrection; and then followed
the further information that when, in 1846,
the family removed from South Carolina to
Alabama, Greenville, Ala., was chosen for a
home because it was thought that the danger
from slave insurrections would be less
there than in one of the richer "black counties."</p>

<p>What a creature of circumstances man
is! The writer's belief about a great moral
question, his home, his school-mates, and
the companions of his youth, were all determined
by a movement begun in Boston,
Massachusetts, before he was born in the
far South!</p>

<p>With a vivid personal recollection of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span>
closing years of the great anti-slavery crusade
always in his mind, the writer has
studied closely many of the histories dealing
with that movement, and he has found
quite a consensus of opinion among Northern
writers&mdash;a view that has even been
sometimes accepted in the South&mdash;that it
was not so much the fear of insurrections,
created by Abolition agitation, that shut
off discussion in the South about the rightfulness
of slavery as it was the invention
of the cotton-gin, that made cotton growing
and slavery profitable. The cotton-gin was
invented in 1792, and was in common use
years before the writer's mother was born.
A native of, she grew to maturity entirely
in, the South, and in 1830 was an avowed
emancipationist. The subject was then
being freely discussed.</p>

<p>The author has ventured to relate in the
pages that follow this introduction two or
three incidents that were more or less personal,
in the hope that their significance may
be his sufficient excuse.</p>

<p>And now, having spoken of himself as a
Southerner, the author thinks it but fair,
when invoking for the following pages fair<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span>
consideration, to add that, since 1865, he
has never ceased to rejoice that slavery is
no more, and that secession is now only an
academic question; and, further, that he
has, since Appomattox, served the government
of the United States for twenty years
as loyally as he ever served the Confederacy.
He therefore respectfully submits that his
experiences ought to render him quite as
well qualified for an impartial consideration
of the anti-slavery crusade and its consequences
as are those who have never, either
themselves or through the eyes of their ancestors,
seen more than one side of those
questions. Certain he is, in his own mind,
that this Union has now no better friend
than is he who submits this little study,
conscious of its many shortcomings, claiming
for it nothing except that it is the result
of an honest effort to be fair in every
statement of facts and in the conclusions
reached.</p>

<p>Not much effort has been made in the direction
of original research. Facts deemed
sufficient to illustrate salient points, which
alone can be treated of in a short story,
have been found in published documents,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span>
and other facts have been purposely taken,
most of them, from Northern writers; and
the authorities have been duly cited. These
facts have been compressed into a small
compass, so that the book may be available
to such students as have not time for a
more extended examination.</p>

<p>Of the results of the crusade of the Abolitionists,
and the consequent sectional war,
George Ticknor Curtis, one of New England's
distinguished biographers, says in his
"Life of Buchanan," vol. II, p. 283:</p>

<p>"It is cause for exultation that slavery
no longer exists in the broad domain of this
republic&mdash;that our theory of government
and practice are now in complete accord.
But it is no cause for national pride that
we did not accomplish this result without
the cost of a million of precious lives and
untold millions of money."</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER I</h2>

<h3>SECESSION AND ITS DOCTRINE</h3>


<p>John Fiske has said in his school history:
"Under the government of England
before the Revolution the thirteen
commonwealths were independent of one
another, and were held together juxtaposed,
rather than united, only through their allegiance
to the British Crown. Had that
allegiance been maintained there is no telling
how long they might have gone on thus
disunited."</p>

<p>They won their independence under a
very imperfect union, a government improvised
for the occasion. The "Articles
of Confederation," the first formal constitution
of the United States of America, were
not ratified by Maryland, the last to ratify,
until in 1781, shortly before Yorktown. In
1787 the thirteen States, each claiming to
be still sovereign, came together in convention
at Philadelphia and formed the present<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>
Constitution, looking to "a more perfect
union." The Constitution that created
this new government has been rightly said
to be "the most wonderful work ever struck
off, at a given time, by the brain and purpose
of man."<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> And so it was, but it left
unsettled the great question whether a
State, if it believed that its rights were
denied to it by the general government,
could peaceably withdraw from the Union.</p>

<p>The Federal Government was given by the
Constitution only limited powers, powers
that it could not transcend. Nowhere on
the face of that Constitution was any right
expressly conferred on the general government
to decide exclusively and finally upon
the extent of the powers granted to it. If
any such right had been clearly given, it
is certain that many of the States would
not have entered into the Union. As it
was, the Constitution was only adopted by
eleven of the States after months of discussion.
Then the new government was
inaugurated, with two of the States, Rhode
Island and North Carolina, still out of the
Union. They remained outside, one of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>
them for eighteen months and the other
for a year.</p>

<p>The States were reluctant to adopt the
Constitution, because they were jealous of,
and did not mean to give up, the right of
self-government.</p>

<p>The framers of the Constitution knew
that the question of the right of a State to
secede was thus left unsettled. They knew,
too, that this might give trouble in the future.
Their hope was that, as the advantages
of the Union became, in process of
time, more and more apparent, the Union
would grow in favor and come to be regarded
in the minds and hearts of the people
as indissoluble.</p>

<p>From the beginning of the government
there were many, including statesmen of
great influence, who continued to be jealous
of the right of self-government, and insisted
that no powers should be exercised
by the Federal Government except such as
were very clearly granted in the Constitution.
These soon became a party and called
themselves Republicans. Some thirty years
later they called themselves Democrats.
Those, on the other hand, who believed in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span>
construing the grants of power in the Constitution
liberally or broadly, called themselves
Federalists.</p>

<p>Washington was a Federalist, but such
was his influence that the dispute between
the Republicans and the Federalists about
the meaning of the Constitution did not,
during his administration, assume a serious
aspect; but when a new president, John
Adams, also a Federalist, came in with a
congress in harmony with him, the Republicans
made bitter war upon them. France,
then at war with England, was even waging
what has been denominated a "quasi
war" upon us, to compel the United States,
under the old treaty of the Revolution, to
take her part against England; and England
was also threatening us. Plots to force
the government into the war as an ally of
France were in the air.</p>

<p>Adams and his followers believed in a
strong and spirited government. To strike
a fatal blow at the plotters against the
public peace, and to crush the Republicans
at the same time, Congress now passed the
famous alien and sedition laws.</p>

<p>One of the alien laws, June 25, 1798, gave<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span>
the President, for two years from its passage,
power to order out of the country, <i>at
his own will, and without "trial by jury" or
other "process of law," any alien he deemed
dangerous</i> to the peace and safety of the
United States.</p>

<p>The sedition law, July 14, 1798, made
criminal any unlawful conspiracy to oppose
any measure of the government of the
United States "which was directed by proper
authority," as well as also any "false and
scandalous accusations against the Government,
the President, or the Congress."</p>

<p>The opportunity of the Republicans had
come. They determined to call upon the
country to condemn the alien and sedition
laws, and at the presidential election in
1800 the Federalists received their death-blow.
The party as an organization survived
that election only a few years, and in
localities the very name, Federalist, later
became a reproach.</p>

<p>The Republicans began their campaign
against the alien and sedition laws by a series
of resolutions, which, drawn by Jefferson,
were passed by the Kentucky legislature
in November, 1798. Other quite similar<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>
resolutions, drawn by Madison, passed the
Virginia assembly the next year; and these
together became the celebrated Kentucky
and Virginia resolutions of 1798-9.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> The
alien and sedition laws were denounced in
these resolutions for the exercise of powers
not delegated to the general government.
Adverting to the sedition law, it was declared
that no power over the freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of
the press had been given. On the contrary,
it had been expressly provided by
the Constitution that "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
<i>or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press</i>."</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span></p>
<p>The first of the Kentucky resolutions was
as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That the several States composing the
United States of America, are not united on the
principle of unlimited submission to their general
government, <i>but that by compact</i>, under the style
and title of a constitution for the United States, and
of amendments thereto, they constituted a general
government for specific purposes, delegated to that
Government certain definite powers, <i>reserving, each
State to itself</i>, the residuary mass of right to their
own self-government; and <i>that whensoever the general
government assumes undelegated powers its acts
are unauthoritative, void, and of no effect</i>: That to
this <i>compact each State acceded as a State</i>, and is an
integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the
other party: That the government created by <i>this
compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of
the extent of the powers delegated to itself</i>, since that
would have made its direction, and not the Constitution,
the measure of its powers; but that, <i>as in all
other cases of compact among parties having no common
judge, each party has a right to judge for itself as
well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.</i>"</p></blockquote>

<p>Undoubtedly it is from the famous resolutions
of 1798-9 that the secessionists of a
later date drew their arguments. The authors
of these celebrated resolutions were,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>
both of them, devoted friends of the Union
they had helped to construct. Why should
they announce a theory of the Constitution
that was so full of dangerous possibilities?</p>

<p>The answer is, they were announcing the
theory upon which the States, or at least
many of the States, had ten years before
ratified the Constitution. A crisis in the
life of the new government had now come.
Congress had usurped powers not given;
it had exercised powers that had been prohibited,
and the government was enforcing
the obnoxious statutes with a high hand.
Dissatisfaction was intense.</p>

<p>Jefferson and Madison were undoubtedly
Republican partisans, Jefferson especially;
but it is equally certain that they were both
friends of the Union, and as such they concluded,
with the lights before them, that
the wise course would be to submit to the
people, in ample time for full consideration,
before the then coming presidential election,
a full, clear, and comprehensive exposition
of the Constitution precisely as they, and
as the people, then understood it. This
they did in the resolutions of 1798 and 1799,
and the very same voters who had created<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span>
the Constitution of 1789, now, with their
sons to aid them, endorsed these resolutions
in the election of 1800, which had been laid
before them by the legislatures of two Republican
States as a correct construction
of that instrument.</p>

<p>The Republicans under Jefferson came
into power with an immense majority. The
people were satisfied with the Constitution
as it had been construed in the election of
1800, and the country under control of the
Republicans was happy and prosperous for
three decades. Then the party in power
began to split into National Republicans
and Democratic Republicans. The National
Republicans favored a liberal construction
of the Constitution and became Whigs; the
Democratic Republicans dropped the name
Republican and became Democrats.</p>

<p>The foregoing sketch has been given with
no intent to write a political history, but
only to show with what emphasis the American
people condemned all violations of the
Constitution up to the time when, in 1831,
our story of the Abolitionists is to begin.
The sketch has also served to explain the
theory of State-rights, as it was held in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>
early days, and later, by the Southern people.</p>

<p>Whether the union of the States under
the Constitution as expounded by the Kentucky
and Virginia resolutions would survive
every trial that was to come, remained
to be seen. The question was destined to
perplex Mr. Jefferson himself, more than
once.</p>

<p>Indeed, even while Washington was President
there had been disunion sentiment in
Congress. In 1794 the celebrated Virginian,
John Taylor, of Caroline, shortly after
he had expressed an intention of publicly
resigning from the United States Senate,
was approached in the privacy of a committee
room by Rufus King, senator from
New York, and Oliver Ellsworth, a senator
from Massachusetts, both Federalists, with
a proposition for a dissolution of the Union
by mutual consent, the line of division to
be somewhere from the Potomac to the
Hudson. This was on the ground "that it
was utterly impossible for the Union to
continue. That the Southern and the Eastern
people thought quite differently," etc.
Taylor contended for the Union, and nothing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span>
came of the conference, the story of
which remained a secret for over a hundred
years.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p>

<p>"In the winter of 1803-4, immediately
after, and as a consequence of, the acquisition
of Louisiana, certain leaders of the
Federal party conceived the project of the
dissolution of the Union and the establishment
of a Northern Confederacy, the justifying
causes to those who entertained it,
that the acquisition of Louisiana to the
Union transcended the constitutional powers
of the government of the United States; that
it created, in fact, a new confederacy to
which the States, united by the former compact,
were not bound to adhere; that it was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span>
oppressive of the interests and destructive
of the influence of the northern section of
the Confederacy, whose right and duty it
was therefore to secede from the new body
politic, and to constitute one of their own."<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p>

<p>This project did not assume serious proportions.</p>

<p>John Fiske in his school history says:
"John Quincy Adams, a supporter of the
embargo act of 1807, privately informed
President Jefferson (in February, 1809) that
further attempts to enforce it in the New
England States would be likely to drive them
to secession. Accordingly, the embargo was
repealed, and the non-intercourse act substituted
for it."</p>

<p>The spirit of nationality was yet in its
infancy, threats of secession were common,
and they came then mostly from New England.
These threats were in no wise connected
with slavery; agitators had not then
made slavery a national issue; the idea of
separation was prompted by the fear that
power in the councils of the Union would
pass into the hands of other sections.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>Massachusetts was heard from again in
1811, when the State of Louisiana, the first
to be carved from the Louisiana purchase,
asked to come into the Union. In discussing
the bill for her admission, Josiah
Quincy said: "Why, sir, I have already
heard of six States, and some say there will
be at no great distance of time more. I have
also heard that the mouth of the Ohio will
be far to the east of the contemplated empire.... It
is impossible that such a power
could be granted. It was not for these men
that our fathers fought. It was not for
them this Constitution was adopted. You
have no authority to throw the rights and
liberties and property of this people into
hotchpot with the wild men on the Missouri,
or with the mixed, though more
respectable, race of Anglo-Hispano-Gallo-Americans
who bask in the sands in the
mouth of the Mississippi.... <i>I am compelled
to declare it as my deliberate opinion
that, if this bill passes, the bonds of the Union
are virtually dissolved; that the States which
compose it are free from their moral obligations;
and that, as it will be the right of all, so it
will be the duty of some, to prepare definitely</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span>
<i>for a separation&mdash;amicably, if they can; violently,
if they must.</i>"</p>

<p>June 15, 1813, the Massachusetts legislature
endorsed the position taken in this
speech.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p>

<p>Later, in 1814, a convention of representative
New England statesmen met at Hartford,
to consider of secession unless the non-intercourse
act, which also bore hard on
New England, should be repealed; but the
war then pending was soon to close, and
the danger from that quarter was over.</p>

<p>But secession was not exclusively a New
England doctrine. "When the Constitution
was adopted by the votes of States in
popular conventions, it is safe to say there
was not a man in the country, from Washington
and Hamilton, on the one side, to
George Clinton and George Mason, on the
other, who regarded the new system as anything
but an experiment, entered into by
the States, and from which each and every
State had the right to withdraw, a right
which was very likely to be exercised."<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p>

<p>As late as 1844 the threat of secession<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>
was to come again from Massachusetts.
The great State of Texas was applying for
admission to the Union. But Texas was a
slave State; Abolitionists had now for thirteen
years been arousing in the old Bay
State a spirit of hostility against the existence
of slavery in her sister States of the
South, and in 1844 the Massachusetts legislature
resolved that "the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, faithful to the <i>compact</i>
between the people of the United States,
according to the plain meaning and intent
in which it was understood by them, is sincerely
anxious for its preservation; but that
it is determined, as it <i>doubts not other States
are, to submit to undelegated powers in no
body of men on earth</i>," and that "the project
of the annexation of Texas, unless arrested
at the threshold, may tend to drive
<i>these States into a dissolution of the Union</i>."</p>

<p>This was <i>just seventeen years before the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts began to arm
her sons to put down secession in the South</i>!</p>

<p>The Southern reader must not, however,
conclude from this startling about-face on
the question of secession, that the people
of Massachusetts, and of the North, did<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>
not, <i>in 1861</i>, honestly believe that under the
Constitution the Union was indissoluble,
or that the North went to war simply for
the purpose of perpetuating its power over
the South. Such a conclusion would be
grossly unjust. The spirit of nationality,
veneration of the Union, was a growth, and,
after it had fairly begun, a rapid growth.
It grew, as our country grew in prestige
and power. The splendid triumphs of our
ships at sea, in the War of 1812, and our
victory at New Orleans over British regulars,
added to it; the masterful decisions
of our great Chief Justice John Marshall,
pointing out how beneficently our Federal
Constitution was adapted to the preservation
not only of local self-government but
of the liberties of the citizen as well; peace
with, and the respect of, foreign nations;
free trade between the people of all sections,
and abounding prosperity&mdash;all these things
created a deep impression, and Americans
began to hark back to the words of Washington
in his farewell address: "The unity of
our government, which now constitutes you
one people, is also dear to you. It is justly
so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>
your real independence, the support of your
tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of
your safety, of your prosperity, of that very
liberty which you so highly prize."</p>

<p>But far and away above every other
single element contributing to the development
of Union sentiment was the wonderful
speech of Daniel Webster, January 26,
1830, in his debate in the United States
Senate with Hayne, of South Carolina.
Hayne was eloquently defending States'
rights, and his argument was unanswerable
if his premise was admitted, that, as had
been theretofore conceded, the Constitution
was <i>a compact between the States</i>. Webster
saw this and he took new ground; the
Constitution was, he contended, not a compact,
but the formation of a government.
His arguments were like fruitful seed sown
upon a soil prepared for their reception.
No speech delivered in this country ever
created so profound an impression. It was
the foundation of a new school of political
thought. It concluded with this eloquent
peroration: "When my eyes shall be turned
to behold for the last time the sun in heaven,
may I not see him shining on the broken<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>
and dishonored fragments of a once glorious
Union; on States dissevered, discordant,
belligerent; on a land rent with civil
feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal
blood! Let their last feeble and lingering
glance rather behold the gracious ensign
of the republic, now known and honored
throughout the earth, still full high advanced,
its arms and trophies streaming in
their original lustre, not a stripe erased or
polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing
for its motto no such miserable interrogatory
as 'What is all this worth?' nor
those other words of delusion and folly,
'Liberty first and Union afterwards,' but
everywhere, spread all over with living light,
blazing on all its ample folds, as they float
over the sea and over the land, and in every
wind under the whole heavens, that other
sentiment, dear to every American heart&mdash;'Liberty
<i>and</i> Union, now and forever, one
and inseparable.'"</p>

<p>For many years every school-house in the
land resounded with these words. By 1861
they had been imprinted on the minds and
had sunk into the hearts of a whole generation.
Their effect was incalculable.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>It is perfectly true that the secession resolution
of the Massachusetts legislature of
1844 was passed fourteen years after Webster's
speech, but the Garrisonians had then
been agitating the slavery question within
her borders for fourteen years, and the old
State was now beside herself with excitement.</p>

<p>There was another great factor in the
rapid manufacture of Union sentiment at
the North that had practically no existence
at the South. It was immigration.</p>

<p>The new-comers from over the sea knew
nothing, and cared less, about the history
of the Constitution or the dialectics of secession.
They had sought a land of liberty
that to them was one nation, with one flag
flying over it, and in their eyes secession
was rebellion. Immigrants to America,
practically all settling in Northern States,
were during the thirty years, 1831-1860,
4,910,590; and these must, with their natural
increase, have numbered at least six
millions in 1860. In other words, far more
than one-fourth of the people of the North
in 1860 were not, themselves or their fathers,
in the country in the early days when the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span>
doctrine of States' rights had been in the
ascendant; and, as a rule, to these new people
that old doctrine was folly.</p>

<p>In the South the situation was reversed.
Slavery had kept immigrants away. The
whites were nearly all of the old revolutionary
stock, and had inherited the old ideas.
Still, love of and pride in the Union had
grown in them too. Nor were the Southerners
all followers of Jefferson. From the
earliest days much of the wealth and intelligence
of the country, North and South,
had opposed the Democracy, first as Federalists
and later as Whigs. In the South
the Whigs have been described as "a fine
upstanding old party, a party of blue broadcloth,
silver buttons, and a coach and four."
It was not until anti-slavery sentiment had
begun to array the North, as a section,
against the South, that Southern Whigs
began to look for protection to the doctrine
of States' rights.</p>

<p>Woodrow Wilson says, in "Division and
Reunion," p. 47, of Daniel Webster's great
speech in 1830: "The North was now beginning
to insist upon a national government;
the South was continuing to insist<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span>
upon the original understanding of the Constitution;
that was all."</p>

<p>And in those attitudes the two sections
stood in 1860-61, one upon the modern
theory of an indestructible Union; the other
upon the old idea that States had the right
to secede from the Union.</p>

<p>In 1848 there occurred in Ireland the
"Rebellion of the Young Irishmen." Among
the leaders of that rebellion were Thomas
F. Meagher and John Mitchel. Both were
banished to Great Britain's penal colony.
Both made their way, a few years later, to
America. Both were devotees of liberty,
both men of brilliant intellect and high
culture. Meagher settled in the North,
Mitchel in the South. This was about 1855.
Each from his new stand-point studied the
history and the Constitution of his adopted
country. Meagher, when the war between
the North and South came on, became a
general in the Union army. Mitchel entered
the civil service of the Confederacy and his
son died a Confederate soldier.</p>

<p>The Union or Confederate partisan who
has been taught that his side was "eternally
right, and the other side eternally<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>
wrong," should consider the story of these
two "Young Irishmen."</p>

<p>How fortunate it is that the ugly question
of secession has been settled, and will
never again divide Americans, or those who
come to America!</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER II</h2>

<h3>EMANCIPATION PRIOR TO 1831</h3>


<p>In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
Dutch, French, Portuguese, Spanish,
English, and American vessels brought
many thousands of negroes from Africa, and
sold them as slaves in the British West
Indies and in the British-American colonies.
William Goodell, a distinguished Abolitionist
writer, tells us<a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> that "in the importation
of slaves for the Southern colonies the merchants
of New England competed with those
of New York and the South" (which never
had much shipping). "They appear indeed
to have outstripped them, and to have
<i>almost monopolized</i> at one time the profits
of this detestable trade. Boston, Salem, and
Newburyport in Massachusetts, and Newport
and Bristol in Rhode Island, amassed,
in the persons of a few of their citizens, vast
sums of this rapidly acquired and ill-gotten
wealth."<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span>The slaves coming to America went
chiefly to the Southern colonies, because
there only was slave labor profitable. The
laws and conditions under which these negroes
were sold in the American colonies
were precisely the same as in the West Indies,
except that the whites in the islands,
so far as is known, never objected, whereas
the records show that earnest protests came
from Virginia<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> and also from Georgia<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> and
North Carolina.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> The King of England was
interested in the profits of the iniquitous
trade and all protests were in vain.</p>

<p>Of the rightfulness, however, of slavery
itself there was but little question in the
minds of Christian peoples until the closing
years of the eighteenth century. Then
the cruelties practised by ship-masters in
the Middle Passage attracted attention, and
then came gradually a revolution in public
opinion. This revolution, in which the
churches took a prominent part, originated
in England, but it soon swept over America
also, both North and South.</p>

<p>England abolished the slave trade in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>
1807. The United States followed in 1808;
the Netherlands in 1814; France in 1818;
Spain in 1820; Portugal in 1830. The great
Wilberforce, Buxton, and others, who had
brought about the abolition of the slave
trade in England, continued their exertions
in favor of the slave until finally, in 1833,
Parliament abolished slavery in the British
West Indies, appropriating twenty millions
sterling ($100,000,000) as compensation to
owners&mdash;this because investments in slave
property had been made under the sanction
of existing law.</p>

<p>"Great Britain, loaded with an unprecedented
debt and with a grinding taxation,
contracted a new debt of a hundred millions
of dollars to give freedom, not to
Englishmen, but to the degraded African.
This was not an act of policy, but the work
of statesmen. Parliament but registered
the edict of the people. The English nation,
with one heart and one voice, under
a strong Christian impulse and without
distinction of rank, sex, party, or religious
names, decreed freedom to the slave. I
know not that history records a national
act so disinterested, so sublime."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span>So wrote Dr. Channing, the great New
England pulpit orator, in his celebrated letter
on Texas annexation, to Henry Clay, in
1837.</p>

<p>While the rightfulness of slavery was
being discussed in England, the American
conscience had also been aroused, and emancipation
was making progress on this side
of the water.</p>

<p>Emancipation was an easy task in the
Northern States, where slaves were few,
their labor never having been profitable,
and by 1804 the last of these States had
provided for the ultimate abolition of slavery
within its borders. But the problem
was more difficult in the Southern States,
where the climate was adapted to slave
labor. There slaves were numerous, and
slavery was interwoven, economically and
socially, with the very fabric of existence.
Naturally, it occurred to thoughtful men
that there ought to be some such solution
as that which was subsequently adopted
in England, and which, as we have seen,
was so highly extolled by Dr. Channing&mdash;emancipation
of the slaves with compensation
to the owners by the general government.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span>
The difficulty in our country was
that the Federal Constitution conferred
upon the Federal Government no power
over slavery in the States&mdash;no power to
emancipate slaves or compensate owners;
and that for the individual States where the
negroes were numerous the problem seemed
too big. Free negroes and whites in great
numbers, it was thought, could not live together.
To get rid of the negroes, if they
should be freed, was for the States a very
serious, if not an unsurmountable task.</p>

<p>On the seventeenth of January, 1824, the
following resolutions, proposed as a solution
of the problem, were passed by the
legislature of Ohio:<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the consideration of a system
providing for the gradual emancipation of the people
of color, held in servitude in the United States,
be recommended to the legislatures of the several
States of the American Union, and to the Congress
of the United States.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That, in the opinion of the general
assembly, a system of foreign colonization, with
correspondent measures, might be adopted that
would in due time effect the entire emancipation
of the slaves of our country without any violation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>
of the national compact, or infringement of the
rights of individuals; by the passage of a law by the
general government (with the consent of the slave-holding
States) which would provide that all children
of persons now held in slavery, born after the passage
of the law, should be free at the age of twenty-one
years (being supported during their minority by
the persons claiming the service of their parents),
provided they then consent to be transported to the
intended place of colonization. Also:</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is expedient that such a system
should be predicated upon the principle that the evil
of slavery is a national one, and that the people
and the States of the Union ought mutually to participate
in the duties and burthens of removing it.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That His Excellency the Governor be
requested to forward a copy of the foregoing resolutions
to His Excellency the Governor of each of
the United States, requesting him to lay the same
before the legislature thereof; and that His Excellency
will also forward a like copy to each of our
senators and representatives in Congress, requesting
their co-operation in all national measures having
a tendency to effect the grave object embraced
therein.</p></blockquote>

<p>By June of 1825 eight other Northern
States had endorsed the proposition, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, New Jersey, Illinois,
Connecticut, Massachusetts. Six of the
slave-holding States emphatically disapproved<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span>
of the suggestion, <i>viz.</i>, Georgia,
South Carolina, Missouri, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Alabama.<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p>

<p>Reasons which in great part influenced all
the Southern States thus rejecting the proposition
may be gathered from the following
words of Governor Wilson, of South Carolina,
in submitting the resolutions: "A firm
determination to resist, at the threshold,
every <i>invasion of our domestic tranquillity</i>,
and to <i>preserve our sovereignty and independence
as a State</i>, is earnestly recommended."<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p>

<p>The resolutions required of the Southern
States a complete surrender in this regard
of their reserved rights; they feared what
Governor Wilson called "the overwhelming
powers of the general government," and
were unwilling to make the admission required,
that the slavery in the South was a
question for the nation.</p>

<p>Another reason was that, although there
was a quite common desire in the Southern
States to get rid of slavery, the majority
sentiment doubtless was not yet ready for
the step.</p>

<p>Basing this plan on the "consent of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span>
slave-holding States," as the Ohio legislature
did, was an acknowledgment that the
North had no power over the matter; while
the proposition to share in the expense of
transporting the negroes, after they were
manumitted, seems to be a recognition of
the joint responsibility of both sections for
the existence of slavery in the South. However
that may be, the generous concurrence
of nine of the thirteen Northern States indicates
how kindly the temper of the North
toward the South was before the rise of the
"New Abolitionism" in 1831. Had emancipation
been, under the Federal Constitution,
a national and not a local question,
it is possible that slavery might have been
abolished in America, as it was in the mother
country, peacefully and with compensation
to owners.</p>

<p>The Ohio idea of freeing and at the same
time colonizing the slaves, was no doubt
suggested by the scheme of the African
Colonization Society. This Colonization
Society grew out of a resolution passed by
the General Assembly of Virginia, December
23, 1816. Its purpose was to rid the
country of such free negroes and subsequently<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>
manumitted slaves as should be
willing to go to Liberia, where a home was secured
for them, and a government set up that
was to be eventually controlled by the negro
from America. The plan was endorsed by
Georgia in 1817, Maryland in 1818, Tennessee
in 1818, and Vermont in 1819.<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p>

<p>The Colonization Society was composed
of Southern and Northern philanthropists
and statesmen of the most exalted character.
Among its presidents were, at times,
President Monroe and ex-President Madison.
Chief Justice Marshall was one of
its presidents. Colonization, while relieving
America, was also to give the negro an
opportunity for self-government and self-development
in his native country, aided at
the outset by experienced white men, and
Abraham Lincoln, when he was eulogizing
the dead Henry Clay, one of the eloquent
advocates of the scheme, seemed to be in
love with the idea of restoring the poor
African to that land from which he had
been rudely snatched by the rapacious white
man. The society, with much aid from philanthropists
and some from the Federal Government,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span>
was making progress when, from
1831 to 1835, the Abolitionists halted it.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a>
They got the ears of the negro and persuaded
him not to go to Liberia. Its friends
thought the enterprise would stimulate
emancipation by furnishing a home for such
negroes as their owners were willing to
manumit; but the new friends of the negro
told him it was a trick of the slave-holder,
and intended to perpetuate slavery&mdash;it was
banishment. And Dr. Hart now, in his
"Abolition and Slavery," calls it a move
for the "expatriation of the negro."</p>

<p>All together only a few thousand negroes
went to Liberia. The enterprise lagged,
and finally failed, partly because of opposition,
but chiefly because the negroes were
slothful and incapable of self-government.
The word came back that they were not
prospering. For a time, while white men
were helping them in their government, the
outlook for Liberia had more or less promise
in it. When the whites, to give the negroes
their opportunity for self-development
withdrew their case was hopeless.<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span>In 1828, while emancipation was still
being freely canvassed North and South,
Benjamin Lundy, an Abolition editor in
charge of <i>The Genius of Emancipation</i>,
then being published at Baltimore, in a
slave State, went to Boston to "stir up"
the Northern people "to the work of abolishing
slavery in the South." Dr. Channing,
who has been previously quoted,
wrote a letter to Daniel Webster on the
28th of May, 1828, in which, after reciting
the purpose of Lundy, and saying that he
was "aware how cautiously exertions are to
be made for it in this part of the country,"
it being a local question, he said: "It seems
to me that, before moving in this matter, we
ought to say to them (our Southern brethren)
distinctly, 'We consider slavery <i>as your
calamity, not your crime</i>, and <i>we will share
with you the burden</i> of putting an end to it.
We will consent that the public lands shall
be appropriated to this object; or that the
general government shall be <i>clothed with the
power to apply a portion of revenue to it</i>.'</p>

