60

CONSTITUTION OF SLAVE SOCIETY

Such is the net result of advantage which slavery, as an economic system, is capable of yielding. To the full credit of all that is involved in this admission the institution is fairly entitled.

The constitution of a slave society, it has been seen, is sufficiently simple it resolves itself into three classes, broadly distinguished from each other, and connected by no common interest-the slaves on whom devolves all the regular industry, the slave-holders who reap all its fruits, and an idle and lawless rabble who live dispersed over vast plains in a condition little removed from absolute barbarism. These form the constituent elements of the society of which the Slave Power is the political representative. What the nature of that power is, now that we have ascertained the elements out of which it springs, we can have little difficulty in determining. When the whole wealth of a country is monopolized by a thirtieth part of its population, while the remainder are by physical or moral causes consigned to compulsory poverty and ignorance; when the persons composing the privileged thirtieth part are all engaged in pursuits of the same kind, subject to the influence of the same moral ideas, and identified with the maintenance of the same species of property-in a society so constituted political power will of necessity reside with those in whom centre the elements of such power-wealth, knowledge, and intelligence the small minority for whose exclusive benefit the system exists. The polity of such a society must thus, in essence, be an oligarchy, whatever be the particular mould in which it is cast. Nor is this all. A society so organized tends to develop with a peculiar intensity the distinctive vices of an oligarchy. In a country of free labour, whatever be the form of government to which it is subject, the pursuits of industry are various. Various interests, therefore, take root, and parties grow up which, regarding national questions from various points. of view, become centres of opposition, whether against the undue pretensions of any one of their number, or against those of a single ruler. It is not so in the Slave States. That variety of interests which springs from the individual impulses of a free population does not here exist. The elements of a political opposition are wanting. There is but one party,* but one set of men who

*There is one exception to this statement. Between the breeding and working states a difference of interest has been developed which has resulted in the formation of two parties within the Slave States But (as will hereafter be shown) this difference of interest has never been sufficient to produce any serious discordance among the politicians of the South. The sympathies which bind the breeding and working states together are far stronger than any interests which separate them; and in the main they have always acted as a single party.

ESSENTIALLY OLIGARCHICAL.

61

are capable of acting together in political concert. The rest is an undisciplined rabble. From this state of things the only possible result is that which we find-a despotism, in the last degree unscrupulous and impatient of control, wielded by the wealthy few. Now it is this power which for half a century has exercised paramount sway in the councils of the Union. It is the men educated in the ideas of this system who have filled the highest offices of State, who have been the representatives of their country to European Powers, and who, by their position and the influence they have commanded, have given the tone to the public morality of the nation. The deterioration of the institutions and of the character of the people of the United States is now very commonly taken for granted in this country. The fact may be so; so far as the South is concerned I believe, and shall endeavour to prove, that it unquestionably is so. But it is very important that we should understand to what cause this deterioration is due. There are writers who would have us believe that it is but the natural result of democratic institutions working through the Federal system; and for this view a plausible case may be easily made ont. Democratic Institutions have admittedly exercised a powerful influence in forming the American character and in determining the present condition of the United States. It is only necessary, therefore, to bring this point strongly into view in close connexion with all that is most objectionable in the public morals, and all that is most discreditable in the recent history, of the Union, keeping carefully out of sight the existence in the political system of institutions the reverse of democratic and avoiding all reference to the cardinal fact, that it is these and not the democratic institutions of the North which, almost since its establishment, have been the paramount power in the Union, to leave the impression that everything that has been made matter of reproach in transatlantic politics has been due to democracy and to democracy alone. According to this method of theorising, the abstraction of Florida, the annexation of Texas, the filibustering expeditions of Lopez and Walker, the attempts upon Cuba, have no connexion with the aggressive ambition of the Slave Power: they are only proofs of the rapacious spirit of democracy armed with the strength of a powerful federation. It is, indeed, quite astounding to observe the boldness with which this argument is sometimes handled. One would have thought that an advocate of the Southern cause would at least have shown some hesitancy in alluding to an attack made by a Southern bully, on the floor of the Senate-house, upon one of the most accomplished statesmen of the North.

62

REPROACH FALSELY CHARGED ON DEMOCRACY.

That attack was in all circumstances plainly branded with the marks of its origin. It was committed by a slaveholder, acting as the champion of slaveholders, in revenge for an anti-slavery speech; it was characterized by that mingled treachery, cowardice, and brutality which are only to be found in societies reared in the presence of slavery; it was adopted and applauded by the whole people of the South, recognized by testimonials, and rewarded by gifts: yet this act is deliberately put forward as an example of the "irreverence for justice" which is produced by democratic institutions, and is employed to prepossess our minds in favour of the Southern cause!* The present writer is far from being an admirer of democracy as it

*Spence's American Union, pp. 65-6, 74-5. Mr. Spence states the act, omitting to mention the occasion, or whether the actors were Northern or Southern men, but in the same paragraph, having alluded to the case of Mr. Sickles, he adds that the man who committed a deliberate and relentless murder in open day

is now a Brigadier-General in the Northern army." Is the mention of the criminal's origin in one case, and its suppression in the other, an accident?

