페이지 이미지

ing up to create a demand for our manufactures, and to enrich us by their commercial relations.

6th. But I am told, that we should sympathise with the cause of the South, because they are for free-trade, while the North are for protection. The friends of the South in this country have even gone so far as to assert that the war had its origin in protective duties and absurd tariffs

. I am happy to be in a position to give that statement a most unqualified denial; and I venture to challenge any of the pro-slavery party in this country, from Mr. Spence, of Liverpool, who has been specially retained at a heavy fee to plead the cause of the South, down to Lord Wharncliffe, who is the president of the so-called “Southern Independence Association,” to point out one tariff imposed prior to the secession of the South by the votes of Northern statesmen, against the will of Southern statesmen. Nay, more, I stand here to assert-and, if necessary, to prove—that even the restrictive tariff that has been unwisely, as I believe, imposed by the government of America, has been imposed by a majority of Southern votes, and against a minority of Northern ones, as the following facts will show. The following are the votes of the Congress on the Tariff Bills, showing that the South might have prevented any of these measures from becoming law :

Tariff of 1789—passed unanimously.

Tariff of 1790-House of Representatives, Northern, 18 yeas, 12 nays; Southern, 22 yeas, 8 nays—18, 42. Senate unanimous.

Tariff of 1792–House of Representatives, Northern, 26 yeas, 4 nays; Southern, 11 yeas, 16 nays—26, 31. Senate unanimous.

Tariff of 1794–House of Representatives and Senate unanimous.

Tariff of 1797—House of Representatives, Northern, 39 yeas, 10 Days; Southern, 27 yeas, 11 nays-39, 48. Senate unanimous.

Tariff of 1804-House of Representatives unanimous. Senate, Northern, 8 yeas, 5 nays; Southern, 12 yeas, O nays—8, 17.

War Tariff of 1912–House of Representatives, Northern, 35 yeas, 33 nays; Southern, 41 yeas, 15 nays-35, 89. Senate, Northern, 10 yeas, 6 nays; Southern, 12 yeas, 4 nays—10, 22.

Manufacturing Tariff of 1816—House of Representatives, Northem, 63 yeas, 15 nays: Southern, 25 yeas, 39 nays—63, 79. N.B. J. C. Calhoun voted for. Senate unanimous.

Tariff of 1824-House of Representatives, Northern, 86 yeas, 32 nays; Southern, 19 yeas, 70 nays-86, 121. Senate unanimous.

[ocr errors]

Tariff of 1523-IIouse of Representatives, Northern, 88 yeas, 29 nays; Southern, 17 yeas, 65 nays-88, 111. Senate, Northern, 19 yeas, 4 neys; Southern, 6 yeas, 17 nays—19, 27.

Tariff of 1832—House of Representatives, Northern, 73 yeas, 35 nays; Southern, 49 yeas, 30 nays—73, 114. Senate, Northern, 33 yeas, 1 nay; Southern, 9 yeas, 15 nays—23, 25.

Compromise Tariff of 1833–House of Representatives, Northern, 35 yeas, 31 nays; Southern, 34 yeas, 4 nays-35, 169. Senate, Northern, 10 yeas, 13 ways; Southern, 19 yeas, 3 nays—10, 35.

Tariff of 1842—House of Representatives, Northern, 89 yeas, 28 nays; Southern, 16 yeas, 75 nays—89, 119. Senate, Northern, 19 yeas, 5 nays; Southern, 5 yeas, 18 nays—19, 28.

Reduction Tariff of 1846—House of Representatives, Northern, 50 yeas, 73 nays; Southeri, 64 yeas, 22 nays. Senate, Northern, 10 yeas, 16 nays; Southern, 18 yeas, 11 nays.

Reduction Tariff of 1857—House of Representatives, Northern, 60 yeas, 65 nays; Southeru, 63 yeas, 7 nays. Senate, Northern, 14 yeas, 9 nays; Southern, 19 yeas, 3 nays.

Increased Tariff of 1861 (Morrell) was voted after several of the Southern States had seceded, and therefore was the consequence, and not the cause, of secession.

[ocr errors]

I think it is abundantly plain from the above indisputable facts, that the South iuighit ai any period have prevented the passing of either of the tariffs, if so disposed. I readily admit that the North has been too much under the influence of the delusion-which, by-theby, was rather popular in this country twenty years agotliat protective duties help to strengthen and stimulate those branches of industry protected. The iron and wool manufacturers of the North have always been—and, for aught I know, are still—blindly and foolishly in favour of protection. But, I have it on authority which I have no right to question, that prior to the outbreak of the present war, the North was fast progressing towards free-trade doctrines; and that the restoration of the Union, so far from retarding the advance of free-trade in America, will help to realise what, I am sure, we all desire-namely, entire freedom of interchange between Ainerica and the rest of the world; so that the raw materials which that country can produce to such an enormous extent, may be exchanged for the manufactured goods of other nations. What becomes, then, of the argument in favour of recognising the South, attempted to be palmed upon us on free

trade grounds? I think you will agree with me that any argument founded on such misapprehension and error, is undeserving the attention of thoughtful, reflective, and truth-loving men.