<p>"I throw out these suggestions merely to
illustrate my views. We must first let the
Southern States see that we are their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span>
<i>friends</i> in this affair; that we sympathize
with them and, from principles <i>of patriotism
and philanthropy, are willing to share the
toil and expense</i> of abolishing slavery, or, I
fear, our interference will avail nothing."<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a>
Mr. Webster never gave out this letter until
February 15, 1851.<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p>

<p>In less than three years after that letter
was written, Lundy's friend, William Lloyd
Garrison, started in Boston a crusade
against slavery in the South, on the ground
that instead of being the "<i>calamity</i>," as
Dr. Channing deemed it to be, it was the
"<i>crime</i>" of the South. Had no such exasperating
sectional cry as this ever been
raised, the story told in this little book would
have been very different from that which is
to follow. Even Spain, the laggard of nations,
since that day has abolished slavery
in her colonies. Brazil long ago fell into
line, and it is impossible for one not blinded
by the sectional strife of the past, now to
conceive that the Southern States of this
Union, whose people in 1830 were among
the foremost of the world in all the elements<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span>
of Christian civilization, would not long,
long ago, if left to themselves, have found
some means by which to rid themselves of
an institution condemned by the public
sentiment of the world and even then deplored
by the Southerners themselves.</p>

<p>The crime, if crime it was, of slavery in
the South in 1830 was one for which the two
sections of the Union were equally to blame.
Abraham Lincoln said in his debate with
Douglas at Peoria, Illinois, October 15,
1858: "When Southern people tell us they
are no more responsible for slavery than
we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it
is said that the institution exists, and that
it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory
way, I can understand and appreciate
the saying. I surely do not blame
them for not doing what I would not know
how to do myself."<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p>

<p>Prior to the rise of the Abolitionists in
1831, emancipationists in the South had been free
to grapple with conditions as they found
them. What they and what the people of
the North had accomplished we may gather
from the United States census reports. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span>
tables following are taken from "Larned's
History of Ready Reference," vol. V. The
classifications are his. We have numbered
three of his tables, for the sake of reference,
and have added columns 4 and 5, calculated
from Larned's figures, to show "excess of
free blacks" and "increase of free blacks,
South."</p>

<p>Let the reader assume as a fact, which
will perhaps not be questioned, that "free
blacks" in the census means freedmen and
their increase, and these tables tell their own
story, a story to which must be added the
statement that slaves in the South had been
freed only by voluntary sacrifices of owners.</p>

<p>It will be noted that in 1790 the total
"blacks" in the North was 67,479, and,
although emancipation in these States had
begun some years before, the excess of
"free blacks" in the South was over 5,000.
Also that at every succeeding census, down
to and including that of 1830, the "excess
of free blacks" increased with considerable
regularity until 1830, when that excess is
44,547.</p>


<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="blacks">
<tr><td align="left"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left"></td><td align="left"> TOTAL</td><td align="left">EXCESS</td><td align="left">INCREASE</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left"> WHITES</td><td align="left"> FREE</td><td align="left"> SLAVES</td><td align="left">BLACKS,</td><td align="left">OF FREE</td><td align="left">IN FREE</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left"> BLACKS</td><td align="left"></td><td align="left"> NORTH</td><td align="left">BLACKS,</td><td align="left">BLACKS,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left"> SOUTH</td><td align="left"> SOUTH</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1790:</td><td align="left">North, 9 States</td><td align="left"> 1,900,976</td><td align="left"> 27,109</td><td align="left"> 40,370</td><td align="left"> 67,479</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left"> ....</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">South, 8 States</td><td align="left"> 1,271,488</td><td align="left"> 32,357</td><td align="left"> 657,527</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left"> 5,248</td><td align="left"> ....</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1800:</td><td align="left">North, 11 States</td><td align="left"> 2,601,521</td><td align="left"> 47,154</td><td align="left"> 35,946</td><td align="left"> 83,100</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left"> 20,045</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">South, 9 States and D. C.</td><td align="left"> 1,702,980</td><td align="left"> 61,241</td><td align="left"> 857,095</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left">14,087</td><td align="left"> 28,884</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1810:</td><td align="left">North, 13 States</td><td align="left"> 3,653,219</td><td align="left"> 78,181</td><td align="left"> 27,510</td><td align="left">105,691</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left"> 31,027</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">South, 11 States and D. C.</td><td align="left"> 2,208,785</td><td align="left">108,265</td><td align="left">1,163,854</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left">30,084</td><td align="left"> 47,024</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1820:</td><td align="left">North, 13 States</td><td align="left"> 5,030,371</td><td align="left"> 99,281</td><td align="left"> 19,108</td><td align="left">118,359</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left"> 21,100</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">South, 13 States and D. C.</td><td align="left"> 2,831,560</td><td align="left">134,223</td><td align="left">1,519,017</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left">34,942</td><td align="left"> 25,958</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1830:</td><td align="left">North, 13 States</td><td align="left"> 6,871,302</td><td align="left">137,529</td><td align="left"> 3,568</td><td align="left">141,097</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left"> 38,248</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">South, 13 States, D.C. and Ter.</td><td align="left"> 3,660,758</td><td align="left">182,070</td><td align="left">2,005,475</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left">44,541</td><td align="left"> 47,747</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1840:</td><td align="left">North, etc.</td><td align="left"> 9,577,065</td><td align="left">170,728</td><td align="left"> 1,728</td><td align="left">171,857</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left"> 33,199</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">South, etc.</td><td align="left"> 4,632,530</td><td align="left">215,575</td><td align="left">2,486,326</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left">44,547</td><td align="left"> 33,505</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1850:</td><td align="left">North, etc.</td><td align="left">13,269,149</td><td align="left">196,262</td><td align="left"> 262</td><td align="left">196,524</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left"> 25,534</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">South, etc.</td><td align="left"> 6,283,965</td><td align="left">238,187</td><td align="left">3,204,051</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left"> 1,925</td><td align="left"> 22,612</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1860:</td><td align="left">North, etc.</td><td align="left">18,791,159</td><td align="left">225,967</td><td align="left"> 64</td><td align="left">226,031</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left"> 29,705</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">South, etc.</td><td align="left"> 8,162,684</td><td align="left">262,003</td><td align="left">3,953,696</td><td align="left"> ....</td><td align="left">36,036</td><td align="left"> 23,816</td></tr>
</table></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span>There was always in the South, prior to
1831, an active and freely expressed emancipation
sentiment. But there was not
enough of it to influence legislation. In all
but three or four of these States, emancipation
was made difficult by laws which,
among other conditions, required that slaves
after being freed should leave the State.</p>

<p>Emancipation in the North had not been
completed in 1830. Professor Ingram, president
of the Royal Irish Academy, says in
his "History of Slavery," London, 1895,
p. 184: "The Northern States&mdash;beginning
with Vermont in 1777 and ending with New
Jersey in 1804&mdash;either abolished slavery
or adopted measures to effect its gradual
abolition within their boundaries. But the
principal operation of (at least) the latter
change was to transfer Northern slaves to
Southern markets."</p>

<p>There had been in 1820 an angry discussion
in Congress about the admission
of Missouri&mdash;with or without slavery&mdash;which
was finally settled by the Missouri
Compromise. This dispute over the admission
of Missouri is often said to have
been the beginning of the sectional quarrel
that finally ended in secession; but the controversy
over Missouri and that begun by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>
the "New Abolitionists" in 1831 were entirely
distinct. They were conducted on
different plans.</p>

<p>In the Missouri controversy the only
questions were as to the expediency and
constitutionality of denying to a new State
the right to enter the Union, with or without
slavery, as she might choose. The entire
dispute was settled to the satisfaction
of both sections by an agreement that
States thereafter, south of 36° 30', might
enter the Union with or without slavery;
<i>and nobody denied, during all that discussion
about Missouri, or at any time previous to</i>
1831, <i>that every citizen was bound to maintain
the Constitution and all laws passed in pursuance
of it, including the fugitive slave law</i>.</p>

<p>"The North submitted at that time
(1828) to the obligations imposed upon it
by the fugitive slave-catching clause of the
Constitution and the fugitive slave law of
1793."<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> So say the biographers of William
Lloyd Garrison for the purpose of establishing,
as they afterwards do, their claim
that Garrison conducted a successful revolt
against that provision of the Constitution.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span>
What strengthens the statement that the
North in 1828 submitted without protest
to the "fugitive slave-catching clause of the
Constitution," is that the Compromise Act
of 1820 contained a provision extending the
fugitive slave law over the territory made
free by the act, while it should continue
to be territory, and until there should be
formed from it States, to which the existing
law would automatically apply. Every
subsequent <i>nullification of the fugitive slave
laws</i> of the United States, whether by governors
or state legislatures, was therefore a
palpable <i>violation of a provision that was of
the essence of the Missouri Compromise</i>.</p>

<p>The South was content with the Missouri
Compromise, and from that date, 1820, until
the rise of the "New Abolitionists," slavery
was in all that region an open question.
Judge Temple says in his "Covenanter,
Cavalier, and Puritan," p. 208: "In 1826, of
the 143 emancipation societies in the United
States, 103 were in the South."</p>

<p>The questions for Southern emancipationists
were: How could the slaves be freed,
and in what time? How about compensation
to owners? Where could the freed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span>
slaves be sent, and how? And, if deportation
should prove impossible, what system
could be devised whereby the two races
could dwell together peacefully? These
were indeed serious problems, and required
time and grave consideration.</p>

<p>"Who can doubt," says Mr. Curtis, to
quote once more his "Life of Buchanan,"
"that all such questions could have been
satisfactorily answered, if the Christianity
of the South had been left to its own time
and mode of answering them, and without
any external force but the force of kindly,
respectful consideration and forebearing
Christian fellowship?"<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></p>

<p>But this was not to be.</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER III</h2>

<h3>THE NEW ABOLITIONISTS</h3>


<p>On the first day of January, 1831, there
came out in Boston a new paper, <i>The
Liberator</i>, William Lloyd Garrison, editor.
That was the beginning, historians now generally
agree, of "New Abolitionism." The
editor of the new paper was the founder of
the new sect.</p>

<p>Benjamin Lundy was a predecessor of
Garrison, on much the same lines as those
pursued by the latter. Lundy had previously
formed many Abolition societies. <i>The Philanthropist</i>
of March, 1828, estimated the
number of anti-slavery societies as "upwards
of 130, and most of them in the slave
States, and of Lundy's formation, among
the Quakers."<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> But Garrison became the
leader and Lundy the disciple.</p>

<p>Garrison was a man of pleasing personal
appearance, abstemious in habits, and of remarkable
energy and will power. He was a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span>
vigorous and forceful writer. Denunciation
was his chief weapon, and he had "a genius
for infuriating his antagonists." The following
is a fair specimen of his style. Speaking
of himself and his fellow-workers as the
"soldiers of God," he said: "Their feet are
shod with the preparation of the <i>gospel of
peace</i>.... Hence, when smitten on one
cheek they turn the other also, being defamed
they entreat, being reviled they
bless," etc. And on that same page,<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> and in
the same prospectus, showing how he
"blesses" those who, as he understands, are
outside of the "Kingdom of God," he says:
"All without are dogs and sorcerers, and
... and murderers, and idolaters, and
whatsoever loveth a lie."</p>

<p>Mr. Garrison had no perspective, no
sense of relation or proportion. In his eye
the most humane slave-holder was a wicked
monster. He had a genius for organization,
and a year after the first issue of
<i>The Liberator</i> he and his little body of
brother fanatics had grown into the New
England Anti-Slavery Society.</p>

<p>The new sect called themselves for a time<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span>
the "New Abolitionists," because their doctrines
were new. The principles upon which
this organization was to be based were not
all formulated at once. The key-note was
sounded in Garrison's "Address to the Public"
in the first number of <i>The Liberator</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>I shall strenuously contend for the immediate enfranchisement
of our slave population. I shall be
as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice
on this subject. <i>I do not wish to think or speak or
write with moderation.</i></p></blockquote>

<p>In an earlier issue, after denouncing slavery
as a "damning crime," the editor said:
"Therefore my efforts shall be directed to
<i>the exposure of those who practise it</i>."</p>

<p>The substance of Garrison's teachings
was that slavery, anywhere in the United
States, was the concern of all, and that it
was to be put down by making not only
slavery but also the slave-holder odious.
And, further, it was the slave, not the
slave-owner, who was entitled to compensation.</p>

<p>Thus the distinctive features of the new
crusade were to be warfare upon the personal
character of every slave-holder and the confiscation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span>
of his property. It was, too, the
beginning of that sectional war by people of
the North against the existence of slavery
in the South, which, as we have seen, was
deprecated by Dr. Channing in his letter
three years before to Mr. Webster.</p>

<p>The new sect began by assailing slavery
in States other than their own, and very
soon they were openly denouncing the Constitution
of their country because under it
slavery in those sections was none of their
business; and of course they repudiated
the Missouri Compromise absolutely, the
essence of that compromise being that slavery
was the business of the States in which
it existed.</p>

<p>It was a part of their scheme to send circulars
depicting the evils of slavery broadcast
through the South; and they were sent
especially to the free negroes of that section.</p>

<p>"In 1820," says Dr. Hart in his "Slavery
and Abolition," "at Charleston (South Carolina),
Denmark Vesey, a free negro, made
an elaborate plot to rise, massacre the white
population, seize the shipping in the harbor,
and, if hard pressed, to sail away to the West
Indies. One of the negroes gave evidence,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span>
Vesey was seized, duly tried, and with
thirty-four others was hanged."<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p>

<p>This plot, so nearly successful, was fresh
in the minds of Southerners when the Abolitionists
began their programme, and naturally,
the South at once took the alarm&mdash;an
alarm that was increased by the massacre,
in the Nat Turner insurrection, of sixty-one
men, women, and children, which took place
in Virginia seven months after the first issue
of <i>The Liberator</i>. One of Turner's lieutenants
is stated to have been a free negro. This
insurrection the South attributed to <i>The
Liberator</i>. Professor Hart says a free negro
named Walker had previously sent out to
the South, from Boston, a pamphlet, "the
tone of which was unmistakable," and that
"this pamphlet is known to have reached
Virginia, and may possibly have influenced
the Nat Turner insurrection."<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a></p>

<p>If this surmise be correct, knowledge that
Walker, a free negro, had been responsible
for the Turner insurrection, would have
lessened neither the guilt of the Abolitionists
nor the fears of the Southerners.</p>

<p>But in 1832 Abolition agitation and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span>
fears of insurrection had not as yet entirely
stifled the discussion of slavery in the South.
A debate on slavery took place that year in
the Virginia Assembly, the immediate cause
of which was no doubt the Turner insurrection.
The members of that body had not
been elected on any issue of that character.
The discussion thus precipitated shows,
therefore, the state of public opinion in
Virginia on slavery. Of this debate a distinguished
Northern writer says:<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p>

<p>"In the year 1832 there was, nowhere in
the world, a more enlightened sense of the
wrong and evil of slavery than there was
among the public men and people of Virginia."</p>

<p>In the Assembly of that year Mr. Randolph
brought forward a bill <i>to accomplish
gradual emancipation</i>. Mr. Curtis continues:</p>

<p>"No member of the House defended slavery....
There could be nothing said anywhere,
there had been nothing said out of
Virginia, stronger and truer in deprecating
the evils of slavery, than was said in that
discussion, by Virginia gentlemen, debating<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span>
in their own legislature, a matter that concerned
themselves and their people."</p>

<p>The bill was not pressed to a vote, but
the House, by a vote of 65 to 38, declared
"that they were profoundly sensible of the
great evils arising from the condition of the
colored population of the Commonwealth
and were induced by policy, as well as
humanity, to attempt the immediate removal
of the free negroes; but that further
action for the <i>removal of the slaves should
await a more definite development of public
opinion</i>."</p>

<p>Mr. Randolph, who was from the large
slave-holding county of Albemarle, was re-elected
to the next assembly.</p>

<p>But when the early summer of 1835 had
come the fear of insurrection had created
such wide-spread terror throughout the
whole South that every emancipation society
in that region had long since closed
its doors; and now the Abolitionists were
sending South their circulars in numbers.
Many were sent to Charleston, South
Carolina,<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> where fifteen years before<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span>
free negro, Denmark Vesey, had laid the
plot to massacre the whites, that had been
discovered just in time to prevent its consummation.</p>

<p>The President, Andrew Jackson, in his
next message to Congress, December, 1835,
called their "attention to the painful excitement
produced in the South by attempts to
circulate through the mails <i>inflammatory appeals
addressed to the passions of the slaves,
in prints and in various sorts of publications
calculated to stimulate them to insurrection
and produce all the horrors of a servile war</i>."</p>

<p>The good people of Boston were now
thoroughly aroused. They had from the
first frowned on the Abolition movement.
Garrison was complaining that in all the
city his society could not "hire a hall or a
meeting-house." The Abolition idea had
been for a time thought chimerical and
therefore negligible. Later, civic, business,
social, and religious organizations had all of
them in their several spheres been earnest
and active in their opposition; now it
seemed to be time for concerted action.</p>

<p>In Garrison's "Garrison" (vol. I, p. 495),
we read that "the <i>social</i>, <i>political</i>, <i>religious</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span>
<i>and intellectual élite</i> of Boston filled Faneuil
Hall on the afternoon of Friday, August
3, 1835, to frame an indictment against
their fellow-citizens."</p>

<p>This "indictment" the <i>Boston Transcript</i>
reported as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the people of the United States by
the Constitution under which, by the Divine blessing,
they hold their most valuable political privileges,
have solemnly agreed with each other to
leave to their respective States the jurisdiction pertaining
to the relation of master and slave within
their boundaries, and that no man or body of men,
except the people of the governments of those States,
can of right do any act to dissolve or impair the
obligations of that contract.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we hold in reprobation all attempts,
in whatever guise they may appear, to coerce any
of the United States to abolish slavery by <i>appeals
to the terror of the master or the passions of the slave</i>.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we disapprove of all associations
instituted in the non-slave-holding States with the
intent to act, within the slave-holding States, on
the subject of slavery in those States without their
consent. For the purpose of securing freedom of
individual thought they are needless&mdash;and they afford
to those persons in the Southern States, whose
object is to effect a dissolution of the Union (if any
such there may be now or hereafter), a pretext for
the furtherance of their schemes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span><i>Resolved</i>, That all measures adopted, <i>the natural
and direct tendency of which is to excite the slaves of
the South to revolt, or of spreading among them a spirit
of insubordination</i>, are repugnant to the duties of
the man and the citizen, and that where such measures
become manifest by overt acts, which are recognizable
by constitutional laws, we will aid by all
means in our power in the support of those laws.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That while we recommend to others the
duty of sacrificing their opinions, passions and sympathies
upon the altar of the laws, we are bound to
show that a regard to the supremacy of those laws
is the rule of our conduct&mdash;and consequently to
deprecate all tumultuous assemblies, all riotous or
violent proceedings, all outrages on person and property,
and all illegal notions of the right or duty of
executing summary and vindictive justice in any
mode unsanctioned by law.</p></blockquote>

<p>The allusion in the last resolution is to a
then recent lynching of negroes in Mississippi
charged with insurrection.</p>

<p>In speaking to these resolutions, Harrison
Gray Otis, a great conservative leader, denounced
the Abolition agitators, accusing
them of "wishing to 'scatter among our
Southern brethren <i>firebrands</i>, <i>arrows</i>, and
<i>death</i>,' and of attempting to force Abolition
by appeals to the terror of the masters
and the passions of the slaves," and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span>
decrying their "measures, the natural and
direct tendency of which is to excite the
slaves of the South to revolt," etc.</p>

<p>Another of the speakers, ex-Senator Peleg
Sprague, said (p. 496, Garrison's "Garrison")
that "if their sentiments prevailed
it would be all over with the Union, which
would give place to two hostile confederacies,
with forts and standing armies."</p>

<p>These resolutions and speeches, viewed in
the light of what followed, read now like
prophecy.</p>

<p>It is a familiar rule of law that a contemporaneous
exposition of a statute is to be
given extraordinary weight by the courts,
the reason being that the judge then sitting
knows the surrounding circumstances. That
Boston meeting pronounced the deliberate
judgment of the most intelligent men of
Boston on the situation, as they knew it to
be that day; it was in their midst that <i>The
Liberator</i> was being published; there the new
sect had its head-quarters, and there it was
doing its work.</p>

<p>Quite as strong as the evidence furnished
by that great Faneuil Hall meeting is the
testimony of the churches.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span>The churches and religious bodies in
America had heartily favored the general
anti-slavery movement that was sweeping
over all America between 1770 and 1831,
while it was proceeding in an orderly manner
and with due regard to law.</p>

<p>In 1812 the Methodist General Conference
voted that no slave-holder could continue
as a local elder. The Presbyterian
General Assembly in 1818 unanimously resolved
that "slavery was a gross violation
of the most precious and moral rights of
human nature," etc.</p>

<p>These bodies represented both the North
and the South, and this paragraph shows
what was, and continued to be, the general
attitude of American churches until after
the Abolitionists had begun their assault
on both slavery in the South and the Constitution
of the United States, which protected
it. Then, in view of the awful social
and political cataclysm that seemed to be
threatened, there occurred a stupendous
change. We learn from Hart that Garrison
"soon found that neither minister <i>nor
church anywhere in the lower South continued</i>
(as before) to protest against slavery; <i>that</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span>
<i>the cloth in the North was arrayed against
him</i>; and that many Northern divines
vigorously opposed him." Also that Moses
Stuart, professor of Hebrew in Andover
Theological Seminary; President Lord, of
Dartmouth College, and Hopkins, the Episcopal
bishop of Vermont, now became defenders
of slavery. "The positive opposition
of churches soon followed."</p>

<p>And then we have cited, condemnations
of Abolitionism by the Methodist Conference
of 1836, by the New York Methodist
Conference of 1838, by the American Board
of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, by
the American Home Missionary Society,
the American Bible Society, the Protestant
Episcopal Church, and the Baptists. See
for these statements, Hart, pp. 211-12.</p>

<p>The import of all this is unmistakable;
and this "about-face" of religious organizations
on the question of the morality of
slavery has no parallel in all the history of
Christian churches. Its significance cannot
be overstated. It took place North and
South. It meant opposition to a movement
that was outside the church <i>and with which
religion could have no concern, except in so</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span><i>
far as it was a vital assault upon the State, and
the peace of the State</i>. To make their opposition
effective the Christians of that day
did this remarkable thing. <i>They reversed
their religious views on slavery, which the
Abolitionists were now assailing, and which
they themselves had previously opposed.</i> They
re-examined their Bibles and found arguments
that favored slavery. These arguments
they used in an attempt to stem an
agitation that, as they saw it, was arraying
section against section and threatening the
perpetuity of the Union.</p>

<p>United testimony from all these Christian
bodies is more conclusive contemporaneous
evidence against the agitators and their
methods than even the proceedings of all
conservative Boston at Faneuil Hall in
August, 1835.</p>

<p>This new attitude of the church toward
slavery meant perhaps also something further&mdash;it
meant that slavery, as it actually
existed, was not then as horrible to Northerners,
who could go across the line and see
it, which many of them did, as it is now to
those whose ideas of it come chiefly from
"Uncle Tom's Cabin."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span>In view of this phenomenal movement of
Northern Christians it is not strange that
Southern churches adhered, throughout the
deadly struggle that was now on, to the position
into which they had been driven&mdash;that
slavery was sanctioned by the Bible&mdash;nor
is it matter of wonder that, as Professor
Hart makes prominent on p. 137, "not
a single Southern man of large reputation
and influence failed to stand by slavery."</p>

<p>Historians of to-day usually narrate without
comment that nearly all the American
churches and divines at first opposed the
Abolitionists. It illustrates the courage
with which the Abolitionists stood, as Dr.
Hart delights to point out, "for a despised
cause." They assuredly did stand by their
guns.</p>

<p>Later, another change came about in the
attitude of the churches. In 1844 the Abolitionists
were to achieve their first victory
in the great religious world. The Methodist
Church was then disrupted, "squarely on
the question whether a bishop could own
slaves, and all the Southern members withdrew
and organized the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South." Professor Hart, p. 214,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span>
says of this: "Clearly, the impassioned
agitation of the Abolitionists had made it
impossible for a great number of Northern
anti-slavery men <i>to remain on terms of
friendship with their Southern brethren</i>."</p>

<p>That great Faneuil Hall meeting of August
31, 1835, was followed some weeks later
by a lamentable anti-Garrison mob, which
did not stand alone. In the years 1835,
1836, and 1837 a great wave of anti-Abolition
excitement swept over the North. In
New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Alton
(Illinois), and many other places, there were
anti-Abolition riots, sometimes resulting in
arson and bloodshed.</p>

<p>The heart of the great, peace-loving,
patriotic, and theretofore happy and contented
North, was at that time stirred
with the profoundest indignation against the
Abolitionists. Northern opinion then was
that the Abolitionists, by their unpatriotic
course and their nefarious methods, were
driving the South to desperation and endangering
the Union. If the North at that
time saw the situation as it really was, the
historian of the present day should say so.
If, on the other hand, the people of both<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span>
the North and South were then laboring
under delusions, as to the facts that were
occurring among them, those of this generation,
who are wiser than their ancestors,
should give us the sources of their information.
To know the lessons of history we
must have the facts.<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p>

<p>In 1854, at Framingham, Massachusetts,
the Abolitionists celebrated the Fourth of
July thus: Their leader, William Lloyd
Garrison, held up and burned to ashes, before
the applauding multitude, one after
another, copies of</p>

<p>1st. The fugitive slave law.</p>

<p>2d. The decision of Commissioner Loring
in the case of Burns, a fugitive slave.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span>3d. The charge to the Grand Jury of
Judge Benjamin R. Curtis in reference to
the effort of a mob to secure a fugitive slave.</p>

<p>4th. "Then, holding up the United States
Constitution, he branded it as the source
and parent of all other atrocities, 'a covenant
with death and an agreement with
hell,' and consumed it to ashes on the spot,
exclaiming, 'So perish all compromises with
tyranny! And let all the people say, Amen!'
A tremendous shout of 'Amen!' went up to
heaven in ratification of the deed, mingled
with a few hisses and wrathful exclamations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>
from some, who evidently were in a <i>rowdyish</i>
state of mind, but who were at once
cowed by the popular feeling."<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></p>

<p>The Abolitionist movement was radical;
it was revolutionary. When an accredited
teacher of history, in one of the greatest of
our universities, writes a volume on "Abolition
and Slavery," why should he restrict
himself in comment, as Dr. Hart thus does
in his preface? The book is "intended to
show that there was more than one side to
the controversy, and that both the milder
form of opposition called anti-slavery and
<i>the extreme form called Abolition</i>, were <i>confronted
by practical difficulties</i> which to many
public men seemed insurmountable."</p>

<p>Why should not the historian, in addition
to pointing out the "difficulties" encountered
by these extremists, <i>show how and
why the people of that day condemned their
conduct</i>?</p>

<p>Condonation of the Abolitionists, and a
proper regard for the Constitution of the
United States, cannot be taught to the
youth of America at one and the same
time.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span>The writer has been unable to find any of
the incendiary pamphlets that had proved
so inflammatory. He has, however, before
him a little anonymous publication entitled
"Slavery Illustrated in its Effects upon
Woman," Isaac Knapp, Boston, 1837. It
was for circulation in the North, being
"Affectionately Inscribed to all the Members
of Female Anti-Slavery Societies," and
it is only cited here as an illustration of the
almost inconceivable venom with which the
crusade was carried on to <i>embitter the North
against the South</i>. It is a vicious attack
upon the morality of Southern men and
women, and upon Southern churches. None
of its charges does it claim to authenticate,
and it gives no names or dates. One incident,
related as typical, is of two white
women, all the time in full communion with
their church, under pretence of a boarding-house,
keeping a brothel, negro women being
the inmates.</p>

<p>In the chapter entitled "Impurity of the
Christian Churches" is this sentence: "At
present the Southern Churches are only
one vast consociation of hypocrites and
sinners."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span>The booklet was published anonymously,
but at that time any prurient story about
slavery in the South would circulate, no
matter whether vouched for or not.</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER IV</h2>

<h3>FEELING IN THE SOUTH&mdash;1835</h3>


<p>Not stronger than the proceedings of a
great non-partisan public meeting, or
than the action of religious bodies, but going
more into detail as to public opinion in
the South and the effect upon it of Abolition
agitation, is the evidence of a quiet observer,
Professor E. A. Andrews, who, in July, 1835,
had been sent out as the agent of "The Boston
Union for the Relief and Improvement
of the Colored Race." His reports from both
Northern and Southern States, consisting
of letters from various points, constitute a
book, "Slavery and the Domestic Slave
Trade," Boston, 1836.</p>

<p>July 17, 1835, from Baltimore, Professor
Andrews reports that a resident clergyman,
who appears to have his entire confidence,
says, among other things, "that a disposition
to emancipate their slaves is very prevalent
among the slave-holders of this State,
could they see any way to do so consistently<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span>
with the true interest of the slave, but that
it is their universal belief that no means of
doing this is now presented except that of
colonizing them in Africa."</p>

<p>From the same city, July 17, 1835, he
writes, p. 53: "In this city there appears
to be no strong attachment to slavery and
no wish to perpetuate it."</p>

<p>Again, on p. 95: "There is but one sentiment
amongst those with whom I have
conversed in this city, respecting the possibility
of the white and colored races living
peaceably together in freedom, nor during
my residence at the South and my subsequent
intercourse with the Southern people,
<i>did I ever meet with one who believed it possible
for the two races to continue together after
emancipation</i>.... When the slaves of the
South are liberated they form an integral
part of the population of the country, and
must influence its destiny for ages&mdash;perhaps
forever."</p>