In a later portion of the volume a still more striking instance occurs of Mr. Spence's candour. "A French writer, Raymond, comments on the singular fact that whilst between England and France but one rious quarrel has occurred since 1815, there have arisen during the same period twelve or thirteen most serious difficulties between the United States and ourselves. We have had minor wars with China, conducted on the principle of throwing open to the world every advantage obtained by ourselves. On one occasion we invited the co-operation of the American Government, but in vain, and every opportunity was seized to thwart our policy. Even the Chinese know they may expect to see the flag of any other power in union with our own, but never that of America. There was, indeed, a moment when our men were falling under a murderous fire, that for once an American was heard to declare that blood was thicker than water.' It would ill become us to forget the noble conduct of Commodore Tatnall on that occasion. He was a Southerner, and is now a 'traitor and rebel' " (pp. 294–296). Let the reader note the art with which the facts are here manipulated. We are asked to refuse our sympathies to the North, because, since 1815 we have had frequent difficulties with the United States (which the North now represents)-the circumstances that during almost the whole of this period the Government of the United States was in the hands of Southern statesmen being suppressed as of no importance in the case. On the other hand a single instance in which a Southerner has performed an act of a friendly nature towards Great Britain is brought prominently forward as a ground for giving our sympathies to the South. It is evident that the contrast thus instituted between the friendly conduct of Commodore Tatnall-a Southerner-and the hostile spirit which had just been commented on as manifested by the Government of the Union, can, taken in connexion with the general tenor of the argument, have no other effect than to leave readers unacquainted with the facts (a rather numerous class unfortunately in this country) under the impression that, as the friendly demonstration was the act of a Southerner, so the hostile manifestations proceeded from the North. The spirit evinced in this passage, which is merely a specimen of the main argument of the work from which it is taken, is all the more remarkable in a writer who in his preface bespeaks the confidence of his readers on the ground that "personal considerations and valued friendships incline him without exception to the Northern side," which he has been compelled reluctantly to abandon by "convictions forced upon the mind by facts and reasonings."

CHARACTER OF THE SLAVE POWER.

63

exists in the Northern States; but, whatever be the merits or demerits of that form of government, it is desirable that it should be judged by its own fruits, and not by the fruits of a system which is its opposite -a system which, in place of conferring political power on the majority of the people, gives it, free from all control, to a small minority whose interests are not only not identical with those of their fellow-citizens, but directly opposed to theirs. Democracy, beyond all doubt, has been a powerful influence in moulding the character of the Americans in the Northern States; it would be absurd to deny this; but it would be no less absurd, and would be still more flagrantly in defiance of the most conspicuous facts of the case, to deny that that character has also been profoundly modified by the influence of Southern institutions, acting through the Federal government, in the persons of Southern men-institutions which I repeat are the reverse of democratic. It is the Slave Power, and not the democracy of the North, which for half a century has been dominant in the Union. It is this Power which has directed its public policy; which has guided its intercourse with foreign nations, conducted its diplomacy, regulated its internal legislation, and which, by working on its hopes and fears through the unscrupulous use of an enormous patronage, has exercised an unbounded sway over the minds of the whole people. Whatever other agencies may have contributed to shape the course of American politics, this at least has been a leading one; and whatever be the political character of the citizens, for that character this system must be held in a principal degree responsible.

To sum up in a few words the general results of the foregoing discussion:-the Slave Power-that power which has long held the helm of government in the Union-is, under the forms of a democracy, an uncontrolled despotism, wielded by a compact oligarchy. Supported by the labour of four millions of slaves, it rules a population of five millions of whites-a population ignorant, averse to systematic industry, and prone to irregular adventure. A system of society more formidable for evil, more menacing to the best interests of the human race, it is difficult to conceive.

64.

IN WHAT DIRECTION MOVING?

CHAPTER IV.

TENDENCIES OF SLAVE SOCIETIES.

In what direction is slave society, as presented in the States of the Confederation, moving? Towards a higher civilization, or towards barbarism? On the answer to this question, I apprehend, will principally depend the degree of indulgence which we may be disposed to extend to modern slavery. If the form of society springing from the institution be found to be but an incident of a certain stage of human progress, a shell of barbarism from which nations gradually work themselves free with the development of their moral and material life, an evil which will disappear by a spontaneous process-we shall probably be disposed to regard the institution with considerable leniency, to deprecate schemes for its overthrow, and, perhaps, in certain cases, even to look with favour on plans for its extension. If, on the other hand, it appear that the system is essentially retrograde in its character, contrived so as to arrest and throw back the development, moral and material, of the people on whom it is imposed, and to hold them in a condition of permanent barbarism, the sentiments with which we shall regard it, as well as our policy towards the countries which uphold it, will be of a very different kind.

Thus, to give the point a practical illustration, the mode of dealing with Mexico is at present a most perplexing question for European statesmen. In the present condition of that country-the prey of contending factions, whose alternate. excesses prevent the growth of steady industry, deter European settlement, and deprive the world of the benefit which its great natural resources are calculated to confer-almost any change would be a change for the better. The establishment of an effective government of some kind, of a power capable of preserving the lives and properties of the inhabitants, is a matter of prime necessity, without which the first foundations of improvement cannot be laid. Now the most obvious method of effecting this purpose would be to hand the country over to the Southern Confederation;* and this arrangement would entirely fall in with the views of the leaders of that body. But Mexico, whatever be the vices of its political sys

*This is not a mere fanciful hypothesis. The plan has been suggested in terms sufficiently unambiguous by the Times. See a leading article of the Times, 31st July, 1861.