7th. There is another fallacy relative to the American question, which I must really apologise for troubling you with. It is so manifestly absurd, that I wonder even Lord Wharncliffe could have been guilty of referring to it. That I

may not misrepresent the matter, I will state the objection in his lordship's own words. “The South,” said his lordship, some time ago, at oue of those hole-and-corner meetings which seem to best suit the advocates of a government based on slavery, “the South had hitherto laboured under the imputation that they by their proceedings were tending to support the existence of slavery, and this," adds bis lordshir, “is an impression which they ought to be careful to remove." I quite agree with his lordship there is this impression pretty generally entertained.

I plead guilty to the imputation of believing that the “tendency of the South is to support slavery," and I base that opinion upon the fact--I. That they have, or lately had, four millions of slaves in their unidst; that, in order to retain them as slaves, they denied to them the rights of citizenship, doomed them to ignorance, treated them with barbarity and cruelty, and did all they could to lower and debase them. TI. I declare it as my belief, that to extend and perpetuate this system, with all its hateful concomitants, the South rebelled against the constitution and laws of their country, and involved their nation in one of the most barbarous and wicked wars of modern times; and, III. I contend that during the progress of the war, the South has persistently refused every measure tending towards the freedom of their slaves. Are they not now refusing to exchange prisoners, because the North insists that black soldiers shall be treated as prisoners of war, and neither be sold into slavery nor shot in cold blood? I honour the North for resolving to compel the South to do this. If they employ coloured men in their armies, they are bound, in honour, to extend over them such protection as the rules of war permit.

With these facts before me, then, I admit that it does look to me as though the South has " a tendency to sup port slavery.” When I hear that they have ceased to fight in defence of slavery; when I hear that they show any signs of being willing to loosen their grasp on the victims of their oppression; when they open their country even to the discussion of the subject of slavery; and when the repeal that clause in their constitution forbidding the right to prohibit slavery in future ;-when, I say, they do this, then I shall gladly admit that the “tendency” of the South is not to slavery, but to freedom. But till then, the South must bear all the odium that attaches to a people fighting in defence of the most infamous system Satan ever devised; and Lord Wharncliffe, and those who support him, must not wonder if their names go down to posterity as the names of men who, by their words and deeds, did all they could to rivet on the necks of an oppressed race more firmly the chain of slavery, and to give nationality and perpetuity to a system condemned by Christianity, by reason, and by the almost universal conscience of the world.

While making these remarks, and speaking thus strongly on the sin, as I think it, of aiding and sympathising with the South, let me say most distinctly that I have no wish to see the South injured or crushed. From my heart, I believe the South has suffered more from slavery than the North; the North has suffered in moral character, but the South has suffered in commercial prosperity as well as character; for, remember, while slavery may have enriched a few, it has impoverished and reduced the many.. I believe, if slavery is abolished, the South will realise a state of prosperity equal to that realised by the North in the past. I believe that those are the real friends of the South, as well as the best friends of humanity, who labour to convince even the prejudiced minds of slaveholders, that they are hugging the viper that is feeding upon their vitals, and destroying their national life.

Let me here call your attention to a point not suficiently noticed-namely, that there are certain States of the South only interested in slavery incidentally and remotely, such as the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, part of Tennessee, and North Carolina. These are all farining and slave-breeding States. They have no plantations, or, at any rate, very few, cultivated by slaves. They breed slaves for sale to the more Southern States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,

Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas. The plantation States are in favour, and have always been in favour, of the African slave-trade. The former, on the other hand, are opposed to that trade, because it would tend to knock down the value of human stock. The Gulf States contend that it is very hard upon them to oblige them to pay from 1,000 to 1,500 dollars for slaves from neighbouring States, when they might get as good from Africa for 50 or 100 dollars. And here I must remark, that I believe the importation of slaves from Virginia and other States is more cruel, more wicked, and is attended with more horror, than the importation of slaves from Africa. When you bring them from Africa you bring them from a savage State; they have had none of the tender sympathies awakened that contact with civilisation and religion is sure to engender. The slaves sent south from Virginia and other States have many of them joined Christian churches, formed social ties, and cultivated strong personal attachments. These are all rudely severed and broken by the severance of parents from children, and husbands from wives. Virginia alone generally breeds and sends south 100,000 slaves a-year, and sometimes takes twenty-four million dollars a-year for their human cattle. Only think of the idea of breeding human beings, for whom Christ died, to sell ! What language can I use strong enough to denounce such a trade? And how can I help speaking strongly relative to the conduct of those who are trying to betray us into a partnership in crime with those who are endeavouring to perpetuate this wrong?

8th. There is another fallacy which I must refer to, or I. shall be accused of failing to face the strongest point with the pro-slavery party. Mr. Lincoln, they say, is not sincere; he cares nothing for the slave, and only takes up the cause of the slave from political motives. Well, suppose I admit all this, for the sake of argument, what then? Are we to refuse to sympathise with a great object because some of the men who support it are not sincere? Would you ask me to sympathise with protection, because some of the men who advocated free-trade did it from selfish motives? I think not. Remember, this is not a question dependent on Mr. Lincoln's sincerity or otherwise: it is an antagonism between systems, not men. Whatever Mr. Lincoln may say or do, will not affect materially the issue..

« 이전계속 »