<p>From Fredericksburg, Virginia, Professor
Andrews writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>Since I entered the slave-holding country I have
seen but one man who did not deprecate wholly
and absolutely the direct interference of Northern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span>
Abolitionists with the institutions of the South. "I
was an Abolitionist," has been the language of numbers
of those with whom I have conversed; "I was
an Abolitionist, <i>and was laboring earnestly to bring
about a prospective system of emancipation. I even
saw, as I believed, the certain and complete success of
the friends of the colored race at no distant period, when
these Northern Abolitionists interfered, and by their
extravagant and impracticable schemes frustrated all
our hopes.... Our people have become exasperated,
the friends of the slaves alarmed</i>, etc....<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> Equally
united are they in the opinion that the servitude of
the slaves is far more rigorous now than it would have
been had there been no interference with them. <i>In
proportion to the danger of revolt and insurrection, have
been</i> the severity of the enactments for controlling
them and the diligence with which the laws have been
executed."</p></blockquote>

<p>From a private letter, written at Greenville,
Alabama, August 30, 1835, by a distinguished
lawyer, John W. Womack, to
his brother, we quote:</p>

<blockquote><p>The anti-slavery societies in the Northern and
Middle States are doing all they can to destroy our
domestic harmony by sending among us pamphlets,
tracts, and newspapers&mdash;for the purpose of exciting
dissatisfaction and insurrection among our slaves....
Meetings have been held in Mobile, in Montgomery,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span>
in Greensboro, and in Tuscaloosa, and in
different parts of all the Southern States. At these
meetings resolutions have been adopted, disclaiming
(<i>sic</i>) and denying the right of the Northern people
to interfere in any manner in our internal domestic
concerns.... It is my solemn opinion that this
question (to wit, slavery) will ultimately bring about
a dissolution of the Union of the States.</p></blockquote>

<p>It should be remembered that in 1832 the
massacre in Santo Domingo of all the whites
by the blacks was fresh in mind. It had
occurred in 1814&mdash;after manumission&mdash;and
had produced, especially in the minds of
statesmen and of all observers of the many
signs of antagonism between the two races,
a profound and lasting impression.</p>

<p>The fear that the races, both free, could
not live together was in the mind of Thomas
Jefferson, of Henry Clay, and of every other
Southern emancipationist. And deportation,
its expense, and the want of a home to
which to send the negro&mdash;here was a stumbling-block
in the way of Southern emancipation.</p>

<p>Indeed, the incompatibility of the races
was an appalling thought in the minds of
Southerners for the whole thirty years of
anti-slavery agitation. It was even with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span>
Abraham Lincoln, and weighed upon his
mind when, at last, in 1862, military necessity
placed upon his shoulders the responsibility
of emancipating the Southern slaves.
Serious as was the responsibility, the question
was not new to him. When Mr. Lincoln
said, in his celebrated Springfield speech
in 1858, "I believe this government cannot
endure permanently half slave and half
free," and added that he did not expect the
government to fail, he certainly expected
that emancipation in the South was coming;
and, of course, he thought over what
the consequences might be.</p>

<p>In that same debate with Douglas, in his
speech at Charleston, Illinois, Mr. Lincoln
said: "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."</p>

<p>In his memorial address on Henry Clay,
in 1852, he had said: "If, as the friends of
colonization hope, the present and coming
generations of our countrymen shall by
some means succeed in freeing our land from
the dangerous presence of slavery, and at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span>
the same time in restoring a captive people
to their long lost father-land, ... it will,
indeed, be a glorious consummation. And
if to such a contribution the efforts of Mr.
Clay shall have contributed ... none of
his labors will have been more valuable to
his country and his kind."</p>

<p>In his famous emancipation proclamation
he promised "that the effort to colonize persons
of African descent upon this continent
or elsewhere, with the consent of the government
existing there, will be continued."</p>

<p>It must have been with a heavy heart that
the great President announced the failure
of all his efforts to find a home outside of
America for the freedmen, <i>when he informed
Congress in his December message, 1862, that
all in vain he had asked permission to send the
negroes, when freed, to the British, the Danish,
and the French West Indies; and that the
Spanish-American countries in Central America
had also refused his request</i>. He could
find no places except Hayti and Liberia.
He even made the futile experiment of sending
a ship-load to a little island off Hayti.<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span>Hume, in "The Abolitionists," tells us that
Mr. Lincoln for a time <i>considered setting
Texas apart as a home for the negroes</i>&mdash;so
much was he disturbed by this trouble.</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER V</h2>

<h3>ANTI-ABOLITION AT THE NORTH</h3>


<p>Southerners, save perhaps a few
who were wise enough to foresee what
the consequences might be, were deeply
gratified when they read (1835-1838) of
the violent opposition in the North to the
desperate schemes of the Abolitionists.
Surely these mobs fairly represented public
opinion, and that public opinion certainly
was a strong guaranty to the South of future
peace and security.</p>

<p>But the Abolitionists themselves were not
dismayed. They may have misread, indeed
it is certain they did misunderstand, the
signs of the times. Garrison in his <i>Liberator</i>
took the ground&mdash;as do his children in
their life of him, written fifty years later&mdash;that
the great Faneuil Hall meeting of
August 31, 1835, which they themselves
declare represented "the intelligence, the
wealth, the culture, and the religion of
Boston," was but an indication of the "pro-slavery"<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>
sentiment then existing. In reality
it was just what it purported to be&mdash;an
authoritative condemnation, not of the
anti-slavery opinions, but of the avowed
purposes and methods of the new sect.
The mobbing of Garrison and the sacking
of his printing office in Boston on September
26th, however, and the lawless violence
to Abolitionists that followed the denunciations
of that despised sect by speakers, and
by the public press, in New York, in Philadelphia,
in Cincinnati, and elsewhere in the
North, proved disastrous in the extreme.</p>

<p>While that great wave of anti-Abolition
feeling was sweeping over that whole region
from East to West, there were many good
people who deluded themselves with the
idea that this new sect with its visionary
and impracticable ideas was being consigned
to oblivion, but in what followed we have a
lesson that unfortunately some of our people
have not yet fully learned. Mob law in
any portion of our free country, where there
is law with officers to enforce it, is a mistake,
a mistake that is likely to be followed
sooner or later by most disastrous results.
The mobs that marked the beginning of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span>
our Revolution in 1774 were legitimate;
they meant revolt, revolt against constituted
authorities. But where a mob does not
mean the overthrow of government, where
it only means to substitute its own blind
will for the arm of the law, not good but
evil&mdash;it may be long deferred, but evil eventually&mdash;is
sure to follow. When mobs assailed
Abolitionists because they threatened
the peace and tranquillity of the country,
evil followed swiftly.</p>

<p>Violent and harsh treatment of these mischievous
agitators almost everywhere in the
North, and the heroism with which they
endured ignominy and insult, brought about
a revulsion of public sentiment. To understand
the philosophy of this, read two extracts
from the writings of that great, and
universally admired, pulpit orator, Dr.
William E. Channing of Boston, the first
written sometime prior to that August
meeting:</p>

<blockquote><p>The adoption of the common system of agitation
by the Abolitionists has not been justified by success.
From the beginning it has created alarm in
the considerate, and strengthened the sympathies of
the Free States with the slave-holder. It has made<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span>
converts of a few individuals, but alienated multitudes.
<i>Its influence at the South has been almost
wholly evil. It has stirred up bitter passions, and a
fierce fanaticism, which have shut every ear and every
heart against its arguments and persuasions.</i> These
efforts are more to be deplored, because the hope of
freedom to the slave lies chiefly in the dispositions
of his master. The Abolitionist proposed indeed
to convert the slave-holder; and for this end he
<i>approached them with vituperation, and exhausted upon
them the vocabulary of reproach</i>. And he has reaped
as he sowed.... Perhaps (though I am anxious to
repel the thought) something has been lost to the
cause of freedom and humanity.<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p></blockquote>

<p>These were Dr. Channing's opinions of
the Abolitionists prior to August, 1835, and
he seems to have kept silent for a time after
the mobbing that followed that great Faneuil
Hall meeting; but a year later, when
many other things had happened along the
same line, he spoke out in an open letter to
James G. Birney, an Abolitionist editor who
had been driven from Cincinnati, and whose
press, on which <i>The Philanthropist</i> was
printed, had been broken up. In that letter,
p. 157, <i>supra</i>, speaking of course not
for himself alone, Dr. Channing says:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span>I think it best ... to extend my remarks to the
spirit of violence and persecution which has broken
out against the Abolitionists throughout the whole
country. Of their merits and demerits as Abolitionists
I have formerly spoken.... I have expressed
my fervent attachment to the great end to which
they are pledged and at the same time <i>my disapprobation,
to a certain extent, of their spirit and measures</i>....
Deliberate, systematic efforts have been made,
<i>not here and there, but far and wide</i>, to wrest from its
adherents that <i>liberty of speech and the press</i>, which
our fathers asserted in blood, and which our National
and State Governments are pledged to protect
as our most sacred right. Its most conspicuous advocates
have been hunted and stoned, its meetings
scattered, its presses broken up, and nothing but
the patience, constancy and intrepidity of its members
has saved it from extinction.... They are
<i>sufferers for the liberty of thought, speech and press;
and in maintaining this liberty, amidst insult and
violence, they deserve a place among its honorable
defenders</i>.</p></blockquote>

<p>Still admitting that "their writings have
been blemished by a spirit of intolerance,
sweeping censure, and rash, injurious judgment,"
this great man now threw all the
weight of his influence on the side of the
Abolitionists, because they were <i>the champions
of free speech</i>. Their moral worth<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span>
and steady adherence to their ideas of non-resistance
he pointed to admiringly, and it
must always be remembered to their credit
that the private lives of Garrison and his
leading co-workers were irreproachable. Indeed,
the unselfish devotion of these agitators
and their high moral character were
in themselves a serious misfortune. They
soon attracted a lot of zealots, male and
female, who became as reckless as they were.
And these out-and-out fanatics were not
themselves office-seekers. What they feared,
they said, was that a "lot of soulless scamps
would jump on to their shoulders to ride
into office";<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> and there really was the great
danger, as appeared later.</p>

<p>In the results that followed the mobbing
of Abolitionists in the North, from 1834 to
1836, is to be found another lesson for those
voters of this day who can profit by the
teachings of history. The violent assaults
on the Abolitionists by the friends of the
Constitution and the Union constituted an
epoch in the lives of these people. It gave
them a footing and a hearing and many
converts.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span>We have already noted some wonderful
and instructive changes in the tide of events
set in motion by the radical teachings of the
New Abolitionists. The churches, as has
been shown, to save the country, North and
South, changed their attitude on slavery
itself. Dr. Channing, who had opposed the
methods of the Abolitionists, became, as
many others did with him, when mobs had
assailed these people, their defender and
eulogist, because they were martyrs for the
sake of free speech; and now we are to
see in John Quincy Adams another change,
equally notable, a change that was to make
Mr. Adams thenceforward the most momentous
figure, at least during its earlier
stages, in the tragic drama that is the subject
of our story.</p>

<p>Elected to the House of Representatives
after the expiration of his term as President,
Mr. Adams was not in sympathy with the
methods of the Abolitionists. Indeed, prior
to December 31, 1831, he had shown as little
interest in slavery as he did when on that
day in presenting to the House fifteen petitions
against slavery he "deprecated a discussion
which would lead to ill-will, to heart-burning,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span>
to mutual hatred ... without
accomplishing anything else."<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p>

<p>The petitions presented by Mr. Adams
were referred to a committee.</p>

<p>The Southerners had not then become
so exasperated as to insist on Congress refusing
to receive Abolition petitions. But
multiplying these petitions was a ready
means of provoking the slave-holders, and
soon petitions poured in from many quarters,
couched, most of them, in language,
not disrespectful to Congress but provoking
to slave-holders.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the lower house of Congress
on May 26, 1836, which was while
mobs in the North were still trying to put
down the Abolitionists, passed a resolution
that all such petitions, etc., should thereafter
be laid upon the table, <i>without further
action</i>. Adams voted against it as "a direct
violation of the Constitution of the United
States." The Constitution forbids any law
"abridging the freedom of speech ... or
the right ... to petition the government
for a redress of grievances." The resolution
to lay all anti-slavery petitions on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span>
table without further action was passed,
"with the hope that it might put a stop to
the agitation that seemed to endanger the
existence of the Union." But it had the
opposite effect. It soon became known as
the "gag resolution," and was, for years, the
centre of the most aggravating discussions
that had, up to that time, ever occurred in
Congress. Mr. Adams in these debates became,
without, it seems, ever having been
in full sympathy with the agitators, thenceforward
their champion in Congress, and so
continued until the day of his death in 1848.</p>

<p>The Abolitionists were happy. They were
succeeding in their programme&mdash;making the
Southern slave-holder odious by exasperating
him into offending Northern sentiment.</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER VI</h2>

<h3>A CRISIS AND A COMPROMISE</h3>


<p>In 1840 there were 200 Abolition societies,
with a membership of over 200,000.
Agitation had created all over the North a
spirit of hostility to slavery as it existed in
the South, and especially to the admission
of new slave States into the Union. In 1840
the struggle over the application of Texas
for admission into the Union had already,
for three years, been mooted. Objections to
the admission of the new State were many,
such as: American adventurers had wrongfully
wrested control of the new State from
Mexico; boundary lines were unsettled;
war with Mexico would follow, etc.; but
chiefly, Texas was a slave State, which was,
in the South, a strong reason for annexation.
There were, however, many sound
and unanswerable arguments for the admission
of the new State, just such as had influenced
Jefferson in purchasing the Louisiana<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span>
territory: Texas was contiguous, her
territory and resources immense.</p>

<p>On the issue thus joined the first great
gun had been fired by Dr. Channing, who,
though still more moderate than some, might
now be classed as an Abolitionist. August
1, 1837, he wrote a long open letter to Henry
Clay against annexation, and in that letter
he said:</p>

<blockquote><p>To me it seems not only the right but the duty of
the Free States, in case of the annexation of Texas,
to say to the slave-holding States, "We regard this
act as the dissolution of the Union; the essential
conditions of the National Compact are violated."<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a></p></blockquote>

<p>This was very like the pronunciamento
already made by Garrison&mdash;"no union with
slavery."</p>

<p>The underlying reasons that controlled
Southern statesmen in this contest over
Texas, and the motives that animated them
in the fierce battles they fought later for
new slave States, are thus stated by Mr.
George Ticknor Curtis, of New England.<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p>

<blockquote><p>It should in justice be remembered that the effort
<i>at that period to enlarge the area of slavery was an effort</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span>
<i>on the part of the South, dictated by a desire to remain
in the Union, and not to accept the issue of an inherent
incompatibility of a political union between slave-holding
and non-slave-holding States</i>.</p></blockquote>

<p>In 1840 the first effort for the annexation
of Texas, by treaty, was defeated in the
Senate.</p>

<p>If the Southerners had been as ready to
accept the doctrine of an inherent incompatibility
between slave and free States as
were Dr. Channing and those other Abolitionists
who were now declaring for "no
union with slave-holders," they would at
once have seceded and joined Texas; but
the South still loved the Union, and strove,
down to 1860, persistently, and often passionately,
for power that would enable it to
remain safely in its folds.</p>

<p>Texas was finally admitted in 1845, after
annexation had been passed on by the people
in the presidential election of 1844. In
that election Clay was defeated by the
Abolitionists. Because Clay was not unreservedly
against annexation the Abolitionists
drew from the Whigs in New York
State enough votes, casting them for Birney,
to defeat Clay and elect Polk; and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span>
now Abolitionism was a factor in national
politics.</p>

<p>The two great national parties were the
Democrats and the Whigs, the voters somewhat
equally divided between them. For
years both parties had regarded the Abolitionists
precisely as did the non-partisan
meeting at Faneuil Hall, in August, 1835&mdash;as
a band of agitators, organized for the
purpose of interfering with slavery where it
was none of their business; and both parties
had meted out to this new and, as they
deemed it, pestilent sect, unstinted condemnation.
But at last the voters of this
despised cult had turned a presidential election
and were making inroads in both parties.
Half a dozen Northern States, in which
in 1835 "no protest had been made against
the fugitive slave law of 1793," had already
passed "personal liberty laws" intended to
obstruct and nullify that law. And now it
was "slave-catchers" and not Abolitionists
who were being mobbed in the North.</p>

<p>Boston had reversed its attitude toward
the Abolitionists. On May 31, 1849, the
New England Anti-Slavery Society was
holding its annual convention in that very<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span>
Faneuil Hall where, in 1835, Abolitionism
had been so roundly condemned; and now
Wendell Phillips, pointing to one of two
fugitive slaves, who then sat triumphantly
on the platform, said, "amid great applause,
... 'We say that they may make their
little laws in Washington, but that <i>Faneuil
Hall repeals them</i>, in the name of the humanity
of Massachusetts.'"<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p>

<p>Poets headed by Whittier and Longfellow,
authors like Emerson and Lowell,
and orators like Theodore Parker and Wendell
Phillips, had joined the agitators, and
all united in assaulting the fugitive slave
law. The following, from James Russell
Lowell's "Biglow Papers," No. 1, June,
1840, is a specimen of the literature that
was stirring up hostility against slavery and
the "slave-catcher" in the breasts of many
thousands, who were joining in an anti-slavery
crusade while disdaining companionship
with the Abolitionists:</p>

<div class="poem">
<span class="i0">"Ain't it cute to see a Yankee</span><br />
<span class="i0">Take such everlastin' pains</span><br />
<span class="i0">All to get the Devil's Thankee</span><br />
<span class="i0">Helpin' on 'em weld their chains?"</span><br />
<span class="i0"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span>W'y it's jest es clear es figgers,</span><br />
<span class="i0">Clear es one and one makes two,</span><br />
<span class="i0">Chaps that makes black slaves of niggers</span><br />
<span class="i0">Want to make w'ite slaves o' you.</span>
</div>

<p>In the meantime the people of the South,
much excited, were resorting to repression,
passing laws to prevent slaves from being
taught to read, and laws, in some States,
inhibiting assemblages of slaves above given
numbers, unless some white person were
present&mdash;all as safeguards against insurrection.
Thus, in 1835, an indictment was
found in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama,
against one Williams, who had never been
in Alabama, for circulating there an alleged
incendiary document, and Governor Gayle
made requisition on Governor Marcy, of
New York, for the extradition of Williams.
Governor Marcy denied the request. The
case was the same as that more recently
decided by the Supreme Court of the United
States, when it held that editors of New
York and Indiana papers could not be
brought to the District of Columbia for
trial.</p>

<p>The South, all the while clamoring to have
the agitators put down, had by still other<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span>
means than these contributed to the ever-increasing
excitement in the North. Southerners
had mobbed Abolitionists, and
whipped and driven out of the country
persons found in possession of <i>The Liberator</i>
or suspected of circulating other incendiary
literature. And violence in the South
against the Abolitionists had precisely the
same effect on the Northern mind as the
violence against them in the North had from
1835 to 1838, but there was this difference:
the refugee from the distant South, whether
he were an escaped slave or a fleeing Abolitionist,
could color and exaggerate the
wrongs he had suffered and so parade himself
as a martyr. While this was true, it
was also quite often true that the outrage
committed in the South against the suspect
was real enough&mdash;a mob had whipped and
expelled him without any trial. <i>And this is
another of the lessons as to the evil effects of
mob law that crop out all through the history
of the anti-slavery crusade. No good can come
from violating the law.</i></p>

<p>In 1848 another presidential election
turned on the anti-slavery vote, this time
again in New York State. Anti-slavery<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span>
Democrats bolted the Democratic ticket,
thus electing General Taylor, the Whig
candidate.</p>

<p>In the canvass preceding this election
originated, we are told, the catch-phrase
applied to Cass, the Democratic candidate&mdash;"a
Northern man with Southern principles."
The phrase soon became quite
common, South and North&mdash;"a Southern
man with Northern principles," and <i>vice
versa</i>.</p>

<p>The invention and use of it in 1848 shows
the progress that had been made in arraying
one section of the Union against the
other. Later, a telling piece of doggerel in
Southern canvasses, and it must also have
been used North, was</p>

<div class="poem">
<span class="i0">He wired in and wired out,</span><br />
<span class="i0">Leaving the people all in doubt,</span><br />
<span class="i0">Whether the snake that made the track</span><br />
<span class="i0">Was going North, or coming back.</span>
</div>

<p>Over the admission of California in 1849
there was another battle. California, 734
miles long, with about 50,000 people (less
than the usual number), and with a constitution
improvised under military government,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span>
applied for admission as a State.
Southerners insisted on extending the line
of the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific,
thereby making of the new territory two
States. The South had been much embittered
by the opposition to the admission of
Texas. Texas was, nearly all of it, below
the Missouri Compromise line, and the
South thought it was equitably entitled to
come in under that agreement. Its case,
too, differed from that of Missouri, which
already belonged to the United States when
it applied for admission as a State. Texas,
with all its vast wealth, was asking to come
in without price.</p>

<p>Another continuing and increasing cause
of distraction had been the use made by
Abolitionists of the right of petition. As
already shown, petitions to Congress against
slavery had been received without question
till 1836, when Northern conservatives and
Southern members, hoping to abate this
source of agitation, had combined to pass
a resolution to lay them on the table, which
meant that they were to be no further noticed.
The Abolitionists were so delighted
over the indefensible position into which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span>
they had driven the conservatives&mdash;the
"gag law"&mdash;that they continued, up to the
crisis of 1850, with unflagging zeal to hurry
in monster petitions, one after another.
The debates provoked by the presentation
of these petitions, and the more and more
heated discussions in Congress of <i>slavery
in the States</i>, which was properly <i>a local and
not a national question</i>, now attracted still
wider public attention. The Abolitionists
had almost succeeded in arraying the entire
sections against each other, in making of
the South and North two hostile nations.
Professor John W. Burgess, dean of the
Faculty of Political Science in Columbia
University, says: "It would not be extravagant
to say that the whole course of the
internal history of the United States from
1836 to 1861 was more largely determined
by the struggle in Congress, over the <i>Abolition
petitions</i> and the use of the mails for
the Abolition literature, than anything
else."<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p>

<p>The South had its full share in the hot
debates that took place over these matters
in Congress. Its congressmen were quite<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span>
as aggressive as those from the North, and
they were accused of being imperious in
manner, when demanding that a stop should
be put to Abolition petitions, and Abolition
literature going South in the mails.</p>

<p>There was another cause of complaint
from the South, and this was grave. By
the "two underground railroads" that had
been established, slaves, estimated at 2,000
annually, abducted or voluntarily escaping,
were secretly escorted into or through the
free States to Canada. To show how all
this was then regarded by those who sympathized
with the Abolitionists, and how it
is still looked upon by some modern historians,
the following is given from Hart's
"Abolition and Slavery":</p>

<p>"The underground railroad was manned
chiefly by orderly citizens, members of
churches, and philanthropical citizens. <i>To
law-abiding folk</i> what could be more delightful
than the sensation of aiding an oppressed
slave, <i>exasperating</i> a cruel master, and at the
same time incurring the penalties of <i>defying
an unrighteous law</i>?"</p>

<p>Southerners at that time thought that
conductors on that line were practising, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span>
readers of the above paragraph will probably
think that Dr. Hart in his attractive
rhetoric is now extolling in his history,
"higher law doctrines."</p>

<p>It is undoubtedly true that, in 1850,
a large majority of the Northern people
strongly disapproved of the Abolitionists
and their methods. Modern historians carefully
point out the difference between the
great body of Northern anti-slavery people
and the Abolitionists. Nevertheless, here
were majorities in eleven Northern States
voting for, and sustaining, the legislators
who passed and kept upon the statute books
laws which were intended to enable Southern
slaves to escape from their masters.
The enactment and the support of these
laws was an attack upon the constitutional
rights of slave-holders; and Southern people
looked upon all the voters who sustained
these laws, and all the anti-slavery lecturers,
speakers, pulpit orators, and writers of the
North, as engaged with the Abolitionists in
one common crusade against slavery. From
the Southern stand-point a difference between
them could only be made by a
Hudibras:</p>

<div class="poem"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span>
<span class="i0">He was in logic a great critic</span><br />
<span class="i0">Profoundly skilled in analytic,</span><br />
<span class="i0">He could distinguish and divide</span><br />
<span class="i0">A hair 'twixt South and South West side.</span>
</div>

<p>As to how much of the formidable anti-slavery
sentiment of that day had been
created by the Abolitionists, we have this
opinion of a distinguished English traveller
and observer. Mr. L. W. A. Johnston was
in Washington, in 1850, studying America.
He says:</p>

<p>"Extreme men like Garrison seldom have
justice done to them. It is true they may
be impracticable, both as to their measures
and their men, but that unmixed evil is the
result of their exertions, all history of opinion
in every country, I think, contradicts.
Such ultra men are as necessary as the more
moderate and reasonable advocates of any
growing opinion; and, as <i>an impartial person</i>,
who never happened to fall in with one
of the party in the course of my tour, I must
express my belief that the present wide
diffusion of anti-slavery sentiment in the
United States is, in no small degree, owing
to their exertions."<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span>And Professor Smith, of Williams College,
speaking of the anti-slavery feeling in the
North in 1850, says:</p>

<p>"This sentiment of the free States regarding
slavery was to a large degree the
result of an agitation for its abolition which
had been active for a score of years (1831-1850)
without any positive results."<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p>

<p>But no matter what had produced it, the
anti-slavery sentiment that pervaded the
North in 1850 boded ill to slavery and to
the Constitution, and the South was bitterly
complaining. Congress met in December,
1849, and was to sit until October, 1850.
Lovers of the Union, North and South,
watched its proceedings with the deepest
anxiety. The South was much excited.
The continual torrent of abuse to which it
was subjected, the refusal to allow slavery
in States to be created from territory in the
South-west that was below the parallel of
the Missouri Compromise, and the complete
nullification of the fugitive slave law, seemed
to many to be no longer tolerable, and from
sundry sources in that section came threats
of secession.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span>In 1849-50 the South was demanding a
division of California, an efficient fugitive
slave law, and that the territories of New
Mexico and Arizona should be organized
with no restrictions as to slavery. Other
minor demands were unimportant.</p>

<p>Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Stephen A.
Douglas, Lewis Cass, and other conservative
leaders came forward and, after long
and heated debates in Congress, the Compromise
of 1850 was agreed on. To satisfy
the North, California, as a whole, came in as
a free State, and the slave trade was abolished
in the District of Columbia. To satisfy
the South, a new and stringent fugitive
slave law was agreed on, and the territories
of New Mexico and Arizona were organized
with no restrictions as to slavery.</p>

<p>In bringing about this compromise, Daniel
Webster was, next to Clay, the most conspicuous
figure. He was the favorite son of
New England and the greatest statesman
in all the North. On the 7th of March,
1850, Mr. Webster made one of the greatest
speeches of his life on the Compromise measures.
Rising above the sectional prejudices
of the hour, he spoke for the Constitution<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span>
and the Union. The manner in which he
and his reputation were treated by popular
historians in the North, for half a century
afterward, on account of this speech, is the
most pathetic and, at the same time, the
most instructive story in the whole history
of the anti-slavery crusade.</p>

<p>Mr. Webster was under the ban of Northern
public opinion for all this half a century,
not because of inconsistency between that
speech and his former avowals, an averment
often made and never proven, but because
he was consistent. He stood squarely upon
his record, and the venom of the assaults
that were afterward made upon him was
just in proportion to the love and veneration
which had been his before he offended.
His offence was that he would not move with
the anti-slavery movement.<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> He did not
stand with his section in a sectional dispute.</p>

<p>Henry Clay, old and feeble, had come
back into the Senate to render his last
service to his country. He was the author
of the Compromise. Daniel Webster was
everywhere known as the champion of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span>
Union. Henry Clay was known as the "Old
Man Eloquent," and he now spoke with all
his old-time fire; but Webster's great speech
probably had more influence on the result.</p>

<p>Before taking up Mr. Webster's speech
his previous attitude toward slavery must
be noted. The purpose of the friends of the
Union was, of course, to effect a compromise
that would, if possible, put an end to sectional
strife. Compromise means concession,
and a compromise of political differences,
made by statesmen, may involve some concession
of view previously held by those who
advocate as well as by those who accept it.
Webster thought his section of the Union
should now make concessions.</p>

<p>Fanaticism, however, concedes nothing;
it never compromises, although statesmanship
does. One of the most notable utterances
of Edmund Burke was:</p>

<p>"<i>All government, indeed every human benefit
and enjoyment, every virtue and every
prudent act, is founded on compromise and
barter.</i>"</p>

<p>Great statesmen, on great occasions,
speak not only to their countrymen and
for the time being, but they speak to all<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span>
mankind and for all time. So spoke Burke
in that famous sentence when advocating,
in the British Parliament in 1776, "conciliation
with America"; and so did Daniel
Webster speak, in the Senate of the United
States, on the 7th of March, 1850, for "the
Constitution and the Union." If George III
and Lord North had heeded Burke, and if the
British government and people, from that
day forth, had followed the wise counsels
given in that speech by their greatest statesman,
all the English-speaking peoples of the
world, now numbering over 170,000,000,
might have been to-day under one government,
that government commanding the
peace of the world. And if all the people
of the United States in 1850 and from that
time on, had heeded the words of Daniel
Webster, we should have been spared the
bloodiest war in the book of time; every
State of the Union would have been left free
to solve its own domestic problems, and it is
not too much to say that these problems
would have been solved in full accord with
the advancing civilization of the age.</p>

<p>The sole charge of inconsistency against
Webster that has in it a shadow of truth<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span>
relates to the proposition he made in his
speech as to the "Wilmot proviso." That
celebrated proviso was named for David
Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, its author. It
provided against slavery in all the territory
acquired from Mexico. The South had opposed
the Wilmot proviso because the territory
in question, much of it, was south
of the Missouri Compromise line extended.
Mr. Webster had often voted for the Wilmot
proviso, as all knew. In his speech for
the Compromise, by which the South was
urged to and did give up its contentions as
to the admission of California, and its contentions
as to the slave trade in the District
of Columbia, Webster argued that <i>the North
might forego</i> the proviso as to New Mexico
and Arizona for the reason that the proviso
was, as to these territories, <i>immaterial</i>.
Those territories, he argued, would never
come in as slave States, because the God
of nature had so determined. Climate and
soil would forbid. Time vindicated this
argument. In 1861 Charles Francis Adams
said, in Congress, that New Mexico, open
to slave-holders and their slaves for more
than ten years, then had only twelve slaves<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span>
domiciled on the surface of over 200,000
square miles of her extent.<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a></p>

