“This is not all,” replied the old gentleman: “he contradicts himself every third or fourth line, preaching union on one hand, and the dissolution of it on the other. Let me read to you another passage.
“‘Undoubtedly there is peril in extending ourselves; and yet the chief benefit of the Union, which is the preservation of peaceful relations among neighbouring states, is so vast that some risk should be taken to secure it in the greatest possible degree. The objection to the annexation of Texas, drawn from the unwieldiness it would give to the country, though very serious, is not decisive. A far more serious objection is, that it should be annexed to us for the avowed purpose of multiplying slave-holding States, and thus giving POLITICAL POWER. This cannot, ought not to be borne. It will justify, it will at length DEMAND a separation of the States.’”
“Did I not always tell you,” interrupted the same visitor, “that the doctrine of nullification originated in Massachusetts? This is but a repetition of sentiments expressed here more than twenty years ago. But we change opinions according to circumstances.”
“Hear on!” cried the master of the house. “You interrupted me in the best part of Channing’s letter.
“‘We maintain,’ he says, ‘that this policy is altogether without reason on the part of the South. The South has exerted, and cannot help exerting, a disproportionate share of influence on the confederacy. The slave-holding States have already advantages of co-operation, and for swaying the country, which the others do not possess. The free States have no common interest like slavery to hold them together. They differ in character, feelings, and pursuits. They agree but on one point, and that a negative one,—the absence of slavery; and this distinction, as is well known, makes no lively impression on the consciousness, and in no degree counteracts the influences which divide them from one another. To this may be added the well-known fact, that in the free States the subject of politics is of secondary importance, whilst in the South it is paramount. In the North, every man must toil for subsistence; and, amidst the feverish competitions and anxieties of the eager and universal pursuit of gain, political power is sought with little comparative avidity. In some districts it is hard to find fit representatives for Congress, so backward are superior men to forego the emoluments of their vocation,—the prospect of independence,—for the uncertainties of public life.’”
“Under such circumstances,” interrupted I, “and with such an exalted patriotism on the part of your superior men in the North, the American people ought to be glad to find Southern legislators in Congress; else their senate and house of representatives would contain nothing but men of straw.”
“It is precisely that mental aristocracy of the South which our people dislike the most,” responded the old gentleman. “They cannot pardon elegant manners and superior education. But hear what parallel Dr. Channing draws between the South and North.
“‘What contrast does the South form with the divided and slumbering North! There, one strong broad distinction exists, of which all the members of the community have a perfect consciousness; there a peculiar element is found, which spreads its influence through the mass, and impresses itself on the whole constitution of society. Nothing decides the character of a people more than the form and determination of labour. Hence we find a unity in the South unknown in the North. In the South, too, the proprietors, released from the necessity of labour, and having little of the machinery of association to engage their attention, devote themselves to politics with a concentration of zeal which a Northerner can only comprehend by being on the spot. Hence the South has professional politicians, a character hardly known in the free States.’
“You hear,” cried the reader, “our politicians are mere dilettanti.
“‘The result is plain,’ continues Dr. Channing. ‘The South has generally ruled the country. It must always have an undue power. United, as the North cannot be, it can always link to itself some discontented portion in the North, which it can liberally reward by the patronage which the possession of the government confers.’