A Visit to the United States in 1841

by Joseph Sturge

The effects of this great reformation are not confined to the United States, although the change hitherto has been much more gradual in my native country; not so, however, in Ireland, now, by a happy reverse, a scene of light and promise, amidst surrounding gloom and depression. Of the American facts I have to record, connected with the temperance movement, the most grateful is the striking contrast that is exhibited in the Irish emigrants. By the divine blessing on Theobald Mathew's benevolent labors, they have generally forsaken their besetting sin of drunkenness in their native land, and if compelled to seek the means of subsistence in another country, they now at least do not carry with them habits that tend irresistibly to destitution and degradation. The Irish movement is likewise re-acting most beneficially on the native Irish, who have long been settled in America, and who are joining the total abstinence societies in great number, though hitherto the most intemperate part of the community.

In short, whether I consider the religious, the benevolent, or the literary institutions of the Northern States—whether I contemplate the beauty of their cities, or the general aspect of their fine country, in which nature every where is seen rendering her rich and free tribute to industry and skill—or whether I regard the general comfort and prosperity of the laboring population,—my admiration is strongly excited, and, to do justice to my feelings, must be strongly expressed. Probably there is no country where the means of temporal happiness are so generally diffused, notwithstanding the constant flow of emigrants from the old world; and, I believe there is no country where the means of religious and moral improvement are so abundantly provided—where facilities of education are more within the reach of all—or where there is less of extreme poverty and destitution.

As morals have an intimate connection with politics, I do not think it out of place here to record my conviction, that the great principle of popular control, which is carried out almost to its full extent in the free states, is not only beautiful in theory, but that it is found to work well in practice. It is true that disgraceful scenes of mob violence and lynch-law have occurred; but perhaps not more frequently than popular outbreaks in Great Britain; while, generally, the supremacy of law and order have been restored, without troops, or special commissions, or capital punishments. It is also true, that these occurrences are, for the most part, directly traceable, not to the celebrated declaration of the equal and inalienable right of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is the fundamental principle of the constitution; but to the flagrant violation of that principle in the persons of the colored population, of whom those in most of the free states are actually or virtually deprived of political rights; and the rest, constituting a majority of the population in some of the Southern States, are held in abject slavery. The corruptions and disorders that obscure the bright example of the American people, and detract from the estimation in which their institutions and policy would otherwise be held, generally spring from this source. So long as slavery and distinction of color exist, America will always be pointed at with the finger of scorn, for her flagrant violation of all truth and consistency. But let us not forget that this odious institution is the disgraceful legacy of a monarchy—that it is no necessary effect of republican institutions, but the reverse. Our quarrel, therefore, is not with the declaration of rights, but that this celebrated declaration should be regarded, in the instance of one class in the community, as a mere rhetorical flourish, and should thus be deprived of its legitimate practical effect.

The great feature of the political arrangements of the free States is, the absence of the aristocratic element. A pure despotism in the hands of one man has seldom been seen, except in the instances of those renowned military chiefs, whom a retributive Providence has at intervals employed as the scourge of guilty nations. An aristocracy under various forms and names, has usually been the governing power, and as the too frequent result, laws have been made and administered for the benefit of the few, and not for the many. Yet the United States of North America exhibit, however, notwithstanding their political theory to the contrary, an aristocracy of the worst kind, an aristocracy of color; in the free States of the many against the few, in affirming these to be a degraded race, as long as African blood runs in their veins; and in the slave States, for a no better reason, reducing them even when they are the majority; to the condition of brute beasts, to be held and sold as goods and chattels. And this leads me to observe that the writer who mistakes the general government of the confederacy, with its limited scope and powers, for the chief source of laws and administration in the separate States will unavoidably present a confused and distorted representation of existing facts. Each State constitutes within itself a distinct republic, virtually independent of the general government, so long as its legislation does not conflict with the specific articles of the constitutional compact; all the rights and powers of sovereignty, not specifically delegated to the Government in that instrument, being retained by the States. Hence nothing can present a wider contrast than the slavery-blackened code of South Carolina, and the statutes of Massachusetts, characterized by republican simplicity and equality.

The preceding observations in favor of the democratic institutions of the northern States, are therefore to be understood as of local application; and I would explicitly admit that a well-ordered and a well-working government on such principles must in a great measure depend upon the amount of virtue and intelligence in the community: but while a government which is based upon the principles of impartial justice requires a virtuous people properly to administer it, it has, I believe, within itself one of the most powerful elements for the formation of such a community.

On the subject of peace my inquiries elicited an almost uniformly favorable response. If we except those who would encourage the war spirit, from hopes of sharing in the plunder, or those to whom it would open up the path to distinction and emolument, there are comparatively few who do not desire the maintenance of peace. In the religious part of the community, there is a rapidly spreading conviction of the unchristian character of war, in every shape; and the President, in his late message to Congress, in stating that "the time ought to be regarded as having gone by when a resort to arms is to be esteemed as the only proper arbiter of national differences", has expressed the sentiments of the great bulk of the intelligent citizens of the United States. I believe also that the majority would be found willing to assent to any reasonable and practical measure that should preclude the probability of an appeal to arms, or of keeping up what are absurdly called "peace establishments" of standing armies and appointed fleets for the protection of national safety or honor. The late excitements on the Boundary and McLeod questions were confined to comparatively few of the population, and the report of them was magnified by distance.