<p>Daniel Webster's services to the cause of
the Union, the preservation of which had
been the passion of his life, had been absolutely
unparalleled. It is perhaps true that
without him Abraham Lincoln and the
armies of the Union in 1861-65 would have
been impossible. The sole and, as he then
stated and as time proved, immaterial concession
this champion of the Union now
(1850) made for the sake of preserving the
Union was his proposition as to New Mexico
and Arizona.</p>

<p>Henry Clay spoke before Webster. These
words were the key-note of Clay's great
speech: "In my opinion the body politic
cannot be preserved unless this agitation,
this distraction, this exasperation, which is
going on between the two sections of the
country, shall cease."</p>

<p>The country waited with anxiety to hear
from Webster. Hundreds of suggestions
and appeals went to him. Both sides were
hopeful.<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> Anti-slavery people knew his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span>
aversion to slavery. He had never countenanced
anti-slavery agitation, but he had
voted for the Wilmot proviso. They knew,
too, that he had long been ambitious to be
President, and, carried away by their enthusiasm,
they hoped that Webster would
swim along with the tide that was sweeping
over the majority section of the Union. In
view of Mr. Webster's past record, however,
it would be difficult to believe that
Abolitionists were really disappointed in
him had we not many such proofs as the
following stanza from Whittier's ode, published
after the speech:</p>

<div class="poem">
<span class="i0">Oh! dumb be passing, stormy rage</span><br />
<span class="i1">When he who might</span><br />
<span class="i0">Have lighted up and led his age</span><br />
<span class="i1">Falls back in night!</span>
</div>

<p>The conservatives also were hopeful.
They knew that, though Webster had always
been, as an individual, opposed to slavery,
he had at all times stood by the Constitution,
as well as the Union. At no time
had he ever qualified or retracted these
words in his speech at Niblo's Garden in
1839: "Slavery, as it exists in the States, is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span>
beyond the reach of Congress. It is a concern
of the States themselves. They have
never submitted it to Congress, and Congress
has no rightful power over it. I shall
concur therefore in <i>no act</i>, <i>no measure</i>, <i>no
menace</i>, no indication of purpose which <i>shall
interfere or threaten to interfere with the exclusive
authority</i> of the several States over
the subject of slavery, as it exists within
their respective limits. All this appears
to me to be matter of plain imperative
duty."</p>

<p>Nullifying the fugitive slave law was a
plain "interference" with the rights of the
slave States.</p>

<p>Mr. Webster's intent, when he spoke on
the Compromise measures, is best explained
by his own words, on June 17, while these
measures were still pending: "Sir, my object
is peace. My object is reconciliation.
My purpose is not to make up a case <i>for the
North</i> or a case <i>for the South</i>. My object is
not to continue useless and irritating controversies.
I am against agitators, North
and South, and all narrow local contests. I
am an American, and I know no locality
but America."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span>In his speech made on the 7th of March
he dwelt at length on existing conditions, on
the attitude of the North toward the fugitive
slave law, and argued fully the questions
involved in the "personal liberty"
laws passed by Northern States. Referring
to the complaints of the South about these,
he said: "In that respect <i>the South, in my
judgment, is right and the North is wrong</i>.
Every member of every Northern legislature
is bound by oath, like every other officer
in the country, to support the Constitution
of the United States; and the article of the
Constitution which says to these States
that they shall deliver up fugitives from service
<i>is as binding in honor and conscience as
any other article</i>. <i>No man fulfils his duty in
any legislature who sets himself to find excuses,
evasions, escapes, from this constitutional obligation.</i>"</p>

<p>And further on he said: "Then, sir, there
are the Abolition societies, of which I am
unwilling to speak, but in regard to which
I have very clear notions and opinions. I
do not think them useful. <i>I think their operations
for the last twenty years have produced
nothing good or valuable.... I cannot but</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span>
<i>see what mischief their interference with the
South has produced.</i>"</p>

<p>In these statements is the substance of
Webster's offending.</p>

<p>Webster's speech was followed, on the
11th of March, by the speech of Senator
Seward, of New York, in the same debate.
Quoting the fugitive slave provision of
the Federal Constitution, Mr. Seward said:
"This is from the Constitution of the United
States in 1787, and the parties were the
Republican States of the Union. The law
of nations <i>disavows such compacts; the law
of nature, written on the hearts and consciences
of freemen, repudiates them</i>."<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> The people
of the North, instead of following Webster,
chose to follow Seward, the apostle of a
<i>law higher than the Constitution</i>; and when,
ten years later, it appeared to them that
the whole North had given in its adhesion
to the "higher law" doctrine, the people of
eleven Southern States seceded, and put
over themselves in very substance the Constitution
that Seward had flouted and Webster
had pleaded for in vain.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span>Anti-slavery enthusiasts in the North generally,
and Abolitionists especially, in their
comments on Webster's speech scouted the
idea that the preservation of the Union
depended upon the faithful execution of the
fugitive slave law or the cessation of anti-slavery
agitation. "What," said Theodore
Parker, "cast off the North! They set up
for themselves! Tush! Tush! Fear boys
with bugs!... I think Mr. Webster knew
there was no danger of a dissolution of the
Union."<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a></p>

<p>The immediate effect of the speech was
wonderful; congratulations poured in upon
Mr. Webster from conservative classes in
every quarter, and he must have felt gratified
to know that he had contributed greatly
to the enactment of measures that, for a
time, had some effect in allaying sectional
strife. But the revilings of the Abolitionists
prevailed, and it turned out that Daniel
Webster, great as he was, had undertaken
a task that was too much even for
him. His enemies struck out boldly at once:
and years afterward, when the anti-slavery
movement that Webster's appeals could<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span>
not arrest had culminated in secession, and
when the Union had been saved by arms,
the triumphant hosts of the anti-slavery
crusade all but succeeded in writing Daniel
Webster down permanently in the history
of his country as an apostate from principle
for the sake of an office he did not get.
Here is their verdict, which Mr. Lodge, a
biographer of Webster, passes on into
history:</p>

<p>"The <i>popular verdict</i> has been given
against the 7th of March speech, <i>and that
verdict has passed into history</i>. Nothing can
be said or done which will alter the fact
that the people of this country, <i>who maintained
and saved the Union, have passed judgment
on Mr. Webster</i>, and condemned what
he said on the 7th of March as <i>wrong in
principle and mistaken in policy</i>."</p>

<p>Here are specimens of the assaults that
were made on Webster after his speech.
They are selected from among many given
by one of his biographers.<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a></p>

<p>"'Webster,' said Horace Mann, 'is a
fallen star! Lucifer descended from Heaven.'...
'Webster,' said Sumner, 'has placed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span>
himself in the dark list of apostates.' When
Whittier named him Ichabod, and mourned
for him in verse as one dead, he did but express
the feeling of half New England:</p>

<div class="poem">
<span class="i0">'Let not the land once proud of him</span><br />
<span class="i2">Mourn for him now,</span><br />
<span class="i0">Nor brand with deeper shame his dim</span><br />
<span class="i2">Dishonored brow.</span><br />
<br />
&nbsp; &#42;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&#42; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &#42; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&#42;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&#42; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &#42; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&#42;
<br />
<span class="i0">Then pay the reverence of old days</span><br />
<span class="i2">To his dead fame!</span><br />
<span class="i0">Walk backward with averted gaze</span><br />
<span class="i2">And hide his shame.'"</span>
</div>

<p>After much more to the same effect, Professor
McMaster proceeds: "The attack by
the press, the <i>expressions of horror</i> that rose
from New England, Webster felt keenly,
but the absolute isolation in which he was
left by his New England colleagues cut him
to the quick."<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a></p>

<p>On Mr. Webster's speech, its purpose and
effect, we have this opinion from Mr. Lodge:</p>

<p>"The speech, if exactly defined, is in reality<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span>
a powerful effort, not for a compromise,
or for the fugitive slave law, or for any other
one thing, <i>but to arrest the whole anti-slavery
movement</i>, and in that way <i>put an end to the
danger which threatened the Union and restore
harmony to the jarring sections</i>."</p>

<p>And then he adds:</p>

<p>"<i>It was a mad project. Mr. Webster
might as well have attempted to stay the incoming
tide at Marshfield with a rampart of
sand, as to check the anti-slavery movement
with a speech.</i>"</p>

<p>To undertake at this time to arrest the
whole anti-slavery movement by holding up
the Constitution was indeed useless.</p>

<p>Seward, who had spoken for the "higher
law," was riding on the tide of anti-slavery
sentiment that was submerging "the Sage
of Marshfield," who had stood for the Constitution.
Seward's reputation, in the years
following, went steadily up, while Webster's
was going down. Webster died, in
dejection, in 1852.</p>

<p>Seward, at Rochester, in 1854, later on in
the same crusade, made another famous declaration&mdash;there
was an "irrepressible conflict
between slavery and freedom." The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span>
conflict was "irrepressible," as Seward well
knew; and this was simply and solely because
the anti-slavery crusade could not be
suppressed. Clay and Webster, now both
dead and gone, had tried it in vain. Every
one knew that if, in 1850, or at any other
time, the anti-slavery hosts had halted, and
asked for, or consented to, peace, they could
have had it at once.</p>

<p>Mr. Lodge, in the following paragraph,
seems to have almost made up his mind
to defend Webster. He says: "What most
shocked the North were his utterances in
regard to the fugitive slave law. There can
be no doubt that, <i>under the Constitution</i>, the
South had a <i>perfect right</i> to claim the extradition
of fugitive slaves. The legal <i>argument
to support that right was excellent</i>."
This would seem to justify the speech in
that regard. "But," Mr. Lodge adds, "the
Northern people could not feel that it was
<i>necessary</i> for <i>Daniel Webster</i> to make it."
They wanted him to be sectional or to hold
his tongue. Then Mr. Lodge goes on to
say: "The fugitive slave law was in <i>absolute
conflict with the awakened conscience and
moral sentiment of the North</i>."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span>The conscience of <i>the North</i> at that time,
Mr. Lodge means, was a <i>higher law</i> than the
<i>Constitution</i>; and Webster's "excellent argument,"
therefore, fell on deaf ears.</p>

<p>No American historian stands higher as
an authority than Mr. Rhodes. He says
on page 161, vol. I, of his "History of the
United States," published in 1892: "<i>Until
the closing years of our century a dispassionate
judgment could not be made of Webster</i>;
but we see now that in the war of secession
his principles were mightier than those of
Garrison. It was not 'No Union with slave-holders,'
but <i>Liberty and Union</i> that won."</p>

<p>This tribute to services Webster had rendered
to the Union in his great speech in
1850, in which he advocated "Liberty and
Union, now and forever," exactly as he was
advocating it in 1830, is just. How pathetic
that the historian was impelled also to
record the fact, in the same sentence, that
for nearly half a century partisan prejudice
had rendered it impossible to form a dispassionate
judgment of him who had pleaded
in vain for the Union without war!</p>

<p>After an able analysis of his "7th of
March speech," and a discussion of his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span>
record, in which he paralleled Webster and
Edmund Burke, Mr. Rhodes declares:
"His dislike of slavery was strong, but his
love of the Union was stronger, and the more
powerful motive outweighed the other, for
he believed that <i>the crusade against slavery
had arrived at a point where its further prosecution
was hurtful to the Union</i>. As has been
said of Burke, 'He changed his front but
he never changed his ground.'"<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a></p>

<p>Daniel Webster's name and its place in
history may be likened to a giant oak, a
monarch of the forest, that, while towering
high above all others, was stripped of its
branches; for a time it stood, a rugged
trunk, robbed of its glory by a cyclone;
but its roots were deep down in the rich
earth; the storm is passing away; the tree
has put out buds again; now its branches
are stretching out once more into the clear
reaches of the upper air.</p>

<p>Mr. Rhodes seems to be the first historian
of note to do justice to Daniel Webster and
the great speech which, McMaster takes
pains to inform us, historians have written
down as his "7th of March speech," in spite<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span>
of the fact that Mr. Webster himself entitled
it "The Constitution and the Union."</p>

<p>Other historians besides Mr. Rhodes have
come to the rescue of Webster's speech for
"the Constitution and the Union." Mr.
John Fiske says of it in a volume (posthumous)
published in 1907: "So far as Mr.
Webster's moral attitude was concerned,
although he was not prepared for the bitter
hostility that his speech provoked in many
quarters, he must nevertheless have known
it was quite as likely to injure him at the
North as to gain support for him in the
South, and his resolute adoption of a policy
that he regarded as national rather than
sectional was really an instance of high
moral courage."<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a></p>

<p>Mr. William C. Wilkinson has recently
written an able "Vindication of Daniel
Webster," and, after a conclusive argument
on that branch of his subject, he
says: "Webster's consistency stands like
a rock on the shore after the fretful waves
are tired with beating upon it in vain."<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span>Mr. E. P. Wheeler, concluding a masterly
sketch of Daniel Webster, setting forth his
services as statesman and expounder of
the Constitution, and not deigning to notice
the partisan charges against him, concludes
with these words:</p>

<p>"Great men elevate and ennoble their
countrymen. In the glory of Webster we
find the glory of our whole country."</p>

<p>The story of Daniel Webster and his great
speech in 1850 has been told at some length
because it is instructive. The historians who
had set themselves to the task of upholding
the idea that it was the aggressiveness of the
South, during the controversy over slavery,
and not that of the North, that brought
on secession and war, could not make good
their contention while Daniel Webster and
his speech for "the Constitution and the
Union" stood in their way. They, therefore,
wrote the great statesman "down and
out," as they conceived. But Webster and
that speech still stand as beacon lights in
the history of that crusade. The attack
came from the North. The South, standing
for its constitutional rights in the Union,
was the conservative party. Southern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span>
leaders, it is true, were, during the controversy
over slavery, often aggressive, but
they were on the defensive-aggressive, just
as Lee was when he made his campaign into
Pennsylvania for the purpose of stopping
the invasion of his own land; and the South
lost in her political campaign just for the
same reason that Lee lost in his Gettysburg
campaign: numbers and resources were
against her. "The stars in their courses
fought against Sisera."</p>

<p>Mr. Webster in his great speech for "the
Constitution and the Union," as became a
great statesman pleading for conciliation,
measured the terms in which he condemned
"personal liberty" laws and Abolitionism.
But afterward, irritated by the attacks
made upon him, he naturally spoke out
more emphatically. McMaster quotes several
expressions from his speeches and letters
replying to these assaults, and says: "His
hatred of Abolitionists and Free-soilers grew
stronger and stronger. To him these men
were a 'band of sectionalists, narrow of
mind, wanting in patriotism, without a
spark of national feeling, and quite ready
to see the Union go to pieces if their own<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span>
selfish ends were gained.'" Such, if this is
a fair summing up of his views, was Webster's
final opinion of those who were
carrying on the great anti-slavery crusade.<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a></p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER VII</h2>

<h3>EFFORTS FOR PEACE</h3>


<p>The desire for peace in 1850 was wide-spread.
Union loving people, North
and South, hoped that the Compromise
would result in a cessation of the strife that
had so long divided the section; and the
election of Franklin Pierce, in 1852, as
President, on a platform strongly approving
that Compromise, was promising. But
anti-slavery leaders, instead of being convinced
by such arguments as those of Webster,
were deeply offended by the contention
that legislators, in passing personal liberty
laws, had violated their oaths to support
the Constitution. They were angered also
by the presumptuous attempt to "arrest
the whole anti-slavery movement."</p>

<p>The new fugitive slave law was stringent;
it did not give jury trial; it required
bystanders to assist the officers in "slave-catching,"
etc. For these and other reasons
the law was assailed as unconstitutional.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span>
All these contentions were overruled by
the Supreme Court when a case eventually
came before it. The court decided that
the act was, in all its provisions, fully
authorized by the Constitution.<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> But in
their present mood, no law that was efficient
would have been satisfactory to the
multitudes of people, by no means all
"Abolitionists," who had already made up
their minds against the "wicked" provision
of the Constitution that required the delivery
of fugitive slaves. This deep-seated
feeling of opposition to the return to their
masters of escaping slaves was soon to be
wrought up to a high pitch by a novel that
went into nearly every household throughout
the North&mdash;"Uncle Tom's Cabin." On
its appearance the poet Whittier, who had
so ferociously attacked Webster in the verses
quoted in the last chapter, "offered up
thanks for the fugitive slave law, for it gave
us 'Uncle Tom's Cabin.'"</p>

<p>Rufus Choate, a celebrated lawyer and
Whig leader, is reported to have said of
"Uncle Tom's Cabin": "That book will
make two millions of Abolitionists." Drawing,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span>
as it did, a very dark picture of slavery,
it aroused sympathy for the escaping slave
and pictured in glowing colors the dear,
sweet men and women who dared, for his
sake, the perils of the road in the darkness
of night and all the dangers of the law.
Mrs. Stowe was <i>making heroes of law-breakers,
preaching the higher law</i>.</p>

<p>Mrs. Stowe declared she had not written
the book for political effect; she certainly
did not anticipate the marvellous results
that followed it. That book made vast
multitudes of its readers ready for the new
sectional and anti-slavery party that was to
be organized two years after its appearance.
It was the most famous and successful novel
ever written. It was translated into every
language that has a literature, and has been
more read by American people than any
other book except the Bible. As a picture
of what was conceivable under the laws
relating to slavery there was a basis for it.
Though there were laws limiting the master's
power, cruelty was nevertheless possible.</p>

<p>Here, then, Mrs. Stowe's imagination had
full scope. Her book, however, has in it
none of the strident harshness, none of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span>
purblind ferocity of Garrison, in whose eyes
every slave-holder was a fiend. "Uncle
Tom's Cabin" assailed a system; it did not
assault personally, as the arch-agitator did,
every man and woman to whom slaves had
come, whether by choice or chance. Light
and shadow and the play of human nature
made Mrs. Stowe's picture as attractive in
many of its pages as it was repulsive and
unfair in others. Mrs. Shelby was a type of
many a noble mistress, a Christian woman,
and when financial misfortunes compelled
the sale of the Shelby slaves and the separation
of families, we have not only what
might have been, but what sometimes was,
one of the evils of slavery, which, by reason
of the prevailing agitation, the humanity
of the age could not remedy. But Mrs.
Stowe's slave-master, Legree, was impossible.
The theory was inconceivable that
it was cheaper to work to death in seven
years a slave costing a thousand dollars,
than to work him for forty years. Millions
of our people, however, have accepted
"Uncle Tom" as a fact, and have wept over
him; they have accepted also as a fact the
monster Legree.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span>"Uncle Tom's Cabin" lives to-day as a
classic on book shelves and as a popular
play. The present generation get most of
their opinions about slavery as it was in
the South from its pages, and not one in
ten thousand of those who read it ever
thinks of the inconsistency between the
picture of slavery drawn there and that
other picture, which all the world now knows
of&mdash;the Confederate soldier away in the
army, his wife and children at home faithfully
protected by slaves&mdash;not a case of
violence, not even a single established case,
during four years, although there were four
millions of negroes in the South, of that
crime against white women that, after the
reconstruction had demoralized the freedmen,
became so common in that section.</p>

<p>The unwavering fidelity during the four
years of war of so many slaves to the families
of their absent masters, and the fact that
those who, during that war, left their homes
to seek their freedom invariably went without
doing any vengeful act, is a phenomenon
that speaks for itself. It tells of kindly relations
between master and slave. It is not
to be denied that where the law gave so<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span>
much power to the master there were individual
instances of cruelty, nor is it supposable
that there were not many slaves
who were revengeful; but at the same time
there was, quite naturally, among slaves
who were all in like case, a more clannish
and all-pervading public opinion than could
have been found elsewhere. It was that all-pervading
and rigid standard of kindly feeling
among the slaves to their masters that
made the rule universal&mdash;fidelity toward the
master's family, at least to the extent of
inflicting no injury.</p>

<p>What a surprise to many this conduct of
the slave was may be gathered from a telling
Republican speech made by Carl Schurz
during the campaign of 1860.<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> A devotee
of liberty, recently a revolutionist in his
native land, and, like other foreigners, disregarding
all constitutional obstacles, Mr.
Schurz had naturally espoused the cause of
anti-slavery in this country. He had absorbed
the views of his political associates
and now contended that secession was an
empty threat and that secession was impossible.
"The mere anticipation of a negro<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span>
insurrection," he said, "will paralyze the
whole South." And, after ridiculing the
alarm created by the John Brown invasion,
the orator said that in case of a war between
the South and the North, "they will not
have men enough to quiet their friends at
home; what will they have to oppose to the
enemy? Every township will want its home
regiment; every plantation its garrison; and
what will be left for its field army?"</p>

<p>Slavery in the South eventually proved
to be, instead of a weakness, an element
of strength to the Confederates, and Mr.
Lincoln finally felt himself compelled to
issue his proclamation of emancipation as
a military necessity&mdash;the avowed purpose
being to deprive the Confederates of the
slaves who were by their labor supporting
their armies in the field.</p>

<p>The faithfulness during the war of the
slave to his master has been a lesson to the
Northerner, and it has been a lesson, too, to
the Southerner. It argues that the danger
of bloody insurrections was perhaps not
as great as had been apprehended where
incendiary publications were sent among
them. That danger, however, did exist, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span>
if the fear of it was exaggerated, it was
nevertheless real, and was traceable to the
Abolitionists.</p>

<p>The rights of the South in the territories
had now been discussed for years and
Stephen A. Douglas, a Democratic senator
from Illinois, had reached the conclusion
that under the Constitution Southerner and
Northerner had exactly the same right to
carry their property, whatever it might be,
into the territories, which had been purchased
with the common blood and treasure
of both sections, a view afterward sustained
by the Supreme Court of the United States
in the Dred Scott case. Douglas, "entirely
of his own motion,"<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> introduced, and
Congress passed, such a bill&mdash;the Kansas-Nebraska
act. The new act replaced the
Missouri Compromise. This the Southerners
considered had been a dead letter for
years. Every "personal liberty" law passed
by a Northern State was a violation of it.</p>

<p>Ambition was now playing its part in the
sectional controversy. Douglas was a Democrat
looking to the presidency and had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span>
here made a bid for Southern support. On
the other hand was Seward, an "old line
Whig," aspiring to the same office. The
South had been the dominant element in
national politics and the North was getting
tired of it. Seward's idea was to organize
all the anti-slavery voters and to appeal at
the same time to the pride and jealousy of
the North as a section.</p>

<p>The immediate effect of the Kansas-Nebraska
act was to aggravate sectionalism.
It opened up the territory of Kansas, allowing
it to come into the Union with or without
slavery, as it might choose. Slave State
and free State adventurers rushed into
the new territory and struggled, and even
fought, for supremacy. The Southerners
lost. Their resources could not match the
means of organized anti-slavery societies,
and the result was an increase, North and
South, of sectional animosity.</p>

<p>The overwhelming defeat of the old Whig
party in 1852 presaged its dissolution. Until
that election, both the Whig and Democratic
parties had been national, each endeavoring
to hold and acquire strength,
North and South, and each combating, as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span>
best it could, the spirit of sectionalism that
had been steadily growing in the North, and
South as well, ever since the rise of Abolitionism.
Both these old parties had watched
with anxiety the increase of anti-slavery
sentiment in the North. Both parties
feared it. Alliance with the anti-slavery
North would deprive a party of support
South and denationalize it. For years prior
to 1852 the drift of Northern voters who
were opposed to slavery had been as to
the two national parties toward the Whigs,
and the tendency of conservative Northerners
had been toward the Democratic party.
Thus the great body of the Whig voters in
the North had become imbued with anti-slavery
sentiments, and now, with no hope
of victory as a national party and left in a
hopeless minority, the majority of that old
party in that section were ready to join a
sectional party when it should be formed
two years later. William H. Seward was
still a Whig when he made in the United
States Senate his anti-slavery "higher law"
speech of 1850.</p>

<p>The Kansas-Nebraska act was a political
blunder. The South, on any dispassionate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span>
consideration, could not have expected to
make Kansas a slave State. The act was a
blunder, too, because it gave the opponents
of the Democratic party a plausible pretext
for the contention, which they put
forth then and which has been persisted in
till this day, that the new Republican party,
immediately thereafter organized, was called
into existence by, and only by, the Kansas-Nebraska
act.</p>

<p>As far back as 1850 it was clear that a new
party, based on the anti-slavery sentiment
that had been created by twenty years
of agitation, was inevitable. Mr. Rhodes,
speaking of conditions then, says: "It was,
moreover, obvious to an astute politician
like Seward, and probably to others, that a
dissolution of parties was imminent; that
to oppose the extension of slavery, <i>the different
anti-slavery elements must be organized
as a whole</i>; it might be called Whig or some
other name, but it would be based on the
principle of the Wilmot proviso"<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a>&mdash;the
meaning of which was, no more slave
States.</p>

<p>Between 1850 and the passage of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span>
Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854, new impulse
had been given anti-slavery sentiment by
fierce assaults on the new fugitive slave law
and, as has been seen, by "Uncle Tom's
Cabin." The Kansas-Nebraska act did
serve as a cry for the rallying of all anti-slavery
voters. That was all. It was a
drum-call, in answer to which soldiers already
enlisted fell into ranks, under a new
banner. Any other drum-call&mdash;the application
of another slave State for admission
into the Union&mdash;would have served quite
as well. Thus the Republican party came
into existence in 1854. Mr. Rhodes sums up
the reason for the existence of the new party
and what it subsequently accomplished
in the following pregnant sentence, "The
moral agitation had accomplished its work,
the cause (of anti-slavery) ... was to be
consigned to a political party that brought to
a successful conclusion the movement begun
by the moral sentiment of the community,"<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a>&mdash;which
successful conclusion was, of course,
<i>the freeing of the slaves by a successful war</i>.</p>

<p>For a time the new Republican party
had a powerful competitor in another new<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span>
organization. This was the American or
Know-Nothing party. This other aspirant
for power made an honest effort to revitalize
the old Whig party under a new name and,
by gathering in all the conservatives North
and South, to put an end to sectionalism.
Its signal failure conveys an instructive lesson.
After many and wide-spread rumors
of its coming, the birth of the American
party was formally announced in 1854. It
had been organized in secret and was bound
together with oaths and passwords; its
members delighted to mystify inquirers by
refusing to answer questions, and soon they
got the name of "Know-Nothings." The
party had grown out of the "Order of the
Star Spangled Banner," organized in 1850
to oppose the spread of Catholicism and
indiscriminate immigration&mdash;the two dangers
that were said to threaten American
institutions.</p>

<p>The American party made its appeal:
For the Union and against sectionalism;
for Protestantism, the faith of the Fathers,
against Catholicism that was being imported
by foreigners; its shibboleth was "America
for the Americans."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span>The Americans or Know-Nothings everywhere
put out in 1854 full tickets and
showed at once surprising strength. In the
fall elections of that year they polled over
one-fourth of all the votes in New York, two-fifths
in Pennsylvania, and over two-thirds
in Massachusetts, where they made a clean
sweep of the State and Federal offices.<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a></p>

<p>They struck directly at sectionalism by
exacting of their adherents the following
oath:</p>

<p>"You do further swear that you will not
vote for any one ... whom you know or
believe to be in favor of a dissolution of the
Union ... or who is endeavoring to produce
that result."</p>

<p>The effect of this oath at the South was
almost magical. The Whig party there
was speedily absorbed by the Americans,
and Southern Democrats by thousands
joined the new party that promised to save
the Union.<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> But the attitude of the Northern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span>
and Southern members of the American
party soon became fundamentally different.
Southerners saw their Northern allies in
Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts passing
"personal liberty" laws.<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a></p>

<p>The Know-Nothings were strong enough
in the elections of 1855 to directly check the
progress of the new Republican party; but
the American party, though it succeeded in
electing a Speaker of the national House
of Representatives in February, 1856, soon
afterward went down to defeat. Even
though led by such patriots as John Bell, of
Tennessee, and Edward Everett, of Massachusetts,
it could not stand against the
storm of passion that had been aroused by
the crusade against slavery.</p>

<p>There was a fierce and protracted struggle
between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery
men in Kansas for possession of the territorial
government. Rival constitutions were
submitted to Congress, and the debates
over these were extremely bitter. In their
excitement the Democrats again delighted
their adversaries by committing what now
seems to have been another blunder. They<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span>
advocated the admission of Kansas under
the "Lecompton Constitution." A review
of the conflicting evidence appears to show
that the Southerners were fairly outnumbered
in Kansas and that the Lecompton
Constitution did not express the will of the
people.<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a></p>

<p>While "the war in Kansas" was going on,
Charles Sumner, an Abolitionist from Massachusetts,
delivered in the Senate a speech
of which he wrote his friends beforehand:
"I shall pronounce the most thorough Philippic
ever delivered in a legislative body."
He was a classical scholar. <i>His purpose was
to stir up in the North a greater fury against
the South than Demosthenes had aroused in
Athens against its enemies, the Macedonians.</i>
His speech occupied two days, May 28 and
29, 1855. At its conclusion, Senator Cass,
of Michigan, arose at once and pronounced
it "the most un-American and unpatriotic
that ever grated on the ears of this high
body." The speech attacked, without any
sufficient excuse, the personal character of
an absent senator, Butler of South Carolina,
a gentleman of high character and older<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span>
than Sumner. Among other unfounded
charges, it accused him of falsehood. Preston
Brooks, a representative from South
Carolina, attacked Sumner in the Senate
chamber during a recess of that body and
beat him unmercifully with a cane. The
provocation was bitter, indeed, but Brooks's
assault was unjustifiable. Nevertheless, the
exasperated South applauded it, while the
North glorified Sumner as a martyr for free
speech.</p>

<hr style="width: 45%;" />

<p>In less than two years the new Republican
party had absorbed all the Abolition voters,
and in the election of 1856 was in the field
with its candidates for the presidency and
vice-presidency&mdash;Fremont and Dayton&mdash;upon
a platform declaring it the duty of
Congress to abolish in the territories "those
twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and
slavery."</p>

<p>Excitement during that election was intense.
Rufus Choate, the great Massachusetts
lawyer, theretofore a Whig, voiced
the sentiment of conservatives when he said
it was the "duty of every one to prevent the
madness of the times from working its maddest<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span>
act&mdash;the permanent formation and the
actual present triumph of a party which
knows one-half of America only to hate it,"
etc.</p>

