« 이전계속 »
dary; each state, whatever its population, sends two members to the Senate, or Upper House of Congress: and every 120,000 of the population, I believe, returns member to the Lower House of Congress. By this arrangement it is evident that those states which increase most in population, will eventually obtain the largest share of political power in the Congress or Parliament of the United States. Thus, according to this law, while Virginia originally sent ten members to Congress, and New York only six, she now sends 11, while New York sends 30. And by the working of this natural and constitutional principle, the power has been gradually passing from the South to the North. At the same time I regret to add, that through the wicked connivance and assistance of a large and powerful section in the North, viz., the Democratic or pro-slavery party, the South have been able for the last 30 years to extend and consolidate the infamous system of slavery, until nothing but a revolution appeared powerful enough to destroy it. There can be no doubt that the original intention of the founders of the Republic was the gradual but certain overthrow and extinction of slavery. It is spoken of in all their early documents and manifestoes, by Washington, Jefferson, and other leaders, as an evil to be tolerated only for a time. They evidently intended and desired its ultimate extinction, and happy would it have been for the American republic had their wise and Christian counsels been acted upon.
But alas, human nature, naturally evil, is made still more evil by its contact with wrong of every kind, and the whole history of America is a sad illustration of the fact that while a nation may grow in political power and commercial greatness, it may, at the same time, decline in moral character; and that, after all, true greatness and lasting success cannot be attained by nations, more than it can by individuals, who violate those principles of justice and right which God has interwoven with the happiness and prosperity of the world. Believe me, friends, the Bible speaks the truth of history as well as Christianity when it says "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people."
Unfortunately, the system of slavery has so poisoned the moral atmosphere of the states, that what at first was looked upon as an unavoidable curse, soon came to be tolerated,
then defended, then great efforts were made for its extension, and now we see a revolution for its perpetuation. I believe that, bad as slavery has been to the black population, it has been infinitely more injurious to the character of the white population; and that the system they have been nursing as a promoter of their greatness, has been the cause of those sad exhibitions of pride, arrogance, and political dishonesty, which have formed the disgrace, and will, if unrepented of, prove the ruin of the Union.
In 1790, the area of the slave states was 250,000 square miles, and the number of slaves about 750,000. In 1860, by a series of aggressions, intrigues, and wars, which I will presently describe, the slave states had contrived to extend their area to 850,000 square miles, and the number of their slaves to about 4,000,000. To accomplish this, there has been pursued a most aggressive and infamous policy on the part of the South during the last 40 years, which it will be necessary for me briefly to sketch. By a decree of Congress in 1787, slavery was forbidden in any territory north or west of the Ohio; and the gradual abolition of slavery in the northern states was also decreed by the gradual action of the respective governments of the states. The northern states found then, what they find still, that free labour and slave labour cannot and will not exist together. To go no further for a reason of this, I may refer to the well-known fact that in all slave countries labour is looked upon as degrading and dishonourable; hence the condition of the "mean whites," as they are called in the South, is, I am persuaded, as cruel and oppressive as that of the free blacks in the North.
During, therefore, all the early days of the Republic, the northern states were engaged in gradually removing this curse from their midst. Thus the matter stood till 1820, when there came up the great struggle about Missouri, which ended in what is called "The Missouri Compromise." Missouri was purchased from France in 1803, and then formed part of the territory of Louisiana: in 1820 it applied to be admitted as a state. The North said it must come into the Union free, in accordance with the law of 1787. No, said the South; slavery is there, and there it shall remain. The North, to its eternal disgrace be it spoken, yielded on the understanding that slavery should not, under any circumstances, extend north of 36 deg. 30 min. north
latitude, and that in the territories south of that, the introduction, or otherwise, of slavery should be left to the people of each state hereafter to be admitted to the Union. From this time may be dated the struggle, which has now culminated in war. The first 40 years of the Union, slavery formed no special subject of political discussion. There were, of course, men who on religious grounds denounced it; among whom the Society of Friends deserve high and honourable mention. But there was not much argument on the subject; all parties admitted it to be an evil, and promised gradually to abolish it; but, unknown, perhaps, to themselves, the system was eating out the principle of humanity and virtue from their heart, leaving them under the influence of selfishness and sin in some of its most hateful forms.
