Who goes there?

by B. K. Benson

"What was it, Captain?"

"The hope that the Confederacy would meet Lincoln's order by emancipating the slaves gradually."

"Was that seriously thought of?"

"Yes; there was much discussion of it, but privately in the main. We do not know what took place in Congress, but it has leaked out that there was a strong party there in favour of it. Whether any vote was ever had I do not know; I dare say those in favour of the measure found they were not strong enough, and thought best not to press it."

"What effect would such a course have had?"

"I can say only what I think. I believe that England would have recognized us. The North, too, would have been disarmed, in a measure. In fact, the great bugaboo that brought on the war would have been laid at rest. The North would have been eager to conciliate the South, and it would have become possible to reconstruct the Union with clear definitions of the sovereignty of the States."

"I remember your telling me long ago that you would favour a gradual emancipation."

"Yes; our form of slavery is not bad, it is true, Jones; in fact, there is great justification for it. It is too universal, however. It does not give enough opportunity for a slave to develop, and to make a future for himself. Still, we have some grand men among the slaves. Many of them would suffer death for the interest of their masters' families. Then, too, we have in the South a type unknown in the rest of the world since feudalism: we have in Virginia, in South Carolina, in Louisiana, reproductions of the old nobility. The world is richer for such men. The general condition of the slaves is good. We know that the negro is an inferior race. We have done him no injustice by giving him a small share in a civilization which his kings could never know. He was a slave at home; he is less a slave here. He has been contented. Witness his docility, his kindness even, to our wives and children while his masters are at war, seemingly to perpetuate his bonds. Such conduct deserves recognition. I would say that a system of rewards should be planned by which a worthy negro, ambitious to become free, could by meritorious conduct achieve his freedom. But this act of Lincoln's is monstrous. It is good for nobody. A race of slaves, suddenly become free, is a race of infants with the physical force of men. What would become of them? Suppose the North should succeed. Suppose the Confederate armies disbanded, and the States back in the Union or held as territories. Has anybody the least idea that the whites of the South would tolerate the new dignity of their former slaves? The condition would be but the beginning of race hatred that would grow into active hostility, and would never end. The whites would band together and punish negro offences more severely than ever. The negroes could not combine. The result would be cruelty to the black man; his condition would be far worse than before. Even supposing that Northern armies should indefinitely occupy all our territory; even supposing that our own people should be driven out and our lands given to the slaves--what would become of them? We know their character. They look not one day ahead. There would be famine, riot, pestilence, anarchy. And the worst men of the race would hold the rest in terror. Immorality would be at a premium, sir. The race would lose what it had gained. But, on the other hand, put into practice a plan for gradual freedom based on good conduct; you would see whites and blacks living in peace. The negro would begin to improve, and the white people would help him. It would not be long before the ideal of the negro would be individual freedom, not race freedom, as it is the white man's ideal now. There would be great striving throughout the negro race, which would be affected thereby from first to last of them. Yes, I believe that if we had so done we should have been recognized. England does not believe in sudden emancipation. She provides for the freeing of the slaves throughout her dominions, but gradually carries her plans into effect, and she pays the owners. I sometimes think that American Revolution was a mistake for the Southern colonies, for South Carolina especially."

"A mistake, Captain? That is a new idea to me."

"We certainly had not the reason to rebel that Massachusetts had. Our best people--and we had many of them--were closely allied to the best of the English, more closely than to Massachusetts. Our trade with the mother country was profitable, and our products were favoured by bounties. We had no connection, with the French and Indian wars which had given rise to so much trouble between Great Britain and New England. But our people thought it would be base to desert the cause of Massachusetts. I dare say this thought was the main reason that caused South Carolina to throw in her lot with that of our Northern colonies. See what we get for it. We renounce our profitable commerce with England, and we help our sister colonies; just so soon as their profitable commerce with us is threatened by our withdrawal, they maintain it by putting us to death. It is their nature, sir. They live by trade. If they continue to increase in power, they will hold the West in commercial subjection--and the isles of the sea, if they can ever reach to them. Death has no such terrors to them as loss of trade."