<p>Senator Toombs, of Georgia, said: "The
object of Fremont's friends is the conquest
of the South. I am content that they shall
own us when they conquer us."</p>

<p>The Democrats elected Buchanan; Democrats
174 electoral votes; Republicans 74,
all Northern; and the Know-Nothings,
combined with a remnant of Whigs, 8.</p>

<p>The work of sectionalism was nearly
completed.</p>

<p>The extremes to which some of the Southern
people now resorted show the madness of
the times. They encouraged filibustering
expeditions to capture Cuba and Nicaragua.
These wild ventures were absolutely indefensible.
They had no official sanction and
were only spontaneous movements, but they
met with favor from the Southern public,
the outgrowth of a feeling that, if these
countries should be captured and annexed
as slave States, the South could the better,
by their aid, defend its rights in the Union.
<i>The Wanderer</i> and one or two other vessels,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span>
contrary to the laws of the United States,
imported slaves from Africa, and when the
participants were, some of them, indicted,
Southern juries absolutely refused to convict.</p>

<div class="poem">
<span class="i0">"Judgment had fled to brutish beasts,</span><br />
<span class="i1">And men had lost their reason."</span>
</div>

<p>When later the Southern States had seceded
and formed a government of their
own their constitution absolutely prohibited
the slave traffic.</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER VIII</h2>

<h3>INCOMPATIBILITY OF SLAVERY AND
FREEDOM</h3>


<p>That it was possible for slave States
and free States to coexist under our
Federal Constitution was the belief of its
framers and of most of our people down to
1861. The first to announce the absolute
impossibility of such coexistence seems to
have been William Lloyd Garrison. In
1840, at Lynn, Massachusetts, the Essex
County Anti-Slavery Society adopted this
resolution, offered by him:</p>

<p>"That freedom and slavery are natural
and irreconcilable enemies; that it is morally
impossible for them to endure together in
the same nation, and that the existence of
the one can only be secured by the destruction
of the other."<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a></p>

<p>Garrison's remedy was disunion. Near
that time his paper's motto was "No Union
with Slave-Holders."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span>The next to announce the idea of the incompatibility
of slave States and free States
seems to have been one who did not dream
of disunion. No such thought was in the
mind of Abraham Lincoln when, in a speech
at Springfield, Illinois, June 15, 1858, he
said:</p>

<p>"<i>A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I believe this government cannot endure permanently
half slave and half free. I do not expect
the Union to be divided. It will become
one thing or the other.</i> Either the opponents
of slavery will arrest the further spread of
it, and place it where the public mind will
rest in the belief that <i>it is in the course of
ultimate extinction</i>; or its advocates will push
it forward until it shall become alike lawful
in all the States&mdash;old as well as new&mdash;North
as well as South."</p>

<p>When the Southerners read that statement
they concluded that, as Mr. Lincoln
knew very well that the South could not, if
it would, force slavery on the North, he
was announcing the intention of his party
to place slavery "in course of ultimate extinction,"
constitution or no constitution.</p>

<p>Senator Seward, at Rochester, New York,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span>
some weeks later, reannounced the doctrine,
declaring that the contest was "an irrepressible
conflict between opposing and enduring
forces; and it means that the United
States <i>must and will</i>, sooner or later, become
either an entirely slave-holding nation or
entirely a free labor nation."</p>

<p>The utterances of Lincoln and Seward
were distinctly radical. The question was,
would this radical idea ultimately dominate
the Republican party?</p>

<p>Less than eighteen months after the announcement
in 1858 of the doctrine of the
"irrepressible conflict," John Brown raided
Virginia to incite insurrections. With a few
followers and 1,300 stands of arms for the
slaves who were to join him, he captured the
United States arsenal at Harper's Ferry.
Only a few slaves came to him and, after a
brief struggle, with some bloodshed, Brown
was captured, tried by a jury, and hanged.</p>

<p>In the South the excitement was intense;
the horror and indignation in that section
it is impossible to describe. Brown was already
well known to the public. He was
not a lunatic. Not long before this, in Kansas,
"at the head of a small group of men,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span>
including two of his sons and a son-in-law,
he went at night down Pottowattamie
Creek, stopping at three houses. The men
who lived in them were well known pro-slavery
men; they seem to have been rough
characters; their most specific offence (according
to Sanborn, Brown's biographer and
eulogist) was the driving from his home, by
violent threats, of an inoffensive old man.
John Brown and his party went down the
creek, called at one after the other of three
houses, took five men away from their
wives and children, and deliberately shot
one and hacked the others to death with
swords."<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a></p>

<p>Quite a number of people, some of them
men of eminence in the North, aided Brown
in his enterprise. Among the men of repute
were Gerrit Smith, a former candidate for
the presidency; and Theodore Parker, Dr.
Howe, and Thomas Wentworth Higginson,
of Boston, who were all members of a "secret
committee to collect money and arms
for the expedition." With them was F. S.
Sanborn, who has since the war vauntingly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span>
revealed the scheme in his "Life of John
Brown."<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p>

<p>Sanborn intimates that Henry Wilson,
subsequently vice-president, was more or
less privy to the design.<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> At various places
in the North church bells were tolled on
the day of John Brown's execution; meetings
were held and orators extolled him as
a martyr. Emerson, the greatest thinker in
all that region, declared that if John Brown
was hanged he would glorify the gallows as
Jesus glorified the cross; and now many
Southern men who loved the Union reluctantly
concluded that separation was inevitable.
John Bell, of Tennessee, Union
candidate for President in 1860, is said to
have cried like a child when he heard of
Brown's raid.</p>

<p>The great body of the Northern people
condemned John Brown's expedition without
stint. Edward Everett, voicing the
opinion of all who were really conservative,
said of Brown's raid, in a speech at Faneuil
Hall, that its design was to "let loose the
hell hounds of a servile insurrection, and to
bring on a struggle which, for magnitude,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span>
atrocity, and horror, would have stood alone
in the history of the world."</p>

<p>But they who had been preaching the
"irrepressible conflict," they whom public
opinion might hold responsible, did not feel
precisely as Mr. Everett did. They were
concerned about political consequences, as
appears from a letter written somewhat
later during the State canvass in New York
by Horace Greeley to Schuyler Colfax.
Horace Greeley afterward proved himself
in many ways a broad-minded, magnanimous
man, but now he wrote: "Do not be
downhearted about the old John Brown
business. Its present effect is bad and throws
a heavy load on us in this State ... <i>but
the ultimate effect is to be good.... It will
drive the slave power to new outrages.... It
presses on the irrepressible conflict</i>."<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p>

<p>The fact that such a man as Horace Greeley
was taking comfort because that outrage
would "drive the slave power to new outrages"<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a>
throws a strong side-light on the
tactics of the anti-slavery leaders. They
were following Garrison. Garrison, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span>
father of the Abolitionists, had begun his
campaign against slave-holders by "exhausting
upon them the vocabulary of
abuse," and he had shown "a genius for
infuriating his antagonists."<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> The new
party&mdash;his successor and beneficiary, was
now felicitating itself that ultimate good
would come, even from the John Brown
raid. It would further their policy of
"<i>driving the slave power to new outrages</i>."</p>

<p>People at the North, conservatives and
all, held their breath for a time after Harper's
Ferry. Then the crusade went on, in
the press, on the rostrum, and from the
pulpit, with as much virulence as ever. No
assertion was too extravagant for belief,
provided only its tendency was to disparage
the Southern white man or win sympathy
for the negro. From the noted "Brownlow
and Pryne's Debate," Philadelphia
(<i>Lippincott</i>), we take the following as a
specimen of the abuse a portion of the
Northern press was then heaping on the
Southern people. Brownlow quotes from the
<i>New York Independent</i> of November, 1856:</p>

<p>"The mass of the population of the Atlantic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span>
Coast of the slave region of the South
are descended from the transported convicts
and outcasts of Great Britain....
Oh, glorious chivalry and hereditary aristocracy
of the South! Peerless first families
of Virginia and Carolina!... Progeny of
the highwaymen, and horse-thieves and
sheep-stealers, and pick-pockets of Old
England!"</p>

<p>The South was not to be outdone, and
here was a retort from <i>De Bow's Review</i>,
July, 1858:</p>

<p>"The basis, framework, and controlling
influence of Northern sentiment is Puritanism&mdash;the
old Roundhead, rebel refuse of
England, which ... has ever been an unruly
sect of Pharisees ... the worst bigots
on earth and the meanest of tyrants when
they have the power to exercise it."<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a></p>

<p>And the non-slave-holder of the South
did not escape from the pitiless pelting of
the storm. He was sustaining the slave-holder,
and this was not only an offence
but a puzzle.</p>

<p>It became quite common in the North for
anti-slavery writers to classify the non-slave-holding<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span>
agricultural classes of the South as
"poor whites," thus distinguishing them
from the slave-holders; and the idea is current
even now in that section that as a class
the lordly slave-holder despised his poor
white fellow-citizen. The average non-slave-holding
Southern agriculturist, whether
farming for himself or for others, was a type
of man that no one who knew him, least of
all the Southern slave-holder, his neighbor
and political ally, could despise. Educated
and uneducated, these people were independent
voters and honest jurors, the very
backbone of Southern State governments
that always will be notable in history for
efficiency, purity, and economy.</p>

<p>This class of voters, however, came in for
much abuse in the literature of the crusade.
They were all lumped together as "poor
whites," sometimes as "poor white trash,"
and the belief was inculcated that their imperious
slave-holding neighbors applied that
term to them. "Poor white trash," on its
face, is "nigger talk," caught up, doubtless,
from Southern negro barbers and bootblacks,
and used by writers who, from information
thus derived, pictured Southern society.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span>This is a sample of the numerous errors
that crept into the literature of one section
of our Union about social conditions in the
other during that memorable sectional controversy.
It is on a par with the idea that
prevailed, in some quarters in the South,
that the Yankee cared for nothing but
money, and would not fight even for that.</p>

<p>Southerners were practically all of the old
British stock. Homogeneity, common memories
of the wars of the Revolution, of 1812,
and with Mexico, and Fourth of July celebrations,
all tended to bind together strongly
the Southern slave-holder and non-slave-holder.</p>

<p>There were, of course, many classes of
non-slave-holders&mdash;the thrifty farmer, the
unthrifty, and the laborer who worked for
hire, but more frequently for "shares of the
crop." Then there were others&mdash;the inhabitants
of the "sand-hills" and the mountain
regions. These people were, as a rule, very
shiftless; too lazy to work, they were still
too proud to beg, as the very poor usually
do in other countries. The mountaineers
were hardier than the sand-hillers, and it
was from the mountains of Tennessee, Alabama,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span>
etc., that the Union armies gathered
many recruits. This was not, as is often
stated, because mountaineers love liberty
better than others, but because these mountaineers
never came into contact with either
master or slave. The crusade against slavery,
therefore, did not threaten to affect
their personal status.</p>

<p>There were very few public schools in the
South, but in the cities and towns there were
academies and high-schools, and the country
was dotted with "old field schools," most of
them not good, but sufficient to train those
who became efficient leaders in social, religious,
and political circles.</p>

<p>The wonderful progress made by the
Southern white man during the last thirty-five
years is by no means all due to the abolition
of slavery. Labor, it is true, is held
in higher esteem. This is a great gain, but
still more is due to improved transportation,
to better prices for timber and cotton,
to commercial fertilizers, and an awakening
interest in education. The South is also
developing its mineral resources and is now
rapidly forging to the front. The white
man is making more cotton than the negro.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span>But the very strongest bond that bound
together the Southern slave-holder and non-slave-holder
was the pride of caste. Every
white man was a freeman; he belonged to
the superior, the dominant race.</p>

<p>Edmund Burke, England's philosopher-statesman,
in his speech on "Conciliation
with America" at the beginning of our Revolution,
complimented in high terms the
spirit of liberty among the dissenting protestants
of New England. Then, alluding to
the hopes indulged in by some gentlemen,
that the Southern colonies would be loyal
to Great Britain because the Church of
England had there a large establishment,
he said: "It is certainly true. There is,
however, a circumstance attending these
colonies which in my opinion fully counter-balances
this difference, and makes the
spirit of liberty still more high and haughty
than in those to the Northward. It is, that
in Virginia and Carolina they have a vast
multitude of slaves. Where this is the case,
in any part of the world, <i>those who are free
are by far the most proud and jealous of their
freedom</i>. Freedom with them is not only an
enjoyment, but a kind of <i>rank and privilege</i>."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span>The privilege of belonging to the superior
race and of being free was a bond that tied
all Southern whites together, and it was
infinitely strengthened by a crusade that
seemed, from a Southern stand-point, to
have for its purpose the levelling of all distinctions
between the white man and the
slave hard by.</p>

<p>Socially, there were classes in the South
as there are everywhere. The controlling
class consisted of professional men, lawyers,
physicians, teachers, and high-class merchants
(though the merchant prince was
unknown), and slave-holders. Slave-holders
were, of course, divided into classes, chiefly
two: those who had acquired culture and
breeding from slave-holding ancestors, and
those who had little culture or breeding,
principally the newly rich. It was the
former class that gave tone to Southern
society. The performance of duty always
ennobles, and this is especially true of duty
done by superiors to inferiors. The master
and mistress of a slave establishment were
responsible for the moral and material welfare
of their dependents. When they appreciated
and fulfilled their responsibilities, as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span>
the best families usually did, there was found
what was called the Southern aristocracy.
The habit of command, assured position, and
high ideals, coming down, as these often did,
with family traditions, gave these favored
people ease and grace, and they were social
favorites, both in the North and Europe.
At home they dispensed a hospitality that
made the South famous. They were exemplars,
giving tone to society, and it was
notable that breeding and culture, and not
wealth, gave tone to Southern society.
There was perhaps in Virginia and South
Carolina an aristocracy that was somewhat
more exclusive than elsewhere.</p>

<p>Slavery was at its worst when masters
were not equal to their responsibilities, for
want of either culture or Christian feeling,
or both, as also when, as was now and then
the case, a brutal overseer was in charge of
a plantation far away from the eye of the
owner.</p>

<p>The influence of the slave-holder and his
lavish hospitality did not make for thrift
among his less fortunate brethren; it made
perhaps for prodigality, but it also made for
a high sense of honor among slave-holders<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span>
and non-slave-holders as well. Both slave-holders
and non-slave-holders were extremely
punctilious. Money did not count
where honor was concerned, and Southerners
do well to be proud of the record in this
respect that has been made by their statesmen.</p>

<p>Among the more cultured classes in the
period here treated of, the duel prevailed, a
practice now very properly condemned. But
it made for a high sense of honor. Demagogues
were not common when a false statement
on "the stump" was apt to result in
a mortal combat.</p>

<p>Among the less cultured classes insult
was answered with a blow of the fist. Fisticuffs,
too, were quite common to ascertain
who was the "best man" in a community
or county. The rules were not according to
the Marquis of Queensbury, but they always
secured "fair play."<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p>

<p>This combative spirit of Southerners was
undoubtedly a result of the spirit of caste
that came from slavery. Sometimes it was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span>
unduly exhibited in Congress during the
controversy over slavery and State's rights,
and excited Southerners occasionally subjected
themselves to the charge of arrogance.</p>

<p>One of the great evils of slavery was that,
as a rule, neither the slave-holder nor the
non-slave-holder properly appreciated the
dignity of labor. A witty student at a
Southern university said that his chief objection
to college life was that he could not
have a negro to learn his lessons for him.
The slave-holder quite generally disdained
manual labor, and the non-slave-holder was
also inclined to deprecate the necessity that
compelled him to work.</p>

<p>The sudden abolition of slavery was the
ruin of thousands of innocent families&mdash;a
loss for which there was no recompense.
But for the South at large, and especially
to this generation, it is a blessing that all
classes have come to see, that to labor and
to be useful is not only a duty, but a privilege.</p>

<p>Political conditions, North and South,
differed widely. The North was the majority
section. Its majority could protect its
rights; recourse to the limitations of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span>
Federal Constitution was seldom necessary.
The South, a minority section, with a devotion
that never failed, held high the "Constitution
of the fathers, the palladium" of
its rights. To one section the Constitution
was the bond of a Federal Union that was
the security for interstate commerce and
national prosperity; to the other it was a
guaranty of peace abroad and local self-government
at home. In the one section
the brightest minds were for the most part
engaged in business or in literary pursuits;
in the other, politics absorbed much of its
talent. In the North the staple of political
discussion was usually some business or
moral question, while in the South the political
arena was a great school in which the
masses were not only educated in the history
of the formation of the Constitution,
but taught an affectionate regard for that
instrument as a revered "gift from the
fathers" and the only safeguard of American
liberty. Joint political discussions, which
were common between the ablest men of
opposing parties, were always numerously
attended, and the Federal Constitution was
an unfailing topic. The result was, an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[164]</a></span>
amount of political information in the average
Confederate soldier that the average
Union soldier in his business training had
never acquired, and a devotion of the Southerner
to the Constitution of his country
which even the ablest historians of to-day
have failed to comprehend.</p>

<p>It is often stated, as if it were an important
fact in the consideration of the great anti-slavery
crusade, that not many of the Abolitionists
were as radical as Garrison, and
that of the anti-slavery voters very few
favored social equality between whites and
blacks. Southerners did not stop to make
distinctions like these. They saw the Abolitionists
advocating mixed schools and favoring
laws authorizing mixed marriages; saw
them practising social equality; saw the
general trend in that direction; and so from
its very beginning the Republican party,
which had absorbed the Abolitionists, was
dubbed, North and South, the "Black Republican"
party.</p>

<p>The whites of the South believed that the
triumph of the "Black Republican" party,
as they called it, would be ultimately the
triumph of its most radical elements. Judge<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[165]</a></span>
Reagan, of Texas, United States congressman
in 1860-61, Confederate Postmaster-General,
later United States senator, and
always until 1860 an avowed friend of the
Union, in his farewell speech to the Congress
of the United States in January, 1861,
gave expression to this idea when he said:</p>

<p>"And now you tender to us the inhuman
alternative of unconditional submission to
<i>Republican rule on abolition principles, and
ultimately to free negro equality, and a government
of mongrels</i>, or a war of races on the
one hand, and on the other, secession and a
bloody and desolating civil war."<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a></p>

<p>Judge Reagan was expressing in Congress
the opinion that animated the Confederate
soldier in the war that was to follow secession,
an opinion the ex-Confederate did not
see much reason to change when the era of
Reconstruction had been reached, and the
ballot had been given to every negro, while
the leading whites were disfranchised.</p>

<p>In 1857 Hinton Rowan Helper, of North
Carolina, wrote a notable book to show that
slavery was a curse to the South, and especially
to the non-slave-holders. It was an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[166]</a></span>
appeal to the latter to become Abolitionists.
His arguments availed nothing; back
of his book was the Republican party,
now planting itself, as Garrison had planted
himself, on an extract from the first sentence
of the Declaration of Independence, "all
men are created equal." The Republican
contention was, in platforms and speeches,
that the Declaration of Independence covered
negroes as well as whites,<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> and Southern
whites, nearly all of Revolutionary stock,
resented the idea. They rebelled at the suggestion
that the signers, every one of whom,
save possibly those from Massachusetts,
represented slave-holding constituents, intended
to say that the negroes then in the
colonies were the equals of the whites. If
so, why were these negroes kept in slavery,
and why were they not immediately given
the right to vote, to sit on juries, to be educated,
and to intermarry with the whites?</p>

<p>All this, the Southerners said, as, indeed,
did many Northerners also, was to be the
logical outcome of the Republican doctrine,
that negroes and whites were equals. It is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[167]</a></span>
passing strange that modern historians so
often have failed to note that this thought
was in the minds of all the opponents of the
Republican party from the day of its birth&mdash;North
and South it was called the "Black
Republican" party. Douglas, in his debate
with Lincoln, gave it that name and
stood by it. In his speech at Jonesboro,
Illinois, September 15, 1858, he charges
the Republicans with advocating "negro
citizenship and negro equality, putting the
white man and the negro on the same basis
under the law."<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a></p>

<p>John C. Calhoun, in a memorial to the
Southern people in 1849, signed by many
other congressmen, had said that Northern
fanaticism would not stop at emancipation.
"Another step would be taken to raise them
[the negroes] to a political and social equality
with their former owners, by giving them
the right of voting and holding public office
under the Federal Government.... But
when raised to an equality they would
become the fast political associates of the
North, acting and voting with them on all
questions, and by this perfect union between<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[168]</a></span>
them holding the South in complete
subjection. <i>The blacks and the profligate
whites that might unite with them</i> would become
the principal recipients of Federal
patronage, and would, in consequence, be
raised above the whites of the South in the
social and political scale. We would, in a
word, change conditions with them, <i>a degradation
greater than has as yet fallen to the
lot of a free and enlightened people</i>."<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a></p>

<p>In the light of Reconstruction, this was
prophecy.</p>

<p>These words, once heard by a Southern
white man, of course sank into his heart.
They could never have been forgotten. The
argument of Helper fell on deaf ears. If
Helper had come with the promise (and an
assurance of its fulfilment) that the negroes,
when emancipated, would be sent to Liberia,
or elsewhere <i>out of the country</i>, the South
would have become Republicanized at once.
Even if the slave-holder had been unwilling,
the Southern non-slave-holder, with his
three, and often five, to one majority, would
have seen to it.</p>

<p>And it is not too much to say that if the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[169]</a></span>
negro had been, as the Abolitionists and
ultimately many Republicans contended he
was, the equal of the white man, Liberia
would have been a success. What a glorious
consummation of the dreams of statesmen
and philanthropists that would have been!
Abolitionists, unable to frustrate their
scheme, and the American negro, profiting
by the civilization here received from contact
with the white man, building by his
own energy happy homes for himself and
his kinsmen, and enjoying the blessings of
a great government of his own, in his own
great continent!</p>

<p>Africa with its vast resources is a prize
that all Europe is now contending for. It
is believed to be adapted even to white men.
Most assuredly, for the negro Liberia offered
far better opportunities than did the rocky
coast of New England to the white men who
settled it. Liberia had been carefully selected
as a desirable part of Africa. It was
an unequalled group of statesmen and philanthropists
that had planted the colony;
they provided for it and set it on its feet.
But it failed; failed just for the same reason
that prevented the aboriginal African<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[170]</a></span>
from catching on to the civilization that began
to develop thousands of years ago, close
by his side on the borders of the Mediterranean;
failed for the same reason that
Hayti, now free for a century, has failed.
The failure of the plan of the American Colonization
Society to repatriate the American
negro in Africa was due <i>primarily to the incapacity
of the negro</i>.</p>

<p>A very complete and convincing story
will be found in an article entitled "Liberia,
an Example of Negro Self-Government,"<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a>
by Miss Agnes P. Mahony, for five years a
missionary in that country. The author of
the article was a sympathizing friend. She
says: "In 1847 the colony was considered
healthy enough to stand alone.... So our
flag was lowered on the African continent,
and the protectors of the colony retired,
leaving the people to govern the country
in their own way." Then she recites that
in order to test their capacity for self-government
their constitution (1847) provided
that no white man should hold property
in the country; and to this Miss Mahony
traces the failure that followed. When she<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[171]</a></span>
wrote, the Liberian negroes, for fifty-nine
years under the protectorship of the United
States, had been troubled by no foreign
enemy; yet their failure was complete&mdash;not
a foot of railroad, no cable communication
with foreign countries, no telegraphic
communication with the interior, etc. Still
the devoted missionary thinks that Liberia
might prosper, if it could but have "<i>the encouraging
example of and contact with the
right kind of white men</i>."</p>

<hr style="width: 45%;" />

<p>The presidential campaign of 1860 was
very exciting. There were four tickets in
the field, Douglas and Johnson, Democrats;
Breckenridge and Lane, Democrats; Lincoln
and Hamlin, Republicans, and Bell and
Everett representing the "Constitutional
Union" party. As the election approached
it became apparent that the Republicans
were leading, and far-seeing men, like Samuel
J. Tilden, of New York, became much
alarmed for fear that the election of Lincoln
would bring about secession in the South.
Mr. Tilden, in view of the danger that to him
was apparent, wrote, shortly before the election,
to William Kent, of New York City,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[172]</a></span>
an open letter in which he earnestly urged
a combination in New York State of the
supporters of other candidates, in order to
defeat Abraham Lincoln. The letter was
so alarming that some of Tilden's friends
thought he had lost his balance; but now
that letter is regarded as a remarkable proof
of his sagacity. In the first volume of Mr.
Tilden's "Life and Letters," by Bigelow,
appears an "Appreciation" by James C.
Carter and an analysis of this letter. Of
this the following is a brief abstract: Mr.
Tilden first argued that two strictly sectional
parties, arrayed upon the question of
destroying an institution which one of them,
not unnaturally, regarded as essential to
self-existence, would bring war.</p>

<p>Then Mr. Tilden further said that if the
Republican party should be successful in
establishing its dominion over the South,
the national government in the Southern
States would cease to be self-government
and become a government of one people
over a distinct people, a thing impossible
with our race, except as a consequence of a
successful war, and even then incompatible
with our democratic institutions. He also<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[173]</a></span>
said: "I assert that a controversy between
powerful communities, organized into governments,
of a nature like that which now
divides the North and South, can be settled
only by convention or by war."</p>

<p>And again: "A condition of parties in
which the Federative Government shall be
carried on by a party, having no affiliations
in the Southern States, is impossible to continue.
Such a government would be out of
all relations to those States. It would have
neither the nerves of sensation, which convey
intelligence to the intellect of the body
politic, nor the ligaments and muscles,
which hold its parts together and move them
in harmony. It would be in substance the
government of one people by another people.
That system will not do for our race."</p>

<p>Mr. Tilden, when he spoke of "two sectional
parties arrayed upon the question of
destroying an institution," <i>viz.</i>, slavery, saw
the situation exactly as the South did. To
prove that the Republican party was looking
to the ultimate destruction of the institution,
Mr. Tilden cited the leadership of
Chase and his speeches in which he was propounding
the higher law theory; asserting<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[174]</a></span>
that the conflict was "irrepressible"; suggesting
the power of the North to amend
the Constitution, etc.</p>

<p>The South noted this, and it regarded, not
the platform, but the record of the Republican
party and of the statesmen the party
was following.</p>

<p>Long before 1860, that great American
scholar, George Ticknor, saw the dilemma
in which the North was involving itself
by its concern over slavery in the South,
and he thus stated it, in a letter to his
friend, William Ellery Channing, April 30,
1842:<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></p>

<p>"On the subject of our relations with
the South and its slavery, we must&mdash;as I
have always thought&mdash;do one of two things;
either keep honestly the bargain of the Constitution
as it shall be interpreted by the
authorities&mdash;of which the Supreme Court of
the United States is the chief and safest&mdash;or
declare honestly that we can no longer
in our conscience consent to keep it, and
break it."</p>

<p>The North had failed to "keep honestly
the bargain of the Constitution" by faithfully<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[175]</a></span>
delivering fugitive slaves and leaving
the question of slavery to be dealt with by
the States in which it existed, and was
now, in 1860, upon the other horn of the
dilemma&mdash;repudiating and denouncing a decision
of the Supreme Court, which, as Mr.
Ticknor had said, was the "chief and safest
authority." But during that campaign of
1860 very many, perhaps a majority of the
Republican voters, failed to realize what
their party was standing for. Indeed, down
to this day the members of that organization,
taught as they have been, indignantly
deny that a vote for Lincoln and Hamlin in
1860 looked to an interference with slavery
in the States.</p>

<p>But now Professor Emerson David Fite,
of Yale University, sees in 1911 what was
the underlying hope, and consequently the
ultimate aim, of the Republican party in
1860, exactly as the South saw it then. In
a powerful summing up of more evidence
than there is room to recite here, he says:
"The testimony of the Democracy and of
the leaders of the Republican party accords
well with the evidence of daily events in
<i>revealing Republican aggression</i>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[176]</a></span> <i>The party
hoped to destroy slavery, and this was something
new in a large political organization.</i>"<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a></p>

<p>That this party, when it should ultimately
come into full power, would, to carry out
the purpose which Professor Fite now sees,
ignore the Federal Constitution was, in
1860, evident to Southerners from the following
facts:</p>

<p>In 1841 the governor of Virginia demanded
of the governor of New York the
extradition of two men indicted in Virginia
for enticing away slaves from their masters.
Governor Seward, of New York, refused
the demand, on the ground that no
such offence existed in New York. This
case did not go to the courts, but in 1860
the governor of Kentucky made a similar
demand in a like case on the governor of
Ohio, who placed his refusal on the same
grounds as had Governor Seward in the
former case. The Supreme Court of the
United States in this case decided that the
governor of Ohio, in refusing to deliver up
the fugitive, was violating the Constitution.
The court further said:</p>

<p>"If the governor of Ohio refuses to <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[177]</a></span><i>discharge
this duty there is no power delegated to
the general government</i>, either through the judicial
department or any other department,
to use any coercive means to compel him."<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a></p>

<p>If these two governors had defied the
Federal Constitution, so had eleven State
legislatures. From 1854 to 1860, inclusive,
Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Kansas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, had
all passed new "personal liberty laws" to
abrogate the new fugitive slave law of 1850.</p>

<p>Of these laws Professor Alexander Johnston
said:</p>

<p>"There is absolutely no excuse for the
personal liberty laws. If the rendition of
fugitive slaves was a federal obligation, the
personal liberty laws were flat disobedience
to the law; if the obligation was upon the
States, they were a gross breach of good
faith, for they were intended and operated
to prevent rendition; and, in either case,
they were in violation of the Constitution."<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a></p>

<p>And now came the State of Wisconsin.
Its Supreme Court intervened and took from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[178]</a></span>
the hands of the federal authorities an alleged
fugitive slave. The Supreme Court of
the United States reversed the case and ordered
the slave back into the custody of the
United States marshal;<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> and thereupon the
General Assembly of Wisconsin expressly repudiated
the authority of the United States
Supreme Court. The Wisconsin assembly
asserted its right to nullify the Federal law,
basing its action on the Kentucky Resolutions
of 1798&mdash;a recrudescence of a doctrine
long since abandoned even in the South.</p>