As the South were now forbidden to extend their infamous system northward, they resolved to extend it south, and hence in 1844 they took Texas (up to that time a province of Mexico) by intrigue and treachery. They also obtained additional grants of territory from the Mexicans in 1848 to 1854, all for the purpose of bringing new slave states into the Union, and extending the system of slavery and the political power of the slaveholders. The next concession the South determined to obtain, was the right to hunt their negroes over Northern soil. This was accomplished by the passing of the infamous Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, and the discussion about which very much tended to promote the feeling that ultimately led to the election of Mr. Lincoln. The passing of this law roused the North to the danger of extending slavery, and contributed in no small degree to the triumph of the Republican party in 1860. This brought the evils of slavery home to the conscience and convictions of the North. Then came the fillibustering attacks on Cuba, and the virtual opening of the slave trade via Cuba to the South, and the violation of the treaties with this country for the suppression of that trade, by a denial of the right of search. The "Dred Scot" decision may also be said to have helped still further to rouse the North. By this decision the coloured man was denied the rights of citizenship in the North, even though his freedom may have been purchased and paid for; and through the action of this decision hundreds who for years had been living free, under the protection of the North,
were hurried back into slavery again. Then came the struggle for Kansas, which you will see, by reference to the map, lies north of the line agreed to by the Missouri Compromise. This was attempted to be taken by violence and force as a slave state; but the North (now fairly roused to the danger) determined that this fertile district should not be handed over to slavery and ruin, and they therefore rushed into Kansas, and peopled it with a free soil party, sufficiently strong to drive back the slave power. In 1856 came the cowardly and ruffianly attack on Mr. Sumner, one of the most eloquent opponents of slavery in the North, who was attacked and almost murdered by a ruffian named Brookes, in the House of Representatives, for no other crime than speaking out manfully his views against slavery; and will it be believed that this flagrant act was defended by the whole press in the South, and that even the ladies of South Carolina presented this enemy of liberty and freedom of speech with a gold-headed cane, with the motto on it "Hit him again"?
I have now hastily traced the history of slavery in America, down to the period just prior to the election of Mr. Lincoln in 1860: it is a dark and disgraceful epitome of unjust demands on the part of the South, and wicked concessions on the part of the North. And to me it is a subject of unspeakable pleasure that I now come to speak of brighter days. The North were determined to resist the extension and domination of the slave power, and after much deliberation and discussion, the Abolition and Republican parties resolved to make common cause, and agree to elect a president and a government opposed to the extension of slavery. The Republican party are not, as a whole, opposed to slavery in principle. But they are opposed to its extension, and in favour of its gradual extinction, and may thus be said to inherit the principles of the founders of the Republic. It is fortunate, as I think, that this party are joined by a minority of earnest Christian men, who, from deep religious convictions, are opposed to slavery in every form, and who, I believe, will become the means of infusing their spirit into the Republican party. This continued adhesion to Mr. Lincoln is a proof that they are satisfied that the result of his policy and plans will be the advance of the principle they hold to be dear. Let me quote the testimony of one of the most earnest and
uncompromising of the Abolition party. Mr. Lloyd Garrison, in July, 1861, is reported to have said "This war is declared to be solely to support the union, and not to abolish slavery. But what do I care for nice distinctions when I see that it is an array of all that is free in the land against all that is oppressive and tyrannical. Say what men may, it is really a conflict between the spirit of light and the spirit of darkness-between the forces of freedom on the one hand, and those of slavery on the other." It is quite evident from this statement, and from hundreds of others of a similar character, that the most earnest and sincere of the abolition party in America are satisfied that the triumph of the North in this struggle means the downfall of slavery, and the triumph of the South would lead to its indefinite extension and perpetuation. And, to my mind, it is clear that English sympathy, and English moral support, are due to those who are practically fighting the battle of freedom against slavery, and government against anarchy. I regret as much as any man can, that the North ever allowed the South so to extend and advance the system of slavery as to make it possible that they should take up arms against a government they were sworn to support. Had the North made a resolute stand forty years ago, this war would never have occurred. But they tried to put off the struggle by concessions of an unjust and wicked kind, and now they have forced upon them a war that will tax all their patience and patriotism to bring to a successful issue. May GOD grant that, since this war was begun by the South to perpetuate and extend slavery, it may end in breaking the arm of the oppressor, and in letting the captive go free; and let all the friends of progress, of humanity, of religion, and of liberty, all over the world, say Amen.
My previous remarks have been chiefly historical, and I now come to that part of the subject which will be more controversial. The points I undertake to prove, are-1st, that slavery was the sole cause of the present war; 2nd, that the triumph of the South would result in the perpetuation and spread of slavery; 3rd, that on this account the South does not deserve our sympathy and support; and 4th, that the triumph of the North will be most likely to promote the best interests of England, America, and the world. And 1st. Slavery is the sole cause of the present war. This will be evident to any man who will take the trouble