<p>In reality all this defiance of the Constitution
of the United States by State executives,
State legislatures, and a State court,
was on the ground that whatever was dictated
by conscience to these officials was a
"higher law than the Constitution of the
United States"; and modern historians
recognize, as Tilden did, the leadership of
the statesman who in 1850 announced that
startling doctrine. It is Alexander Johnston
who says, "Seward's speeches in the Senate
made him the leader of the Republican
party from its first organization."<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[179]</a></span>To the minds of Southerners it seemed
clear that <i>if the Southern States desired to
preserve for themselves the Constitution of the
fathers, they must secede and set it up over a
government of their own</i>. This eleven of
these States did. Many of them were reluctant
to take the step; all their people
had loved the old Union, but they passed
their ordinances of secession, united as the
Confederate States of America, and their
officials took an oath to maintain inviolate
the old Constitution, which, with unimportant
changes in it, they had adopted.</p>

<p>The new government sent delegates to
ask that the separation should be peaceful.
The application was denied and the war
followed. Attempts to secede were made
in Kentucky and Missouri. In neither of
these States did the seceders get full control.
They were represented, however, in the Confederate
Congress by senators and representatives
elected by the troops from those
States that were serving in the Confederate
army.</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[180]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER IX</h2>

<h3>FOUR YEARS OF WAR</h3>


<p>The bitter fruits of anti-slavery agitation
were secession and four years
of bloody war. The Federal Government
waged war to coerce the seceding States to
remain in the Union. With the North it
was a war for the Union; the South was
fighting for independence&mdash;denominated by
Northern writers as "the Civil War." It
was in reality a war between the eleven
States which had seceded, as autonomous
States, and were fighting for independence,
as the Confederate States of America, against
the other twenty-two States, which, as the
United States of America, fought against secession
and for the Union of all the States.
It is true the States remaining in the Union
had with them the army and the navy
and the old government, but that government
could not, and did not, exercise its
functions within the borders of the seceded
States until by force of arms in the war<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[181]</a></span>
that was now waged it had conquered a
control. It was a war between the States
for such control; for independence on the
one hand, and for the Union on the other.
It was not, save in exceptional cases, a war
between neighbor and neighbor; it was a war
between States as entities, and therefore
not properly a civil war. The result of the
war did not change the principles upon
which it was fought, though it did decide
finally the issues that were involved, the
right of secession primarily, and slavery incidentally.</p>

<p>Jefferson Davis, afterward the much-loved
President of the Confederacy, in his
farewell speech in the United States Senate,
March 21, 1861, thus stated the case of the
South: "Then, senators, we recur to the
compact which binds us together. We recur
to the principles upon which this government
was founded, and <i>when you deny
them</i>, and when you deny to us the right
to withdraw from a Union which thus perverted
<i>threatens to be destructive of our rights,
we but tread in the path of our fathers when
we proclaim our independence and take the
hazard</i>. This is done not in hostility to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[182]</a></span>
others, not to injure any section of our country,
<i>not even for our own pecuniary benefit,
but from the high and solemn motive of defending
and protecting the rights we inherited and
which it is our duty to transmit unshorn to our
children</i>."</p>

<p>Southerners were, as Mr. Davis understood
it, treading in the path of their fathers
when they proclaimed their independence
and fought for the right of self-government.</p>

<p>Professor Fite, of Yale, justifies secession
on the following ground:</p>

<p>"In the last analysis the one complete
justification of secession was the necessity
of saving the vast property of slavery from
destruction; secession was a commercial
necessity designed to make those billions secure
from outside interference. Viewed in
this light, secession was right, for any people,
prompted by the commonest motives
of self-defence and with no moral scruples
against slavery, would have followed the
same course. The present generation of
Northerners, born and reared after the war,
must shake off their inherited political passions
and prejudices and pronounce the verdict
of justification for the South. Believing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[183]</a></span>
slavery to be right, it was the duty of
the South to defend it. It is time that the
words 'traitors,' 'conspirators,' 'rebels,' and
'rebellion' be discarded."<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a></p>

<p>These words of Professor Fite will waken
a responsive echo in the hearts of Southerners,
but Southerners place, and their fathers
planted, themselves on higher ground than
commercial considerations. The Confederates
were defending their inherited right of
local self-government and the Federal Constitution
that secured it. It was for these
rights that, as Mr. Davis had said, they were
willing to <i>follow the path their fathers trod</i>.</p>

<p>The preservation of the Union the North
was fighting for, was a noble motive; it
looked to the future greatness and glory
of the republic; but devotion to the Union
had been a growth, the product largely of a
single generation; the devotion of the South
to the right of local self-government was
an older and deeper conviction; it had been
bred in the bone for three generations; it
dated from Bunker Hill and Valley Forge
and Yorktown. Close as the non-slave-holders<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[184]</a></span>
of the South were to the slave-holders,
of the same British stock, and with
the same traditions, blood kinsmen as they
were, they might not have been willing to
dare all and do all for the protection of property
in which they were not interested; but
they were ready to, and they did, wage a
death struggle to maintain against a hostile
sectional majority, their inherited right to
govern themselves in their own way. Added
to this was the ever-present conviction of
Southerners all, that they were battling not
only for the supremacy of their race but for
the preservation of their homes. There was
a little ditty quite prevalent in the Army of
Northern Virginia, of which nothing is now
remembered except the refrain, but that of
itself speaks volumes. It ran:</p>

<div class="poem">
<span class="i0">"Do you belong to the rebel band</span><br />
<span class="i0">Fighting for your home?"</span>
</div>

<p>Northerners had, most of them, convinced
themselves that the South would never
dare to secede. The danger of servile insurrections,
if nothing else, would prevent it.<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[185]</a></span>Many Southerners, on the other hand, could
not see how, under the Constitution, the
North could venture on coercion.</p>

<p>But to the South the greatest surprise furnished
by the events of that era has been
Abraham Lincoln&mdash;as he appears now in
the light of history. What, in the minds of
Southerners, fixed his status personally, during
the canvass of 1860, was the statement
he had made in his speech at Chicago, preliminary
to his great debate with Douglas in
1858, that the Union could not "continue to
exist half slave and half free." And he was
now the candidate of the "Black Republican"
party, a party that was denouncing a
decision of the Supreme Court; that, in
nearly every State in the North, had nullified
the fugitive slave law, and that stood
for "negro equality," as the South termed it.</p>

<p>There were other statements by Mr. Lincoln
in that debate with Douglas that the
South has had especial reason to take note
of since the period of Reconstruction. At
Springfield, Illinois, September 18, 1858, he
said: "There is a physical difference between
the white and black races which, I
believe, will forever forbid the two races living<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[186]</a></span>
together on terms of social and political
equality, and, <i>inasmuch as they can not so
live, while they do live together there must be
the position of superior and inferior; and I,
as much as any other man, am in favor of
having that position assigned to the white man</i>."</p>

<p>The new Confederacy took the Constitution
of the United States, so modified as to
make it read plainly as Jefferson had expounded
it in the Kentucky Resolutions of
1798. Other changes were slight. The presidential
term was extended to six years and
the President was not to be re-eligible. The
slave trade was prohibited and Congress
was authorized to forbid the introduction
of slaves from the old Union.</p>

<p>Abraham Lincoln became President, with
a fixed resolve to preserve the Union but
with no intent to abolish slavery. Had the
war for the Union been as successful as he
hoped it would be, slavery would not have
been abolished by any act of his. It is clear
that, when inaugurated, he had not changed
his opinions expressed at Springfield, nor
those others, which, at Peoria, Illinois, on
October 16, 1854, he had stated thus:
"When our Southern brethren tell us they<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[187]</a></span>
are no more responsible for slavery than we
are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said
the institution exists and it is very difficult
to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can
understand and appreciate the saying. I
will surely not blame them for not doing
what I should not know how to do myself.
If all earthly power were given me, I should
not know what to do as to the institution.
My first impulse would be to free all the
slaves and send them to Liberia, their native
land."</p>

<p>This, he said, it was impracticable to do,
at least suddenly, and then proceeded: "To
free them all and keep them among us as
underlings&mdash;is it quite certain that this
would better their condition?... What
next? Free them and make them politically
and socially our equals?" This question he
answered in the negative, and continued:
"It does seem to me that systems of gradual
emancipation might be adopted, but for
their tardiness I will not undertake to judge
our brethren of the South."</p>

<p>In these extracts from his speeches we
find a central thread that runs through the
history of his whole administration. We see<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[188]</a></span>
it again when, pressed by extremists, Mr.
Lincoln said in an open letter to Horace
Greeley, August 22, 1862: "My paramount
object in this struggle is to save the Union,
and it is not either to save or to destroy
slavery. If I could save the Union without
freeing any slave I would do it; and if I
could save it by freeing all the slaves I
would do it; and if I could save it by freeing
some and leaving others alone, I would
also do that."</p>

<p>Indeed, Congress had, in 1861, by joint
resolution declared that the sole purpose of
the war was the preservation of the Union.
In no other way, and for no other purpose,
could the North at that time have been induced
to wage war against the South.</p>

<p>Abraham Lincoln, the President of the
United States, and Jefferson Davis, the
President of the Confederate States, were
both Kentuckians by birth, both Americans.
In the purity of their lives, public and private,
in patriotic devotion to the preservation
of American institutions as understood
by each of them, they were alike; but they
represented different phases of American
thought, and each was the creature more or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[189]</a></span>
less of his environment. Both were men of
commanding ability, but the destiny of each
was shaped by agencies that now seem to
have been directed by the hand of Fate.
Mr. Lincoln, by nature a political genius,
was carried to Illinois when a child, reared
in the North-west among those to whom,
with the Mississippi River as their only
outlet to the markets of the world, disunion,
with its loss of their highway to the sea,
was unthinkable. Lincoln became a Whig,
with the Union of the States the passion of
his life, and finally, by forces he had not
himself put in motion, he was placed at the
head of the Federal Government at a time
when sectionalism had decided that the
question of the permanence of the Union
was to be tried out, once and forever.</p>

<p>Mr. Davis went from Kentucky further
South. He was a Democrat, and environment
also moulded his opinions. During
the long sectional controversy between the
North and the South, "State-rights" became
the passion of his life, and when the
clash between the sections came, he found
himself, without his seeking, at the head of
the Confederacy. He had been prominent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[190]</a></span>
among the Southerners at Washington, who
had hoped that the South, by threats of
secession, might obtain its rights in the
Union, as had been done in Jefferson's days
by New England. In the movement (1860-61)
that resulted in secession, the people
at home had been ahead of their congressmen.
William L. Yancey, then in Alabama,
not Jefferson Davis at Washington, was
the actual leader of the secessionists. Mr.
Davis feared a long and bloody war and, unlike
Yancey, he had doubts as to its result.<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a></p>

<p>Mr. Lincoln, standing for the Union, succeeded
in the war, but just as he was on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[191]</a></span>
threshold of his great work of Reconstruction
he fell, the victim of a crazy assassin.
Martyrdom to his cause has naturally added
some cubits to the just measure of his wonderful
reputation.</p>

<p>Jefferson Davis and his cause failed; and
the triumphant forces that swept the Confederacy
out of existence have long (and
quite naturally) sought to bury the cause
of the South and its chosen leader in ignominy.
But the days of hate and passion
are past; reason is reasserting her sway;
and history will do justice to both the Confederacy
and its great leader, whose ability,
patriotism, and courage were conspicuous
to the end.</p>

<p>Mr. Davis was also a martyr&mdash;his long
imprisonment, the manacles he wore, the
sentinel gazing on him in the bright light
that day and night disturbed his rest; the
heroism with which he endured all this, and
the quiet dignity of his after life&mdash;these
have doubly endeared his memory to those
for whose cause he suffered.</p>

<p>Mr. Lincoln had remarkable political tact&mdash;he
seemed to know how long to wait and
when to act, and, if we may credit Mr.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[192]</a></span>
Welles,<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> his inflexibly honest Secretary of
the Navy, he was, with the members of his
cabinet, wonderfully patient and even long-suffering.
And although he was the subject
of much abuse, especially at the hands
of Southerners who then totally misunderstood
him, he was animated always by the
philosophy of his own famous words, "With
malice towards none, with charity for all."
Never for one moment did he forget, amidst
even the bitterest of his trials, that the Confederates,
then in arms against him, were,
as he regarded them, his misguided fellow-citizens;
and the supreme purpose of his
life was to bring them back into the Union,
not as conquered foes, but as happy and
contented citizens of the great republic.</p>

<p>The resources of the Confederacy and the
United States were very unequal. The Confederacy
had no army, no navy, no factories,
save here and there a flour mill or cotton
factory, and practically no machine shops
that could furnish engines for its railroads.
It had one cannon foundry. The Tredegar
Iron Works, at Richmond, Virginia, was a
fully equipped cannon foundry. The Confederacy's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[193]</a></span>
arms and munitions of war were
not sufficient to supply the troops that volunteered
during the first six months of military
operations. Its further supplies, except
such as the Tredegar works furnished,
depended on importations through the
blockade soon to be established and such as
might be captured.</p>

<p>The North had the army and navy, factories
of every description, food in abundance,
and free access to the ports of the
world.</p>

<p>The population of the North was 22,339,978.</p>

<p>The population of the South was 9,103,332,
of which 3,653,870 were colored. The
total white male population of the Confederacy,
of all ages, was 2,799,818.</p>

<p>The reports of the Adjutant-General of
the United States, November 9, 1880, show
2,859,132 men mustered into the service of
the United States in 1861-65. General Marcus
J. Wright, of the United States War
Records Office, in his latest estimate of
Confederate enlistments, places the outside
number at 700,000. The estimate of
Colonel Henderson, of the staff of the British<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[194]</a></span>
army, in his "Life of Stonewall Jackson," is
900,000. Colonel Thomas J. Livermore, of
Boston, estimates the number of Confederates
at about 1,000,000, and insists that in
the Adjutant-General's reports of the Union
enlistments there are errors that would
bring down the number of Union soldiers
to about 2,000,000. Colonel Livermore's
estimates are earnestly combated by Confederate
writers.</p>

<p>General Charles Francis Adams has, in a
recently published volume,<a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> cited figures
given mostly by different Confederate authorities,
which aggregate 1,052,000 Confederate
enlistments. What authority these
Confederate writers have relied on is not
clear. The enlistments were for the most
part directly in the Confederate army and
not through State officials. The captured
Confederate records should furnish the highest
evidence. But it is earnestly insisted
that these records are incomplete, and there
is no purpose here to discuss a disputed
point.</p>

<p>The call to arms was answered enthusiastically<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[195]</a></span>
in both sections, but the South
was more united in its convictions, and
practically all her young manhood fell into
line, the rich and the poor, the cultured
and uncultured serving in the ranks side by
side.</p>

<p>The devotion of the noble women of the
North, and of its humanitarian associations,
to the welfare of the Federal soldiers was remarkable,
but there was nothing in the situation
in that section that could evoke such
a wonderful exhibition of heroism and self-sacrifice
as was exhibited by the devoted
women of the South, who made willingly
every possible sacrifice to the cause of the
Confederacy.</p>

<p>Both sides fought bravely. Excluding
from the Union armies negroes, foreigners,
and the descendants of recent immigrants,
the Confederates and the Union soldiers were
mainly of British stock. The Confederates
had some notable advantages. Excepting
a few Union regiments from the West,
the Southerners were better shots and better
horsemen, especially in the beginning of the
war, than the Northerners; and the Southerners
were fighting not only for the Constitution<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[196]</a></span>
of their fathers and the defence of
their homes, but for the supremacy of their
race. They had also another military advantage,
that would probably have been decisive
but for the United States navy: they
had interior lines of communication which
would have enabled them to readily concentrate
their forces. But the United States
navy, hovering around their coast-line, not
only neutralized but turned this advantage
into a weakness, thus compelling the Confederates
to scatter their armies. Every
port had to be guarded.</p>

<p>In the West the Federals were almost
uniformly successful in the greater battles,
the Confederates winning in these but two
decisive victories, Chickamauga and Sabine
Cross Roads, in Louisiana. Estimating, according
to the method of military experts,
the percentage of losses of the victor only,
Chickamauga was the bloodiest battle of the
world, from and including Waterloo down to
the present time. Gettysburg and Sharpsburg
also rank as high in losses as any
battle fought elsewhere in this long period,
which takes in the Franco-German and the
Russo-Japanese wars. At Sharpsburg or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[197]</a></span>
Antietam the losses exceeded those in any
other one day's battle.<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a></p>

<p>The Confederates were successful, excepting
Antietam or Sharpsburg and Gettysburg,
and perhaps Seven Pines or Fair Oaks, in all
the great battles in the East, down to the
time when the shattered remnant of Lee's
army was overwhelmed at Petersburg and
surrendered at Appomattox. The <i>élan</i> the
Southerners acquired in the many victories
they won fighting for their homes is not
to be overlooked. But the failure of the
North with its overwhelming numbers and
resources, to overcome the resistance of the
half-famished Confederates until nearly four
years had elapsed, can only be fully accounted
for, in fairness to the undoubted
courage of the Union armies, by the fact, on
which foreign military critics are agreed,
that the North had no such generals as Lee
and Stonewall Jackson. Only by the superior
generalship of their leaders could the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[198]</a></span>
Confederates have won as many battles as
they did against vastly superior numbers.</p>

<p>But against the United States navy the
brilliant generalship of the Confederates and
their marvellous courage were powerless.</p>

<p>Accepted histories of the war have been
written largely by the army and its friends,
and, strangely enough, the general historians
have been so attracted by the gallantry displayed
in great land battles, and the immediate
results, that they have utterly failed
to appreciate the services of the United
States navy.</p>

<p>The Southerners accomplished remarkable
results with torpedoes with the <i>Merrimac</i>
or <i>Virginia</i> and their little fleet of commerce
destroyers; but the United States
navy, by its effective blockade, starved the
Confederacy to death. The Southern government
could not market its cotton, nor
could it import or manufacture enough military
supplies. Among its extremest needs
were rails and rolling stock to refit its lines
of communication. For want of transportation
it was unable to concentrate its
armies, and for the same reason its troops
were not half fed.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[199]</a></span>In addition to its services on the blockade,
which, in Lord Wolseley's opinion,
decided the war, the navy, with General
Grant's help, cut the Confederacy in twain
by way of the Mississippi. It penetrated
every Southern river, severing Confederate
communications and destroying depots of
supplies. It assisted in the capture, early in
the war, of Forts Henry and Donelson, and
it conducted Union troops along the Tennessee
River into east Tennessee and north
Alabama. It furnished objective points
and supplies at Savannah, Charleston, and
Wilmington, to Sherman on his march from
Atlanta; and finally Grant, the great Union
general, who had failed to reach Richmond
by way of the Wilderness, Spottsylvania, and
Cold Harbor, achieved success only when the
navy was at his back, holding his base, while
he laid a nine months' siege to Petersburg.</p>

<p>That distinguished author, Charles Francis
Adams, himself a Union general in the
Army of the Potomac, says that the United
States navy was the deciding factor in the
Civil War. He even says that every single
successful operation of the Union forces
"hinged and depended on naval supremacy."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[200]</a></span>The following is from the preface to
"The Crisis of the Confederacy," in which,
published in 1905, a foreign expert, Captain
Cecil Battine, of the King's Hussars, condenses
all that needs further to be said here
about the purely military side of the Civil
War:</p>

<blockquote><p>The history of the American Civil War still remains
the most important theme for the student
and the statesman because it was waged between
adversaries of the highest intelligence and courage,
who fought by land and sea over an enormous area
with every device within the reach of human ingenuity,
and who had to create every organization
needed for the purpose after the struggle had begun.
The admiration which the valor of the Confederate
soldiers, fighting against superior numbers and resources,
excited in Europe; the dazzling genius of
some of the Confederate generals, and in some measure
jealousy at the power of the United States, have
ranged the sympathies of the world during the war
and ever since to a large degree on the side of the
vanquished. Justice has hardly been done to the
armies which arose time and again from sanguinary
repulses, and from disasters more demoralizing than
any repulse in the field, because they were caused
by political and military incapacity in high places, to
redeem which the soldiers freely shed their blood as
it seemed in vain. If the heroic endurance of the
Southern people and the fiery valor of the Southern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[201]</a></span>
armies thrill us to-day with wonder and admiration,
the stubborn tenacity and courage which succeeded
in preserving intact the heritage of the American
nation, and which triumphed over foes so formidable,
are not less worthy of praise and imitation.
The Americans still hold the world's record for hard
fighting.</p></blockquote>

<p>The great majority of the Union soldiers
enlisted for the preservation of the Union
and not for the abolition of slavery. But
among these soldiers there was an abolition
element, and very soon the tramp of federal
regiments was keeping time to</p>

<p class="center">
"John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the ground,<br />
As we go marching on."
</p>

<p>Early in the war Generals Frémont and
Butler issued orders declaring free the slaves
within the Union lines; these orders President
Lincoln rescinded. But Abolition sentiment
was growing in the army and at the
North, and the pressure upon the President
to strike at slavery was increasing. The
Union forces were suffering repeated defeats;
slaves at home were growing food crops and
caring for the families of Confederates who
were fighting at the front, and in September,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[202]</a></span>
1862, President Lincoln issued his preliminary
proclamation of emancipation, basing
it on the ground of military necessity. It
was to become effective January 1, 1863.</p>

<p>And here was the same Lincoln who had
declared in 1858 his opinion that whites and
blacks could not live together as equals,
socially and politically; and it was the very
same Lincoln who had repeatedly said he
cherished no ill-will against his Southern
brethren. If the slaves were to be freed, they
and the whites should not be left together.
He therefore <i>sought diligently to find some
home for the freedmen in a foreign country</i>.
But unfortunately, as already seen, the
American negro, a bone of contention at
home, was now a pariah to other peoples.
Most nations welcome immigrants, but no
country was willing to shelter the American
freedman, save only Liberia, long before a
proven failure, and Hayti, where, under the
blacks, anarchy had already been chronic
for half a century. Hume tells us, in "The
Abolitionists," that for a time Mr. Lincoln
even considered setting Texas apart as a
home for the negro.</p>

<p>Later the surrender of the Confederate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[203]</a></span>
armies, together with the adoption of the
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
consummated emancipation, foreseeing
which President Lincoln formulated his plan
of Reconstruction. Suffrage in the reconstructed
States under his plan was to be
limited to those who were qualified to vote
at the date of secession, which meant the
whites. The sole exception he ever made
to this rule was a suggestion to Governor
Hahn, of Louisiana, that it might be well
for the whites (of Louisiana) to give the
ballot to a few of the most intelligent of
the negroes and to such as had served in
the army.</p>

<p>The part the soldiers played, Federal and
Confederate, in restoring the Union, is a
short story. The clash between them settled
without reserve the only question that
was really in issue&mdash;secession; slavery, that
had been the origin of sectional dissensions,
was eliminated because it obstructed the
success of the Union armies. By their gallantry
in battle and conduct toward each
other the men in blue and the men in gray
restored between the North and the South
the mutual respect that had been lost in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[204]</a></span>
the bitterness of sectional strife, and without
which there could be no fraternal Union.</p>

<p>Mr. Gladstone, when the war was on,
said that the North was endeavoring to
"propagate free institutions at the point of
the sword." The North was not seeking to
propagate in the South any new institution
whatever. Mr. Gladstone's paradox loses
its point because both sections were fighting
for the preservation of the same system of
government.</p>

<p>The time has now happily come when, to
use the language of Senator Hoar, as Americans,
we can, North and South, discuss the
causes that brought about our terrible war
"in a friendly and quiet spirit, without recrimination
and without heat, each understanding
the other, each striving to help the
other, as men who are bearing a common
burden and looking forward with a common
hope."</p>

<p>The country, it is believed, has already
reached the conclusions that the South was
absolutely honest in maintaining the right
of secession and absolutely unswerving in
its devotion to its ideas of the Constitution,
and that the North was equally honest and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[205]</a></span>
patriotic in its fidelity to the Union. We
need to advance one step further. Somebody
was to blame for starting a quarrel
between brethren who were dwelling together
in amity. If Americans can agree
in fixing that blame, the knowledge thus
acquired should help them to avoid such
troubles hereafter.</p>

<p>It seems to be a fair conclusion that the
<i>initial cause of all our troubles was the formation
by Garrison of those Abolition societies</i>
which the Boston people in their resolutions
of August 1, 1835, "disapproved of" and
described as "associations instituted in the
non-slave-holding States, with the intent to
act, within the slave-holding States, on the
subject of slavery in those States, without
their consent." And further, that it was the
creation of these societies, the methods they
resorted to, and their explicit defiance of the
Constitution that roused the fears and passions
of the South and caused that section
to take up the quarrel that, afterward became
sectional; and that, after much hot
dispute and many regrettable incidents,
North and South, resulted in secession and
war.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[206]</a></span>In every dispute about slavery prior to
1831, the Constitution was always regarded
by every disputant as supreme. <i>The quarrel
that was fatal to the peace of the Union began
when the New Abolitionists put in the new
claim, that slavery in the South was the concern
of the North, as well as of the South, and
that there was a higher law than the Constitution.
If the conscience of the individual, instead
of human law, is to prescribe rules of
conduct, society is at the mercy of anarchists.
Czolgosz was conscientious when he murdered
McKinley.</i></p>

<p>Had all Americans continued to agree,
after 1831, as they did before that time, that
the Constitution of the United States was
the supreme law of the land, there would
have been no fatal sectional quarrel, no secession,
and no war between the North and
South.</p>

<hr style="width: 45%;" />

<p>The immediate surrender everywhere of
the Confederates in obedience to the orders
of their generals was an imposing spectacle.
There was no guerilla warfare. The Confederates
accepted their defeat in good faith
and have ever since been absolutely loyal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[207]</a></span>
to the United States Government, but they
have never changed their minds as to the
justice of the cause they fought for. They
fought for liberty regulated by law, and
against the idea that there can be, under our
system, any higher law than the Constitution
of our country. That the Constitution
should always be the supreme law of the
land, they still believe, and the philosophic
student of past and current history should
be gratified to see the tenacity with which
Southern people still cling to that idea. It
suggests that not only will the Southerners
be always ready to stand for our country
against a foreign foe, but that whenever our
institutions shall be assailed, as they will
often be hereafter by visionaries who are
impatient of restraints, the cause of liberty,
regulated by law, will find staunch defenders
in the Southern section of our country.</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[208]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER X</h2>

<h3>RECONSTRUCTION, LINCOLN-JOHNSON
PLAN AND CONGRESSIONAL.</h3>


<p>President Lincoln's theory was
that acts of secession were void, and
that when the seceded States came back into
the Union those who were entitled to vote,
by the laws existing at the date of the attempted
secession, and had been pardoned,
should have, and should control, the right
of suffrage. Mr. Lincoln had acted on this
theory in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Texas,
and he further advised Congress, in his
message of December, 1863, that this was
his plan. Congress, after a long debate, responded
in July, 1864, by an act claiming
for itself power over Reconstruction. The
President answered by a pocket veto, and
after that veto Mr. Lincoln was, in November,
1864, re-elected on a platform extolling
his "practical wisdom," etc. Congress,
during the session that began in December,
1864, did not attempt to reassert its authority<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[209]</a></span>
but adjourned, March 4, 1865, in
sight of the collapse of the Confederacy,
leaving the President an open field for his
declared policy.</p>

<p>But unhappily, on the 14th of April, 1865,
Mr. Lincoln was assassinated, and his death
just at this time was the most appalling calamity
that ever befell the American people.
The blow fell chiefly upon the South, and
it was the South the assassin had thought
to benefit.</p>

<p>Had the great statesman lived he might,
and it is fully believed he would, like
Washington, have achieved a double success.
Washington, successful in war, was successful
in guiding his country through the first
eight stormy years of its existence under a
new constitution. Lincoln had guided the
country through four years of war, and the
Union was now safe. With Lee's surrender
the war was practically at an end.</p>

<p>Gideon Welles says that on the 10th of
April, 1865, Mr. Lincoln, "while I was with
him at the White House, was informed that
his fellow-citizens would call to congratulate
him on the fall of Richmond and surrender
of Lee; but he requested their visit<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[210]</a></span>
should be delayed that he might have time
to put his thoughts on paper, for he desired
that his utterances on such an occasion
should be deliberate and not liable to misapprehension,
misinterpretation, or misconstruction.
He therefore addressed the people
on the following evening, Tuesday the 11th,
in a carefully prepared speech intended to
promote harmony and union.</p>

<p>"In this remarkable speech, delivered three
days before his assassination, he stated he
had prepared a plan for the reinauguration
of the sectional authority and reconstruction
in 1863, which would be acceptable to the executive
government, and that every member
of the cabinet fully approved the plan," etc.<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a></p>

<p>In view of his death three days later, this,
his last and deliberate public utterance, may
be regarded as Abraham Lincoln's will, devising
as a legacy to his countrymen his plan
of reconstruction. That plan in the hands
of his successor was defeated by a partisan
and radical Congress. That it was a wise
plan the world now knows.</p>

<p>Senator John Sherman, of Ohio, was one<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[211]</a></span>
of the most influential of those who succeeded
in defeating it, and yet he lived to
say, in his book published in 1895,<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> Andrew
Johnson "adopted substantially the plan
proposed and acted on by Mr. Lincoln.
After this long lapse of time I am convinced
that Mr. Johnson's scheme of reorganization
was wise and judicious. It was
unfortunate that it had not the sanction of
Congress and that events soon brought the
President and Congress into hostility."</p>

<p>And the present senator, Shelby Cullom,
of Illinois, who as a member of the
House of Representatives voted to overthrow
the Lincoln-Johnson plan of Reconstruction,
has furnished us further testimony.
He says in his book, published in
1911:<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p>

<p>"To express it in a word, the motive of
the opposition to the Johnson plan of Reconstruction
was a firm conviction that its
success would wreck the Republican party
and, by restoring the Democracy to power,
bring back Southern supremacy and Northern
vassalage."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[212]</a></span>The Republican party, then dominant in
Congress, felt when confronting Reconstruction
that it was facing a crisis in its existence.
The Democratic party, unitedly opposed
to negro suffrage, was still in Northern
States a power to be reckoned with. Allied
with the Southern whites, that old party
might again control the government unless,
by giving the negro the ballot, the Republicans
could gain, as Senator Sumner said,
the "allies it needed." But the masses at
the North were opposed to negro suffrage,
and only two or three State constitutions
sanctioned it. Indeed, it may be safely said
that when Congress convened in December,
1865, a majority of the people of the North
were ready to follow Johnson and approve
the Lincoln plan of Reconstruction. But
the extremists in both branches of the Congress
had already determined to defeat the
plan and to give the ballot to the ex-slave.
To prepare the mind of the Northern people
for their programme, they had resolved
to rekindle the passions of the war, which
were now smouldering, and utilize all the
machinery, military and civilian, that Congress
could make effective.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[213]</a></span>Andrew Johnson,<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> who as vice-president
now succeeded to the presidency, though a
man of ability, had little personal influence
and none of Lincoln's tact. Johnson retained
Lincoln's cabinet, and McCullough,
who was Secretary of the Treasury under
both presidents, says in his "Men and Measures
of Half a Century," p. 378:</p>

<p>"The very same instrument for restoring
the national authority over North Carolina
and placing her where she stood before her
secession, which had been approved by Mr.
Lincoln, was, by Mr. Stanton, presented at
the first cabinet which was held at the executive
mansion after Mr. Lincoln's death, and,
having been carefully considered at two or
three meetings, was adopted as the Reconstruction
policy of the administration."</p>

<p>Johnson carried out this plan. All the
eleven seceding States repealed their ordinances
of secession. Their voters, from
which class many leaders had been excluded
by the presidential proclamation, all took<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[214]</a></span>
the oath of allegiance, and reconstructed
their State governments. From most of
the reconstructed States, senators and representatives
were in Washington asking to
be seated when Congress convened, December
4, 1865.</p>

<p>The presidential plan of Reconstruction
had been promptly accepted by the people
of the prostrate States. Almost without
exception they had, when permitted, taken
the oath and returned to their allegiance.</p>

<p>The wretchedness of these people in the
spring of 1865 was indescribable. The labor
system on which they depended for most of
their money-producing crops was destroyed.
Including the disabled, twenty per cent of
the whites, who would now have been bread-winners,
were gone. The credit system had
been universal, and credit was gone. Banks
were bankrupt. Confederate currency and
bonds were worthless. Provisions were
scarce and money even scarcer. Many landholders
had not even plough stock with
which to make a crop.</p>

<p>There was some cotton, however, that
had escaped the ravages of war, and a large
part of this also escaped the rapacious<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[215]</a></span>
United States agents, who were seizing it
as Confederate property. This cotton was
a godsend. There was another supply of
money that came from an unexpected source.
The old anti-slavery controversy had made
it seem perfectly clear to many moneyed
men, North, that free labor was always superior
to slave labor; and now, when cotton
was bringing a good price, enterprising men
carried their money, altogether some hundreds
of thousands of dollars, into the several
cotton States, to buy plantations and
make cotton with free negro labor. Free
negro labor was not a success. Those who
had reckoned on it lost their money; but this
money went into circulation and was helpful.</p>

<p>Above all else loomed the negro problem.
Five millions of whites and three and a half
millions of blacks were to live together.
Thomas Jefferson had said, "Nothing is
more certainly written in the Book of Fate
than that these people are to be free; <i>nor
is it less certain that the two races, equally free,
cannot live in the same government</i>. <i>Nature,
habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines
between them.</i>"<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> And it may truly be said<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[216]</a></span>
of Jefferson that he was, as quite recently
he was declared to be by Dr. Schurman,
President of Cornell University, the "apostle
of reason, and reason alone."</p>

<p>What system of laws could Southern conventions
and legislatures frame, that would
enable them to accomplish what Jefferson
had declared was impossible? This was the
question before these bodies when called together
in 1865-66 by Johnson to rehabilitate
their States. Two dangers confronted
them. One was, armed bands of negroes,
headed by returning negro soldiers. Mr.
Lincoln had feared this. Early in April of
that very year, 1865, he said to General
Butler: "I can hardly believe that the South
and North can live in peace unless we can
get rid of the negroes, whom we have armed
and disciplined, and who have fought with us,
to the amount, I believe, of one hundred and
fifty thousand." Mississippi, and perhaps
one other State, to guard against the danger
from this source, enacted that negroes were
only to bear arms when licensed. This law
was to be fiercely attacked.</p>

<p>The other chief danger was that idleness
among the negroes would lead to crime.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[217]</a></span>
It soon became apparent that the negro
idea was that freedom meant freedom from
work. They would not work steadily, even
for their Northern friends, who were offering
ready money for labor in their cotton
fields, and multitudes were loitering in
towns and around Freedmen's Bureau offices.
Nothing seemed better than the old-time
remedies, apprenticeship and vagrancy
laws, then found in every body of British or
American statutes. These laws Southern
legislatures copied, with what appeared to
be necessary modifications, and these laws
were soon assailed as evidence of an intent
to reduce the negro again to slavery. Mr.
James G. Blaine, in his "Twenty Years,"
selected the Alabama statutes for his attack.
In the writer's book, "Why the Solid
South," pp. 31-36, the Alabama statutes
cited by Mr. Blaine are shown to be very
similar to and largely copied from the statutes
of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode
Island.</p>

<p>Had Mr. Lincoln been living he would
have sympathized with these Southern law-makers
in their difficult task. But to the
radicals in Congress nothing could have been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[218]</a></span>
satisfactory that did not give Mr. Sumner's
party the "allies it needed."</p>

<p>The first important step of the Congress
that convened December 4, 1865, was to
refuse admission to the congressmen from
the States reconstructed under the Lincoln-Johnson
plan, and pass a joint resolution for
the appointment of a Committee of Fifteen
to inquire into conditions in those States.</p>

<p>The temper of that Congress may be
gauged by the following extract from the
speech of Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, on the
passage of the joint resolution:</p>

<p>"They framed iniquity and universal
murder into law.... Their pirates burned
your unarmed commerce on the sea. They
carved the bones of your dead heroes into
ornaments, and drank from goblets made
out of their skulls. They poisoned your
fountains; put mines under your soldiers'
prisons; organized bands, whose leaders
were concealed in your homes; and commissions
ordered the torch and yellow fever
to be carried to your cities and to your
women and children. They planned one
universal bonfire of the North from Lake
Ontario to the Missouri," etc.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[219]</a></span>Congress, while refusing admission to
senators elected by the legislatures of the
reconstructed States, was permitting these
very bodies to pass on amendments to
the Federal Constitution; and such votes
were counted. Congress now proposed the
Fourteenth Amendment, Section III of
which provided that no person should hold
office under the United States who, having
taken an oath, as a Federal or State officer,
to support the Constitution, had subsequently
engaged in the war against the
Union. The Southerners would not vote
for a provision that would disfranchise their
leaders; they refused to ratify the Fourteenth
Amendment, and this helped further
to inflame the radicals of the North.</p>

<p>After the Committee of Fifteen had been
appointed, Congress proceeded to put the
reconstructed States under military control.
In the debate on the measure, February 18,
1867, James A. Garfield, who was, at a later
date, to become generous and conservative,
said exultingly: "This bill sets out by laying
its hands on the rebel governments and
taking the very breath of life out of them;
in the next place, it puts the bayonet at the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[220]</a></span>
breast of every rebel in the South; in the
next place, it leaves in the hands of Congress
utterly and absolutely the work of
Reconstruction."</p>

<p>And Congress did its work. Lincoln was
in his grave, and Johnson, even with his
vetoes, was powerless. By the acts of March
2 and March 23, 1867, the reconstructed
governments were swept away. Universal
suffrage was given to the negro and most of
the prominent whites were disfranchised.</p>

<p>The first suffrage bill was for the District
of Columbia, during the debate on
which Senator Sumner said: "Now, to my
mind, nothing is clearer than the absolute
necessity of suffrage for all colored persons
in the disorganized States. It will not be
enough, if you give it to those who can read
and write; you will not in this way acquire
the voting force you need there for the
protection of Unionists, whether white or
black. You will not acquire the new allies
who are essential to the national cause."</p>

<p>In the forty-first Congress, beginning
March 4, 1871, the twelve reconstructed
States, including West Virginia, were represented
by twenty-two Republicans and two<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[221]</a></span>
Democrats in the Senate, and forty-eight
Republicans and twelve Democrats in the
House of Representatives.</p>

<p>Mr. Sumner's "new allies" were ready to
answer to the roll-call.</p>

<hr style="width: 45%;" />

<p>When Congress had convened in December,
1865, its radical leaders were already
bent on universal suffrage for the negro, but
the Northern mind was not yet prepared for
so radical a measure. The "Committee of
Fifteen" was the first step in the programme,
which was to hold the Southern States out
of the Union and make an appeal to the
passions and prejudices of Northern voters
in the congressional elections of November,
1866. Valuable material for the coming
campaign was already being furnished by
the agents of the Freedmen's Bureau. These
"adventurers, broken down preachers, and
politicians," as Senator Fessenden, of Maine,
called them, were, and had been for some
time, reporting "outrages," swearing negroes
into midnight leagues, and selecting
the offices they hoped to fill.</p>

<p>But the chief source of the material relied
upon in the congressional campaign of 1866<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[222]</a></span>
to exasperate the North, and prod voters to
the point of sanctioning negro suffrage in
the South, was the official information from
the Committee of Fifteen. Its subcommittee
of three, to take testimony as to Virginia,
North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, and Arkansas, were <i>all
Republicans</i>. The doings of this subcommittee
in Alabama illustrate their methods.
Only five persons, who claimed to be citizens,
were examined. These were all Republican
politicians. The testimony of each
was bitterly partisan. "Under the government
of the State as it then existed, no one
of these witnesses could hope for official
preferment. When this Reconstruction plan
had been completed the first of these five
witnesses became governor of his State; the
second became a senator in Congress; the
third secured a life position in one of the
departments in Washington; the fourth became
a circuit judge in Alabama, and the
fifth a judge of the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia&mdash;all as Republicans.
There was no Democrat in the subcommittee
which examined these gentlemen, to cross-examine
them; and not a citizen of Alabama<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[223]</a></span>
was called before that subcommittee to confute
or explain their evidence."<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a></p>

<p>With the material gathered by these
means and from these sources, the honest
voters of the North were deluded into the
election of a Congress that went to Washington,
in December, 1866, armed with authority
to pass the Reconstruction laws of
March, 1867.</p>

<p>Southern counsels were now much divided.
Many good men, like Governor Brown, of
Georgia; General Longstreet and ex-Senator
Albert Gallatin Brown, of Mississippi, advised
acquiescence and assistance, "not because
we approve the policy of Reconstruction,
but because it is the best we can do."
These advisers hoped that good men, well
known to the negroes, might control them
for the country's good; and zealous efforts
were made along this line in every State, but
they were futile. The blacks had already,
before they got the suffrage, accepted the
leadership of those claiming to be the "men
who had freed them." These leaders were
not only bureau agents but army camp-followers;
and there was still another brood,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[224]</a></span>
who espied from afar a political Eden in the
prostrate States and forthwith journeyed
to it. All these Northern adventurers were
called "carpet-baggers"&mdash;they carried their
worldly goods in their hand-bags. The
Southerners who entered into a joint-stock
business with them became "scalawags."
These people mustered the negroes into
leagues, and everywhere whispered it into
their ears that the aim of the Southern
whites was to reėnslave them.</p>

<p>Politics in the South in the days before
the war had always been more or less intense,
partly because there were so many
who had leisure, and partly because the general
rule was joint political discussions. The
seams that had divided Whigs and Democrats,
Secessionists and Union men, had not
been entirely closed up, even by the melting
fires of the Civil War. Old feuds for a time
played their part in Southern politics, even
after March, 1867. These old feuds made
it difficult for Southern whites to get together
as a race; and, in fact, conservative
men dreaded the idea. It tended toward
an actual race war which, for many years,
had been a nightmare; but in every reconstructed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[225]</a></span>
State the negro and his allies finally
forced the race issue.</p>

<p>The new rulers not only increased taxes
and misappropriated the revenues of counties,
cities, and States; they bartered away
the credit of State after State. Some of
the States, after they were redeemed, scaled
their debts by compromising with creditors;
others have struggled along with their increased
burdens.</p>

<p>There were hundreds of negro policemen,
constables, justices of the peace, and legislators
who could not write their names.
Justice was in many localities a farce.
Ex-slaves became judges, representatives in
Congress, and United States senators. The
eleven Confederate States had been divided
into military districts. Many of the officers
and men who were scattered over the country
to uphold negro rule sympathized with
the whites and evidenced their sympathy in
various ways. Others, either because they
were radicals at heart, or to commend themselves
to their superiors, who were some of
them aspiring to political places, were super-serviceable;
and it was not uncommon for a
military officer, in a case where a negro was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[226]</a></span>
a party, to order a judge to leave the bench
and himself take the place. In communities
where negro majorities were overwhelming
there were usually two factions, and when
political campaigns were on agents for these
clans often scoured the fields clear of laborers
to recruit their marching bands. In
cities these bands made night hideous with
shouts and the noise of fifes and drums.
The negro would tolerate no defection from
his ranks to the whites, and negro women
were more intolerant than the men. It
sometimes happened that a bloody clash
between the races was imminent when white
men sought to protect a negro who had
dared to speak in favor of the Democratic
and Conservative party. In truth, the civilization
of the South was being changed
from white to negroid.</p>

<p>The final triumph of good government in
all the States was at last accomplished by
accepting the race issue, as in Alabama in
1874. The first resolution in the platform of
the "Democratic and Conservative party"
in that State then was, "The radical and
dominant faction of the Republican party
in this State persistently, and by fraudulent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[227]</a></span>
representations, have inflamed the passions
and prejudices of the negroes, as a race,
against the white people, and have thereby
made it necessary for the white people to
unite and act together in self-defence and
for the preservation of white civilization."</p>

<p>The people of North Carolina recovered
the right of self-government in 1870. Other
States followed from time to time, the last
two being Louisiana and South Carolina in
1877.</p>

<p>Edwin L. Godkin, who was for long at
the head of the <i>Nation</i> and the <i>Evening Post</i>,
of New York, is thought by some competent
judges to have been the ablest editor this
country has ever had. After the last of the
negro governments set up in the South had
passed away, looking back over the whole
bad business, Mr. Godkin, in a letter to his
friend Charles Eliot Norton, written from
Sweet Springs, West Virginia, September 3,
1877, said: "I do not see in short how the
negro is ever to be worked into a system
of government for which you and I could
have much respect."<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[228]</a></span>Garrison is dead. At the centenary of his
birth, December 12, 1904, an effort was made
to arouse enthusiasm. There was only a
feeble response; but we still have extremists.
Professor Josiah Royce, of Harvard,
in "Race Questions" (1906), speaking of
race antipathies as "trained hatred," says,
pp. 48-49: "We can remember that they are
childish phenomena in our lives, phenomena
on a level with the dread of snakes or of
mice, phenomena that we share with the
cats and with the dogs, not noble phenomena,
but caprices of our complex nature."</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[229]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER XI</h2>

<h3>THE SOUTH UNDER SELF-GOVERNMENT</h3>


<p>For now more than thirty years, whites
and blacks, both free, have lived together
in the reconstructed States. In some
of them there have been local clashes, but in
none of them has there been race war, predicted
by Jefferson and feared by Lincoln;
and there probably never will be such a war,
unless it shall come through the intervention
of such an outside force as produced
in the South the conflict between the races
at the polls in 1868-76.</p>

<p>Every State government set up under the
plan of Congress had wrought ruin, and the
ruin was always more complete where the
negroes were most numerous, as in South
Carolina and Louisiana.</p>

<p>The rule of the carpet-bagger and the
negro was now superseded by governments
based on Abraham Lincoln's idea, the idea
he expressed in the debate with Douglas in
1858, when he said: "While they [the two<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[230]</a></span>
races] do remain together <i>there must be the
position of inferior and superior</i>, and I, as
much as any other man, <i>am in favor of having
the superior position assigned to the white
man</i>."</p>

<p>Conducted on this basis, the present governments
in the reconstructed States have
endured now for periods varying from thirty-six
to forty-two years, and in every State,
without any exception, the prosperity of
both whites and blacks has been wonderful,
and this in spite of the still existent abnormal
animosities engendered by congressional
reconstruction.</p>

<p>In the present State governments the race
problem seems to have reached, in its larger
lines, its only practicable solution. There is
still, however, much friction between whites
and blacks. Higher culture among the
masses, especially of the dominant race, and
wise leadership in both races, will in time
minimize this, but it is not to be expected,
nor is it ever to be desired, that racial antipathies
should entirely cease to exist. The
result of such cessation would be amalgamation,
a solution that American whites will
never tolerate.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[231]</a></span>Deportation, as a solution of the negro
problem, is impracticable. Mr. Lincoln,
much as he desired the separation of the
races, could not accomplish it, even when
he had all the war power of the government
in his hands. He was, as we have seen, unable
to find a country that would take the
3,500,000 of blacks then in the seceded
States. Now, there are in the South, including
Delaware, according to the census of 1910,
8,749,390, and, quite naturally, the American
negro is more unwilling than ever to leave
America.</p>

<p>Another solution sometimes suggested in
the South is the repeal of the Fifteenth
Amendment, which declares that the negro
shall not be deprived of the ballot because
of his race, but agitation for this would appear
to be worse than useless.</p>

<p>The negro vote in the reconstructed States
is, and has for years been, quite small, not
large enough to be considered a factor in any
of them. One cause of this is that the whites
enforce against the blacks rigidly the tests
required by law, but the chief reason is,
that the negro, who is qualified, does not
often apply for registration. He finds work<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[232]</a></span>
now more profitable than voting. He can
not, he knows, control, nor can he, if disposed
to do so, sell his ballot as he once did.
One of the most signal and durable evils of
Congressional Reconstruction was the utter
debasement of the suffrage in eleven States
where the ballot had formerly been notably
pure. Gideon Welles saw clearly when he
said in his diary, June 23, 1867 (p. 102,
vol. III): "Under the pretence of elevating
the negro the radicals are degrading the
whites and debasing the elective franchise,
bringing elections into contempt." During
the rule of the negro and the alien, in every
black county, where the negro majority was
as two to one, there were, as a rule, two Republican
candidates for every fat office, and
an election meant, for the negro, a golden
harvest. Rival candidates were mercilessly
fleeced by their black constituencies, and the
belief South is that as a rule the carpet-baggers,
in their hegira, returned North as
poor as when they came.</p>

<p>In the Reconstruction era the whites
fought fraud with fraud; and even after recovering
control they, the whites, felt justified
in continuing to defraud the negro of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[233]</a></span>
his vote. To restore the purity of the
ballot-box was the chief reason for the
amendments to State constitutions, by
means of which amendments, having in
view the limitations of the Federal Constitution,
as many negroes and as few whites
as was practicable were excluded.</p>

<p>This accounts in part for the smallness of
the negro vote South. A more potent reason
is that the Democratic party, dominated by
whites, selects its candidates in primaries;
and the negro, seeing no chance to win, does
not care to pay a poll tax or otherwise qualify
for registration.</p>

<p>Southern whites have now for more than
three decades been governing the blacks in
their midst. It is the most difficult task
that has ever been undertaken in all the history
of popular government, but sad experience
has demonstrated that legal restriction
of the negro vote in the South there must be.</p>

<p>Party spirit tends always to blind the vision,
and, as we have seen in this review
of the past, it often stifles conscience; and
this even where the masses of the people
are approximately homogeneous. Southern
statesmen are now dealing not only with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[234]</a></span>
party spirit, but with perpetual race friction
manifesting itself in various forms.
Failure there must be in minor matters and
in certain localities; the progress that has
been made can only be fairly estimated by
considering general results. Those who sympathize
with the South think they see there
among the whites a growing spirit of altruism,
begotten of responsibility, and this
promises much for the amelioration of race
friction.</p>

<p>Since obtaining control of their State governments
the whites in the Southern States
have as a rule increased appropriations for
common schools by at least four hundred
per cent, and though paying themselves by
far the greater proportion of these taxes,
they have continued to divide revenues pro
rata between the white and colored schools.</p>

<p>Industrial results have been amazing.
The following figures, taken from the Annual
Blue Book, 1911 edition, of the <i>Manufacturers'
Record</i>, Baltimore, Maryland, include
West Virginia among the reconstructed
States.</p>

<p>The population of these States was, in
1880, 13,608,703; in 1910, 23,613,533.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[235]</a></span>Manufacturing capital, 1880, $147,156,624.
In 1900&mdash;twenty years&mdash;it was
$1,019,056,200.</p>

<p>Cotton crop, whole South, 1880, 5,761,252
bales. In 1911 it was about 15,000,000.</p>

<p>Of this cotton crop Southern mills took,
in 1880, 321,337 bales, and in 1910, 2,344,343
bales.</p>

<p>In 1880 the twelve reconstructed States
cut, of lumber, board measure, 2,981,274,000
feet; and in 1909 22,445,000,000 feet.</p>

<p>Their output of pig-iron was, in 1880,
264,991 long tons; in 1910, 3,048,000 tons.
The assessed value of taxable property was,
in 1880, $2,106,971,271; in 1910, $6,522,195,139.</p>

<p>The negro, though the white man, with
his superior energy and capacity, far outstrips
him, has shared in this material prosperity.
His property in these States has
been estimated as high as $500,000,000.</p>

<p>During the last decade, 1900-1910, the
white population of the South increased by
24.4 per cent, while the negro population in
the same States increased only 10.4 per cent.
There has been a very considerable gain of
whites over blacks since 1880, the result
largely of a greater natural increase of whites<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[236]</a></span>
over blacks, immigrants not counted. All
this indicates that the negro problem is
gradually being minimized.</p>

<p>Taken in the aggregate, the shortcomings
of the negro are numerous and regrettable,
but not greater than was to be expected.
The general advance of an inferior race will
never equal that of one which is superior by
nature and already centuries ahead. The
laggard and thriftless among the inferior
people will naturally be more, and it is from
these classes that prison houses are filled.</p>

<p>There is a very considerable class of negroes
who are improving mentally and morally,
but improvidence is a characteristic of
the race, and very many of them, even
though they labor more or less steadily, will
never accumulate. The third class, much
larger than among the whites, is composed
of those who are idle, dissipated, and criminal.
Taken altogether, however, what
Booker Washington says is true: "There
cannot be found, in the civilized or uncivilized
world, a like number of negroes whose
economic, educational, and religious life is
so far advanced as that of the ten millions
within this country."<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> This advancement<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[237]</a></span>
is one of the results of slavery. When the
negroes come to recognize this, as some of
their leaders already do,<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> and come to appreciate
the advantages for further improvement
they have had since their emancipation,
they will cease to repine over the
bondage of their ancestors. There were
undoubtedly evils in slavery, but, after all,
there was some reason in the advice given
by the good Spanish Bishop Las Casas to
the King of Spain&mdash;that it would be rightful
to enslave and thus Christianize and
civilize the African savage. Herbert Spencer,
"Illustrations of Universal Progress"
(p. 444), says: "Hateful though it is to us,
and injurious as it would be now, slavery
was once beneficial, was one of the <i>necessary
phases of human progress</i>."</p>

<p>Sir Harry Johnston, African explorer and
student of the negro race, in both the old
and the new world, and perhaps the most
eminent authority on a question he has, in
a fashion, made his own, says: "Intellectually,
and perhaps physically, he (the negro)
has attained the highest degree of advancement
as yet in the United States."<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[238]</a></span>"In Alabama (most of all) the American
negro is seen at his best, as peasant, peasant
proprietor, artisan, professional man, and
member of society."<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a></p>

<p>Race animosities are now abnormal, both
South and North. The prime reasons for
this are two:</p>

<p>1. The bitter conflict during reconstruction
for race supremacy and the false hopes
once held out to the negro of ultimate social
equality with the whites. Among the early
measures of congressional reconstruction
was a "civil rights" enactment which the
negroes regarded as giving to them all the
rights of the white man. Their Supreme
Court in Alabama decided, in "Burns vs.
The State," that the "civil rights" laws conferred
the right to intermarriage. Negroes,
North, no doubt also believed in this construction.
But the Supreme Court of the
United States later held that the States,
and not Congress, had jurisdiction over the
marriage relation within the States. All the
Southern and a number of the Northern States
have since forbidden the intermarriage of
whites and blacks, and so the negro's hopes of
equal rights in this regard have vanished.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[239]</a></span>This disappointment and his utter failure
to secure the social equality that once
seemed his, have tended to embitter the
negro against the white man.</p>

<p>2. Whites have been embittered against
blacks by the frequency in later years of
the crime of the negro against white women.
This horrible offence began to be common
in the South some thirty-two or three years
since, or perhaps a little earlier, and somewhat
later it appeared in the North, where
it seems to have been as common, negro
population considered, as in the South. The
crime was almost invariably followed by
lynching, which, however, was not always
for the same crime. The following is the
list of lynchings in the sections, as kept by
the <i>Chicago Tribune</i> since it began to compile
them:</p>


<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="lynching">
<tr><td align="left">1885</td><td align="right">184</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1886</td><td align="right">138</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1887</td><td align="right">122</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1888</td><td align="right">142</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1889</td><td align="right">176</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1890</td><td align="right">127</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1891</td><td align="right">192</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1892</td><td align="right">205</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1893</td><td align="right">200</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1894</td><td align="right">190</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1895</td><td align="right">171</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1896</td><td align="right">181</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1897</td><td align="right">166</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1898</td><td align="right">127</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1899</td><td align="right">107</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1900</td><td align="right">107</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[240]</a></span>1901</td><td align="right">185</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1902</td><td align="right">96</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1903</td><td align="right">104</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1904</td><td align="right">87</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1905</td><td align="right">66</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1906</td><td align="right">66</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1907</td><td align="right">68</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1908</td><td align="right">100</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1909</td><td align="right">87</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">1910</td><td align="right">74</td></tr>
</table></div>
<p>The general decrease, while population is
increasing, is encouraging; but lynching itself
is a horrible crime; and lynching for one
crime begets lynching for another. Of the
total number lynched last year, nine were
whites; sixty-five were negroes, among them
three women; and only twenty-two were
for crimes of negroes against white women.
The other crimes were murder, attempts to
murder, robbery, arson, etc.</p>

<p>Census returns indicate that in the country
at large the criminality of the negro, as
compared with that of the white man, is
nearly three times greater, and that the
ratio of negro criminality is much higher
North than South. Such returns also indicate
that so far education has not lessened
negro criminality,<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> but it is not known that
any well-educated negro has been guilty of
the crime against white women.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[241]</a></span>In the South the negro is excluded from
many occupations for which the best of
them are fitted, but in the North his
industrial conditions are worse. Fewer
occupations are open to him and the wisest
members of his race are counselling him
to remain in the more favorable industrial
atmosphere of the South.</p>

<p>The dislike of negroes for whites has been
increased South by the laws which separate
them from whites in schools, public conveyances,
etc. But it is to be remembered
that these laws were intended to prevent
intermarriage; they are in part the result of
race antipathies. But the sound reason for
them is that they tend to prevent intimacies
which, at the points where the races are in
closest touch with each other, might result
in intermarriage. Professor E. D. Cope, of
the University of Pennsylvania, one of the
very highest of American authorities on the
race question, in a powerful article published
in 1890,<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> advocated the deportation of the
negroes from the South, no matter at what
cost. Otherwise he predicted eventual amalgamation,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[242]</a></span>
which would be the destruction of
a large portion of the finest race in the world.</p>

<hr style="width: 45%;" />

<p>This little study now comes to a close. An
effort has been made to sketch briefly in this
chapter the difficulties the South has encountered
in dealing with the negro problem,
and to outline the measure of success
it has achieved. However imperfectly the
author may have performed his task, it must
be clear to the reader that no such problem
as the present was ever before presented to
a self-governing people. Never was there
so much need of that culture from which
alone can come a high sense of duty to
others. The negro must be encouraged to
be self-helpful and useful to the community.
If he is to do all this and remain a separate
race, he must have leadership among his
own people. In the Mississippi Black Belt
there is now a town of some 4,000 negroes,
Mound Bayou, completely organized and
prospering. It may be that in the future
negroes seeking among themselves the amenities
of life may congregate into communities
of their own, cultivating adjacent lands,
as the French do in their agricultural villages.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[243]</a></span>
Wherever they may be, they must
practise the civic virtues, honesty, and obedience
to law. W. H. Councill, a negro
teacher, of Huntsville, Alabama, said some
years since in a magazine article: "When
the gray-haired veterans who followed Lee
and Jackson pass away, the negro will have
lost his best friends." This is true, but it is
hoped that time and culture, while not producing
social equality, will allay race animosities
and bring the negro other friends
to take the place of the departing veterans.</p>

<p>The white man, with his pride of race,
must more and more be made to feel that
<i>noblesse oblige</i>. His sense of duty to others
must measure up to his responsibilities and
opportunities. He must accord to the negro
all his rights under the laws as they
exist.</p>

<p>The South is exerting itself to better its
common schools, but it cannot compete in
this regard with the North. Northern philanthropists
are quite properly contributing
to education in the South. They should
consider well the needs of both races. Any
attempt to give to the negroes advantages
superior to those of the whites, who are now<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[244]</a></span>
treating the negro fairly in this respect,
might look like another attempt to put, in
negro language, "the bottom rail on top."</p>

<p>Looking over the whole field covered by
this sketch, it is wonderful to note how the
chain of causation stretches back into the
past. Reconstruction was a result of the
war; secession and war resulted from a movement
in the North, in 1831, against conditions
then existing in the South. The negro,
the cause of the old quarrel between the sections,
is located now much as he was then.
How full of lessons, for both the South and
the North, is the history of the last eighty
years!</p>

<p>There is even a chord that connects the
burning of a negro at Coatesville, Pennsylvania,
by an excited mob on the 13th of
August, 1911, with the burning of the Federal
Constitution at Framingham, Massachusetts,
by that other excited mob of madmen,
under Garrison, on the fourth day of July,
1854. One body of outlaws was defying the
laws of Pennsylvania; the other was defying
the fundamental laws of the nation.</p>

<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[245]</a></span></p>
<h2>INDEX</h2>

<div>
Abolitionists, mobbed, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">burn U. S. Constitution, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">private lives of leaders irreproachable, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">become factor in national politics; Boston captured by; "slave-catchers" now mobbed; national election turns on vote, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>-<a href="#Page_6">6</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">anti-slavery in Faneuil Hall, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">election again turns on vote of, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">impartial observer on influence of, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Professor Smith on, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></span><br />
<br />
Abolition petitions in Congress, influence of, <a href="#Page_102">102</a><br />
<br />
Abolition societies, in 1840, <a href="#Page_93">93</a><br />
<br />
Adams, John Quincy, becomes champion of Abolitionists, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">defends right of petition, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></span><br />
<br />
Alien and Sedition laws, 1798, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">nature of, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></span><br />
<br />
Americans, world's record for hard fighting, <a href="#Page_201">201</a><br />
<br />
Andrews, Prof. E. A., slavery conditions South, <a href="#Page_79">79</a><br />
<br />
Anti-slavery people and Abolitionists grouped, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Douglas charged "Black Republican" party with favoring "negro citizenship and negro equality," <a href="#Page_167">167</a></span><br />
<br />
Aristocracy in South, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a><br />
<br />
Articles of Confederation, <a href="#Page_15">15</a><br />
<br />
Author, antecedents, explanation of, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>-<a href="#Page_11">11</a><br />
<br />
Author's conclusions, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>-<a href="#Page_3">3</a>-<a href="#Page_4">4</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Biglow Papers, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>-<a href="#Page_8">8</a><br />
<br />
Birney, James G., mobbed, <a href="#Page_87">87</a><br />
<br />
Boston meeting, Dr. Hart overlooks, <a href="#Page_73">73</a><br />
<br />
Boston Resolutions, <a href="#Page_64">64</a><br />
<br />
Burke, Edmund, on conciliation, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">spirit of liberty in slave-holding communities, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Calhoun, John C., prophecy of, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>-<a href="#Page_8">8</a><br />
<br />
Cause of sectional conflict, Abolition societies and their methods, <a href="#Page_205">205</a><br />
<br />
Channing, Dr. Wm. E., encomium on Great Britain, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">letter to Webster, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">opinion of Abolitionists, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his change, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></span><br />
<br />
Characters and careers, of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>-<a href="#Page_192">192</a><br />
<br />
Churches, North and South, opposition to slavery; a stupendous change, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"whole cloth arrayed against" Garrison, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Southern churches still defend slavery; Northern changed; Methodist church disrupted, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></span><br />
<br />
Coatesville lynching, <a href="#Page_224">224</a><br />
<br />
Colonies, juxtaposed, not united, <a href="#Page_15">15</a><br />
<br />
Colonization Society, origin of and purposes, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its supporters, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">making progress; Abolitionists halted it, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></span><br />
<br />
Compromise of 1850; excitement in Congress, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">great leaders in; Webster on 7th of March, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Clay's speech, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">new fugitive slave law gave offence, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></span><br />
<br />
Confederate States with old Constitution&mdash;changes slight, <a href="#Page_186">186</a><br />
<br />
Constitution, Alien and Sedition Laws first palpable infringement, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">powers conferred by discussed, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">as supreme law Southerners still cling to, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></span><br />
<br />
Cope, Prof. E. D., advocated deportation to prevent amalgamation, <a href="#Page_241">241</a><br />
<br />
Cotton gin, accepted theory as to denied, <a href="#Page_12">12</a><br />
<br />
Courage of, and losses in, both armies, <a href="#Page_195">195</a><br />
<br />
Criminality, of negroes greater than of whites, <a href="#Page_240">240</a><br />
<br /><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[246]</a></span>
Cromwell and the Great Revolution, analogy to, <a href="#Page_8">8</a><br />
<br />
Curtis, George Ticknor, quotation from "Life of Buchanan," <a href="#Page_14">14</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Davis, Jefferson, farewell speech, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">doubts about success&mdash;sadness, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></span><br />
<br />
Democrats, North, opposed negro suffrage, <a href="#Page_212">212</a><br />
<br />
Deportation, no country ready to take negro, <a href="#Page_82">82</a><br />
<br />
Disunion, project among Federalist leaders, 1803-4, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">sentiment in Congress, 1794, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Emancipation, easy North; difficult South, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Federal government, no power over, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">status North in 1830, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></span><br />
<br />
Emancipations, South, what accomplished in 1831, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">census tables, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></span><br />
<br />
Embargo of 1807, why repealed, <a href="#Page_26">26</a><br />
<br />
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, eulogizes John Brown, <a href="#Page_15">15</a><br />
<br />
Everett, Edward, denunciation of John Brown expedition, <a href="#Page_152">152</a><br />
<br />
Extradition, refused, of abductors of slaves, Supreme Court powerless, <a href="#Page_176">176</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Federalists, construed Constitution liberally, <a href="#Page_17">17</a><br />
<br />
Fite, Professor at Yale, declares Republicans in 1860 hoped to destroy slavery, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">justification of secession, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></span><br />
<br />
Freedman's Bureau, its composition, <a href="#Page_221">221</a><br />
<br />
Free speech, Channing defends Abolitionists as champions of, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">John Quincy Adams becomes advocate, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></span><br />
<br />
Fugitive slave law, North not opposing in 1828, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Missouri Compromise provided for, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Garrison, William Lloyd, began <i>Liberator</i>; personality and characteristics, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">key-note, slavery the concern of all; slave-holders to be made odious, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></span><br />
<br />
Godkin, E. L., on negro as factor in politics, <a href="#Page_237">237</a><br />
<br />
Greeley, Horace, draws comfort from John Brown's raid, <a href="#Page_153">153</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Hartford Convention, <a href="#Page_28">28</a><br />
<br />
Helper, Hinton Rowan, his book, <a href="#Page_165">165</a><br />
<br />
Higher law idea, prompted Abolition Crusade&mdash;and Czolgosz to murder McKinley, <a href="#Page_206">206</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Immigration and Union sentiment; number of immigrants, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">few South, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></span><br />
<br />
Incendiary literature, sent South, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">North aroused; Andrew Jackson's message, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Boston Resolutions, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">indictment in Alabama; requisition on Governor of New York, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></span><br />
<br />
Incompatibility of slavery and freedom; Lincoln's Springfield speech, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Garrison first to announce doctrine; Abraham Lincoln next; then Seward, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>-<a href="#Page_8">8</a></span><br />
<br />
Insurrections, Denmark Vesey plot at Charleston, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Nat Turner in Virginia; Walker's pamphlet, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></span><br />
<br />
Irish patriots, Mitchel and Meagher, divide on secession, <a href="#Page_35">35</a><br />
<br />
<br />
John Brown's raid, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his secret committee, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></span><br />
<br />
Johnson, Andrew, succeeding Lincoln, carried out plan, <a href="#Page_213">213</a><br />
<br />
Johnston, Sir Harry, on negro in South, highest degree of advancement, <a href="#Page_237">237</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Kansas, fierce struggles in; Sumner's bitter speech, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>-<a href="#Page_3">3</a><br />
<br />
Kansas-Nebraska Act, Douglas originated, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">aggravated sectionalism, <a href="#Page_136">136</a></span><br />
<br />
Kentucky Resolutions, 1798, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Jefferson the author, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">copy of first of, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></span><br />
<br />
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-9;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Secessionists relied on, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Jefferson and Madison's reasons for, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></span><br />
<br /><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[247]</a></span>
Know-Nothing party, its origin; purposes; appeal for the Union, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>-<a href="#Page_141">1</a>-<a href="#Page_142">2</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Las Casas, Bishop, advice to King of Spain, <a href="#Page_237">237</a><br />
<br />
Liberia, sending negroes to, called "expatriation"; enterprise a failure, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Lincoln's hopes of, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">why it failed&mdash;Miss Mahoney's account, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>-<a href="#Page_70">70</a>-<a href="#Page_71">71</a></span><br />
<br />
Lincoln, South no more responsible for slavery than North, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">speech at Charleston, Ill., <a href="#Page_81">81</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">finds no country ready to take American negro, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">South in 1860 thought him radical; had favored white supremacy in 1858, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">speech at Peoria, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">assassination of, <a href="#Page_209">209</a></span><br />
<br />
Lodge, Henry Cabot, declares popular verdict against Webster, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">he had undertaken the impossible, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his argument good, he not man to make it, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></span><br />
<br />
Lundy, Benjamin, attempts to stir up North against slavery South, <a href="#Page_47">47</a><br />
<br />
Lynchings, tables, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">comments on, <a href="#Page_240">240</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
McMaster, affirms Webster behind the times (note), <a href="#Page_100">100</a><br />
<br />
Missouri, controversy over slavery, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">distinct from that begun later by "New Abolitionists," <a href="#Page_53">53</a></span><br />
<br />
Mobs, Garrison mobbed; many anti-slavery riots North, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">violence toward Abolitionists in North reacted, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">opponents became defenders, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></span><br />
<br />
Mound Bayou, a negro town, <a href="#Page_242">242</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Nationality, spirit of; causes of, development of, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">grows, North; South on old lines, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></span><br />
<br />
Navy, U. S., deciding factor in war, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>-<a href="#Page_9">9</a><br />
<br />
Negro, the, located now much as in 1860, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Lincoln could find no home abroad for, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">reasons for smallness of vote South, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">improvement; Booker Washington's opinion, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">benefited by slavery; attained South highest degree of advancement, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">best opportunities South, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Confederate veterans best friends there, <a href="#Page_243">243</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Ohio, Resolutions looking to co-operative emancipation; responses of other States to, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Southern reason for, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Northern, kindly temper of, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></span><br />
<br />
Otis, Harrison Gray, on Boston Resolutions, <a href="#Page_65">65</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Pamphlets, venomous one cited, <a href="#Page_75">75</a><br />
<br />
Personal liberty laws, eleven States passed; Alexander Johnston says absolutely without excuse, <a href="#Page_177">177</a><br />
<br />
Petition, right of, in Congress, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"gag resolution," <a href="#Page_92">92</a></span><br />
<br />
Political conditions, North and South compared, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>-<a href="#Page_3">3</a>-<a href="#Page_4">4</a><br />
<br />
"Poor whites," discussion of, and of social conditions South, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-<a href="#Page_6">6</a>-<a href="#Page_7">7</a><br />
<br />
Presidential campaign 1860, excitement, <a href="#Page_171">171</a><br />
<br />
Press, Northern slandering South, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Southern slandering North, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Race animosities, negro's aspirations to social equality; legal enactments, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">whites embittered by crime against white women, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></span><br />
<br />
Reagan, "Republican rule on Abolition principles," <a href="#Page_105">105</a><br />
<br />
Reconstruction, Lincoln's theory; veto of resolution asserting power of Congress over, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">last speech, adhering to plan, <a href="#Page_210">210</a></span><br />
<br />
Reconstruction by Johnson under Lincoln plan; wisdom of Lincoln-Johnson plan, John Sherman; opposition to it partisan, Senator Cullom, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">South accepts plan; senators and representatives, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>;</span><br />
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[248]</a></span><span style="margin-left: 1em;">negro problem and Jefferson's prediction, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">apprenticeship and vagrancy laws, Blaine's attack on, <a href="#Page_217">217</a></span><br />
<br />
Reconstruction, Congressional, extremists bent on negro suffrage when Congress convened in 1865, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">preparations for; committee of fifteen; Shellabarger's appeal to war passions, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">South denied representation; Southerners reject Fourteenth Amendment; Garfield denounces rebel government, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Johnson's reconstructed State governments swept away; universal suffrage for negro; South sends Republicans to Congress, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">witnesses before "Committee of Fifteen" rewarded; Southern counsels divided, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">carpet-baggers and scalawags, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">intolerable political conditions; race issue forced upon whites, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">whites recover self-government, <a href="#Page_227">227</a></span><br />
<br />
Republican party, the modern; its origin; Mr. Rhodes on, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>-<a href="#Page_139">139</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">nominates Fr&#233;mont and Dayton; denounces slavery; excitement; defeated, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></span><br />
<br />
Resources, war, North and South compared, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>-<a href="#Page_192">2</a>-<a href="#Page_193">3</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Salem Church monument, <a href="#Page_9">9</a><br />
<br />
Santo Domingo, memory of massacre in, <a href="#Page_80">80</a><br />
<br />
Seceded States, wretched conditions in 1865, <a href="#Page_214">214</a><br />
<br />
Seceding States, desire to preserve Constitution, <a href="#Page_179">179</a><br />
<br />
Secession, early threats of not connected with slavery, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Josiah Quincy threatens, 1811; Massachusetts legislature endorses him, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in early days belief in general, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Massachusetts legislature threatens, 1844, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">eleven States seceded, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Prof. Fite justifies, his ground, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">motives for in 1860-1, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></span><br />
<br />
Self-government restored; local clashes, no race war; based on Lincoln's idea, superiority of white man, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">constitutional amendments to restore purity of ballot, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">industrial results amazing, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>-<a href="#Page_5">5</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">negro vote small&mdash;reasons, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></span><br />
<br />
Seward, leader of Republican party, <a href="#Page_178">178</a><br />
<br />
Situation in Alabama in 1835&mdash;letter of John W. Womack, <a href="#Page_79">79</a><br />
<br />
Slavery, Great Britain abolishes, compensates owners, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">South's "calamity not crime," <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">debate in Virginia Assembly, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></span><br />
<br />
Slaves, protect masters' families during war, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>-<a href="#Page_3">3</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">a surprise to North, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>-<a href="#Page_4">4</a></span><br />
<br />
Slave-trade, New England's part in, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">South protests against; sentiment against arises in England, sweeps over America, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></span><br />
<br />
Social conditions South, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>-<a href="#Page_60">60</a><br />
<br />
South unwilling to accept idea of incompatibility of slave and free States, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>-<a href="#Page_5">5</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">bitterness in, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on defensive-aggressive, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">excited; filibustering; importation of slaves, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></span><br />
<br />
Spencer, Herbert, slavery once a necessary phase of human progress, <a href="#Page_237">237</a><br />
<br />
Sprague, Peleg, on Boston Resolutions, <a href="#Page_66">66</a><br />
<br />
Suffrage, Lincoln thought Southerners themselves should control, <a href="#Page_203">203</a><br />
<br />
Sumner, Charles, philippic against South; Brooks's attack on, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>-<a href="#Page_4">4</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">negro suffrage to give "Unionists" new allies, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Texas, application for admission, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Channing threatens secession if admitted, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></span><br />
<br />
Tilden, Samuel J., letter to Kent, secession inevitable if Lincoln elected, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>-<a href="#Page_3">3</a>-<a href="#Page_4">4</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Underground railroads, Professor Hart's picture of, <a href="#Page_103">103</a><br />
<br />
Union, the, Webster's great speech for in 1830, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">effect of, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></span><br />
<br />
Union sentiment South; Whigs, <a href="#Page_34">34</a><br />
<br />
"Uncle Tom's Cabin," influence on Northern sentiment, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>-<a href="#Page_133">133</a><br />
<br />
<br /><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[249]</a></span>
War, the, nature of, <a href="#Page_180">180</a><br />
<br />
Washington, a Federalist, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his appeal for Union, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></span><br />
<br />
Webster, on 7th of March, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his sole concession, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">condemns personal liberty laws and Abolitionists, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">congratulated and denounced, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Ichabod," <a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Rhodes's estimate of, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his speech for "The Constitution and the Union"; Wilkinson's estimate of, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">E. P. Wheeler's estimate of, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Webster's opinion of Abolitionists and Free-soilers, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></span><br />
<br />
Welles, Gideon, opinion in 1867 as to debasing elective franchise, <a href="#Page_232">232</a><br />
<br />
Whites, South, fought fraud with fraud during Reconstruction, till Constitution amended continued it, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">difficulties of their task, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">growing spirit of altruism; school taxes divided pro rata, <a href="#Page_234">234</a></span><br />
<br />
Wilmot proviso, <a href="#Page_111">111</a><br />
<br />
Wisconsin nullifies fugitive slave law, <a href="#Page_178">178</a><br />
<br />
Women, devotion of during war, North and South, <a href="#Page_195">195</a><br />
</div>





<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Gladstone, "Kin Beyond the Sea."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Warfield, in his "Kentucky Resolutions of 1798," relates that
John Breckenridge introduced the Kentucky and John Taylor,
of Caroline, moved the Virginia resolutions. In 1814 Taylor
made it known that Madison was the author of the Virginia resolves,
but not till 1821 did Jefferson admit his authorship of the
Kentucky resolutions. Jefferson was Vice-President when they
were drawn, and it would have been thought unseemly for him
to appear openly in a canvass against the President, but by correspondence
with his friends he "gradually drew out a program
of action" (Warfield, p. 17). The Kentucky Resolutions were
sent by the Governor to the Legislatures of the other States, ten
of which, being controlled by the Federalists, are known to have
declared against them (Warfield, p. 115). But of course the
resolutions were canvassed by the public before the presidential
election of 1800.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Taylor was so deeply impressed by the conference, which was
protracted, that two days later, May 11, 1794, he made an extended
note of it which he sent to Mr. Madison. At the foot of
his note Taylor says, among other things: "He (T.) is thoroughly
convinced that the design to break up the Union is contemplated.
The assurance, the manner, the earnestness, and the
countenances with which the idea was uttered, all disclosed the
most serious intention. It is also probable that K. (King) and
E. (Ellsworth) having heard that T. (Taylor) was against the
(adoption of) the Constitution have hence imbibed a mistaken
opinion that he was secretly an enemy of the Union, and conceived
that he was a fit instrument (as he was about retiring) to
infuse notions into the anti-federal temper of Virginia, consonant
to their views."&mdash;"Disunion Sentiment in the Congress in 1794"
(with fac-simile of Taylor memorandum), by Gaillard Hunt, Editor
of Writings of James Madison. Lowdermilk Co., Washington,
D. C., 1905.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> C. F. Robertson, "The Louisiana Purchase," etc. "Papers of
the American Association," vol. I, pp. 262, 263.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> "American State Documents and Federal Relations," p. 21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Henry Cabot Lodge's "Webster," p. 176.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> "Slavery and Anti-Slavery," 3d ed., 1885.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> <i>Am. Archives</i>, 4th series, vol. I, p. 696.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> <i>Ib.</i>, p. 1136.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> <i>Ib.</i>, p. 735.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> "State Documents on Federal Relations," Ames, pp. 203-4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Ames, p. 203.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> <i>Ib.</i>, p. 206.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Ames, 195.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> See Garrison's "Garrison."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> See article in <i>Independent</i>, 1906, Miss Mahony.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> "Webster's Works," vol. V, pp. 366-67, 1851.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>Ib.</i>, ed. 1851, vol. V, pp. 266-67.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> "The Negro Problem," Pickett, 1809.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Garrison's "Garrison," vol. I, p. 113.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> George Ticknor Curtis's "Life of Buchanan," vol. II, p. 283.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Garrison's "Garrison," vol. I.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> <i>Ib.</i>, Vol. II, p. 202.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Hart's "Slavery and Abolition," p. 163.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> <i>Ib.</i>, pp. 217-20.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> "Life of James Buchanan," George Ticknor Curtis, vol. II,
pp. 277-78.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> Referred to in "Life of Andrew Jackson," W. G. Sumner,
p. 350.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Hart, <i>supra.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> The late Professor William Graham Sumner, of Yale, in his
"Life of Andrew Jackson," 1888, treats of the excitement at
Charleston, South Carolina, in 1835, during Jackson's administration,
over Abolition circulars, etc. Dr. Albert Bushnell Hart,
Professor of History at Harvard, in his "Abolition and Slavery,"
1906, treats of the same subject. The following extracts from
these books will show how these authors picture that exciting period,
and our italics will emphasize the <i>sang-froid</i> with which they
touch off what so profoundly affected public sentiment, both North
and South, <i>when the events were occurring</i>. Professor Sumner has
this to say:
</p><p>
"The Abolition Society adopted the policy of sending documents,
papers, and pictures against slavery to the Southern
States.
</p><p>
"<i>If the intention was</i>, as charged, to excite the slaves to revolt,
<i>the device, as it seems to us now</i>, must have fallen short of its object,
for the chance that anything could get into the hands of
the black man must <i>have been poor indeed</i>.
</p><p>
"These publications, however, caused <i>a panic</i> and <i>a wild indignation</i>
in the South."&mdash;Sumner's "Jackson," p. 350.
</p><p>
Why should the Southerners of that day go <i>wild</i> over conduct
for which the professor of this era has no word of condemnation?
</p><p>
Dr. Hart follows Professor Sumner's treatment. These are his
words:
</p><p>
"The free negroes of the South, the Abolitionists could not
reach except by <i>mailing publications to them</i>, a process which
<i>fearfully exasperated</i> the South <i>without reaching the persons addressed</i>."&mdash;Hart's
"Abolition and Slavery," p. 216.
</p><p>
Why should Southerners be "fearful" when they were intercepting
all the dangerous circulars, etc., they could find? And
why should they be exasperated at all?
</p><p>
Dr. Hart's chair at Harvard is within gunshot of Faneuil Hall,
yet the great meeting there of August 31, 1835, is not mentioned
in either his or Professor Sumner's book, nor is there to be found
in either of them <i>any explanation of the reasons underlying the general
and emphatic condemnation throughout the North at that period
of the Abolitionists and their methods</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> Garrison's "Garrison," vol. III, p. 412.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> "Slavery and the Domestic Slave Trade," Andrews, pp.
156-57.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Within perhaps a year Mr. Lincoln was compelled to bring
these negroes home; they were starving.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> "Channing's Works," vol. II, ed. 1837, pp. 131-32.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> Garrison's "Garrison," vol. III, p. 214.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Hart's "Slavery and Abolition," p. 256.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> "Channing's Works," vol. II, ed. 1847, p. 237.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> "Life of Buchanan," vol. II, p. 280.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> Garrison's "Garrison," vol. III, p. 247.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> "The Middle Period," John W. Burgess, p. 274.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> "Notes on North America," London, 1851, vol. II, p. 486.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> "Parties and Slavery," Smith, pp. 3, 4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> McMaster says: "The great statesman was behind the times."&mdash;"Webster,"
p. 19.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> "Vindication of Webster," William C. Wilkinson, p. 69.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> McMaster's "Webster."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 31st Congress, 1st session, Appendix,
p. 263.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> "Vindication of Webster," William C. Wilkinson, p. 191.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> McMaster's "Webster," p. 316 <i>et seq.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Professor McMaster in the chapter preceding that containing
these extracts, has collected much evidence to show that Webster
aspired to be President, and the biographer entitles the
chapter, "Longing for the Presidency," apparently the author's
clod on the grave of a buried reputation.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> <i>Ib.</i>, p. 160.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> "Daniel Webster and the Sentiment of Union," John Fiske,
"Essays Historical and Literary," pp. 408-9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> "Daniel Webster: A Vindication," p. 47.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> McMaster's "Webster," p. 340.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> Ableman <i>v.</i> Boothe, 21 How., 506.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> Fite, "Presidential Campaign of 1860," p. 243.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> "Parties and Slavery," Theodore Clarke Smith, professor of
history in Williams College, p. 96.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> "Rhodes," vol. I, p. 192.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> Vol. I, p. 66.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> Smith, "Parties and Slavery," pp. 118-20.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> The writer's father, who had been a nullifier and a lifelong
follower of Calhoun, joined the Know-Nothings in the hope of
saving the Union, but withdrew when he found that in the North
the party was not true to its Union pledges. Here was a typical
case of Southern unwillingness to resort to secession.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> <i>Ib.</i>, pp. 138-9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> Theodore Clarke Smith, "Parties and Slavery."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> Garrison's "Garrison."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> "The Negro and the Nation," George Spring Merriam,
p. 120.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Sanborn's "Life of John Brown," p. 466.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> <i>Ib.</i>, p. 515.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> "History of United States," Rhodes, vol. I.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Channing.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> Hart.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Theodore Clarke Smith, "Parties and Slavery," p. 303.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> For the humorous side of life in the South in the old day,
see "Simon Suggs," J. J. Hooper; "Georgia Scenes," Judge
Longstreet; and "Flush Times of Alabama and Mississippi," by
Baldwin.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> "Memoirs of John H. Reagan," p. 261.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> Mr. Lincoln took that position in his great speech at Chicago,
in 1858, when beginning his campaign for the senatorship.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> Lincoln, "Complete Works," vol. IV, p. 9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> "Calhoun's Works," vol. VI, p. 311.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> <i>Independent</i>, 1906.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> Life and Letters and Journals of George Ticknor.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> "The Presidential Campaign of 1860," p. 195, Fite, 1911.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> "Virginia's Attitude on Slavery and Secession," Mumford,
pp. 211-12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Alexander Johnston, "Lalor's Encyclopędia," vol. III, p. 163.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> Ableman <i>v.</i> Booth, 21 How.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> Alexander Johnston, "Lalor's Encyclopędia," vol. III, p.
707.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> "The Presidential Campaign of 1860," Emerson David Fite,
1911, introductory chapter.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> See Fite, "Campaign of 1860," passim, and especially
speech of Schurz, p. 244 <i>et seq.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> Mrs. Chestnut, wife of the Confederate general, James Chestnut,
writes in her "Diary from Dixie," under date of 1861, at
Montgomery, Alabama, then the Confederate capital: "In Mrs.
Davis's drawing-room last night, the President took a seat by
me on the sofa where I sat. He talked for nearly an hour. He
laughed at our faith in our own powers. We are like the British.
We think every Southerner equal to three Yankees at least. We
will have to be equivalent to a dozen now. After his experience
of the fighting qualities of Southerners in Mexico, he believes that
we will do all that can be done by pluck and muscle, endurance
and dogged courage, dash, and red-hot patriotism. And yet his
tone was not sanguine. <i>There was a sad refrain running through
it all.</i> For one thing, either way, he thinks it will be a long war.
That floored me at once. It has been too long for me already.
Then he said, before the end came we would have many bitter
experiences. He said only fools doubted the courage of the
Yankees, or their willingness to fight when they saw fit. And
now that we have stung their pride, we have roused them till they
will fight like devils."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> "Diary of Gideon Welles," 3 vols., passim.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> "Studies, Military and Diplomatic," p. 282 <i>et seq.</i> These
studies make a volume of rare historic value.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> According to that standard work, E. P. Alexander's "Memoirs,"
pp. 244, 245, and 274, the Confederates, who stood their
ground at Sharpsburg on the day of battle and the day after, lost in
killed and wounded thirty-two per cent. The French army at
Waterloo entirely dissolved, with a loss in killed and wounded
of only thirty-one per cent. (See figures in Henderson's "Stonewall
Jackson.")</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> Gideon Welles in an essay, "Lincoln and Johnson," <i>The
Galaxy</i>, April, 1872.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> "John Sherman's Recollections," vol. I, p. 361.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> "Fifty Years of Public Service," Cullom, p. 146.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> The final estimate of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy
under both Lincoln and Johnson, is this: "He (Johnson) has been
faithful to the Constitution, although his administrative capabilities
and management may not equal some of his predecessors.
Of measures he was a good judge but not always of men."&mdash;"Diary
of Gideon Welles," vol. III, p. 556.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> "Jefferson's Works," vol. I, p. 48.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> "Why the Solid South," p. 20.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> Ogden's "Life and Letters of Edwin Lawrence Godkin," vol.
II, p. 114.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> Pickett, pp. 399-400.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> "The Negro Problem," Pickett, 1909, pp. 399-400.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> "The Negro in the New World," Sir Harry Johnston, p. 478.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> <i>Ib.</i>, p. 470.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> "The Negro Problem," William Pickett, pp. 136-38. Rare
Traits, etc., of the Negro, Statistician, Prudential Ins. Co. of
America, p. 219 <i>et seq.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> "Two Perils of the Indo-European," <i>The Open Court</i>, January
23, 1890, p. 2052.</p></div>

</div>

<div class="tn">
<h3>Transcriber's note:</h3>

<p>Hyphenation is inconsistent.</p>

<p>Obvious printer's errors have been corrected.</p>

<p>Page 49: 'Prior to the rise of the Abolitionists in 1831,
emancipationists in the South had been free to grapple with conditions
as they found them.'</p>

<p>The words "in the" have been supplied by the transcriber.</p>

<p>Index reference to Johnston, Sir Harry: the transcriber has changed
page 257 to read 237.</p>

</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<hr class="full" />
<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ABOLITION CRUSADE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES***</p>
<p>******* This file should be named 39720-h.txt or 39720-h.zip *******</p>
<p>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:<br />
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/3/9/7/2/39720">http://www.gutenberg.org/3/9/7/2/39720</a></p>
<p>
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.</p>

<p>
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
</p>

<h2>*** START: FULL LICENSE ***<br />

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br />
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</h2>

<p>To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/license">www.gutenberg.org/license</a>.</p>

<h3>Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works</h3>

<p>1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.</p>

<p>1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.  See paragraph 1.E below.</p>

<p>1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.</p>

<p>1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.</p>

<p>1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:</p>

<p>1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:</p>

<p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at <a
href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a></p>

<p>1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.</p>

<p>1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.</p>

<p>1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.</p>

<p>1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.</p>

<p>1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.</p>

<p>1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p>

<p>1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that</p>

<ul>
<li>You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."</li>

<li>You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
     License.  You must require such a user to return or
     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
     Project Gutenberg-tm works.</li>

<li>You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
     of receipt of the work.</li>

<li>You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.</li>
</ul>

<p>1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.</p>

<p>1.F.</p>

<p>1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.</p>

<p>1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.</p>

<p>1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.</p>

<p>1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.</p>

<p>1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.</p>

<p>1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.</p>

<h3>Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm</h3>

<p>Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.</p>

<p>Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and
the Foundation information page at <a
href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a></p>

<h3>Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation</h3>

<p>The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.</p>

<p>The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at 809
North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887.  Email
contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation's web site and official page at <a
href="http://www.gutenberg.org/contact">www.gutenberg.org/contact</a></p>

<p>For additional contact information:<br />
     Dr. Gregory B. Newby<br />
     Chief Executive and Director<br />
     gbnewby@pglaf.org</p>

<h3>Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation</h3>

<p>Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.</p>

<p>The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit <a
href="http://www.gutenberg.org/donate">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a></p>

<p>While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.</p>

<p>International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.</p>

<p>Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit:  <a
href="http://www.gutenberg.org/donate">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a></p>

<h3>Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.</h3>

<p>Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone.  For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.</p>

<p>Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.</p>

<p>Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a></p>

<p>This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.</p>

</body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-02-16 21:52:06 +0000