But a far stronger guaranty for the permanence of international peace than any treaties, will be found in the interchange of mutual benefits by commerce. For this reason he who is successful in promoting a free and unchecked commerce, is the benefactor, not of his own country alone, but of the world at large. There are few countries where in practice free trade is more fully carried out than in the United States, but in theory the true doctrine of this subject is only in part adopted by her statesmen and leading minds. They are willing to trade on equal terms, but will meet prohibition with prohibition. Here undoubtedly they mistake their real interests, but though such a policy will not advance the prosperity of America, it will inflict tremendous and lasting injury on Great Britain. Whatever the event, we cannot complain. The terms offered by the United States, though not wise, on an enlarged view of her own interests, are yet reciprocal, and therefore fair between nation and nation. If, however, I possessed any influence with the enlightened citizens of North America, I should be in no common degree anxious to exert it against those false views of trade and commerce which distort alike the maxims and the policy of her rulers. Their manufactures flourish, not in consequence of protection, but in defiance of it. With such an extended coast, and such facilities of internal communication, prohibition is impossible. The manufactures of England are excluded, not by the revenue laws of the States, but by the corn laws of Great Britain, which forbid the British manufacturer to take in exchange the only article of value his American customer has to spare; a prohibition which, unhappily for the people of this country, our government has power to enforce. The prohibitory system is, to a great extent, impracticable in the United States; and just so far as it should be found practicable, it would prove injurious, by creating fictitious and dependent interests, which, in the course of time, would become insupportably burdensome to the commonwealth, and eventually would have to be relinquished at the cost of a fearful amount of individual distress and national suffering. Legitimate commerce is that department of the national welfare, in which it is the business of statesmanship to do nothing but remove the impediments of its own creating in past times. In all other respects, commercial legislation is a nuisance; and if under some circumstances trade is found to flourish concurrently with such interference, the fact is due either to the restrictions and regulations being practically inoperative, or more frequently, to the high profits arising from unexhausted resources, in the absence of competition, enabling commerce to advance in spite of impediments; in the same way as cultivation by slave labor, notwithstanding its expensiveness and inordinate waste, enables the first planter on a virgin soil, and with an open market for his produce, to roll in his carriage, though beggary is to be the fate of the second or third generation of his descendants.

In giving the preceding representation of the religious, the moral, and the intellectual elevation of the population of the Northern States of the Union, I have indicated the source we must look to for the abolition of slavery, to which it is now time to turn our attention, for no American question can be discussed, into which this important subject does not largely enter.

Light and darkness, truth and falsehood, are not more in opposition than Christianity and slavery. If the religion that is professed in the free States be not wholly a dead letter,—if the moral and intellectual light which they appear to enjoy be indeed light, and not darkness,—then the abolition of slavery is certain, and cannot be long delayed. In order to make this apparent, as well as to vindicate my own proceedings in the United States, it is incumbent on me to show, that the great contest, for the abolition of American slavery, is to be decided in the free States, by the power of public opinion. I have distinctly admitted, that the confederated republics have each their independent sovereignty. Neither the free States, nor the general Government, can perhaps constitutionally abolish slavery in any one of the existing slave States. Yet there are certain objects clearly within the limits of the constitutional power of the general Government, such as the suppression of the internal slave-trade, and the abolition of slavery in the district of Columbia, for which it is undeniably lawful and constitutional for every American citizen to strive; and the attainment of which would suffice to cripple, and ultimately destroy slavery in every part of the Union. The slave-holding power is so sensible of this, that all its united strength is employed to retain that control over the general Government, which it has exercised from the date of the independence, and never more despotically than at the present time. Amidst the difficulties which beset, and the dangers which threatened the country, at the period of the formation of the constitution, the southern States dictated such a compromise as they thought fit; and, with the great principles of liberty paraded on the face of the declaration of independence, came into the Union on the express understanding that those principles should be perpetually violated in their favor. Of the details of this compromise, by far the most important, and one which has mainly contributed to consolidate the political supremacy of the south, is the investiture of the slave masters with political rights, in proportion to the amount of their slave property. Every five slaves confer three votes on their owner; though, in other points of view, a slave is a mere chattel—an article of property and merchandize,—yet, in this instance, and in criminal proceedings against him, his personality is recognized, for the express object of adding to the weight of his chains, and increasing the power of his oppressor.

The North, in voting away the rights and freedom of the laboring population of the South, surrendered its own liberty. The haughty slave-holding masters of the great confederacy have from the beginning chosen the Presidents, and the high officers of state, and have controlled the policy of the Government, from a question of peace or war, to the establishment of a tariff or a bank. In the executive department they have dictated all appointments, from a letter-carrier to an ambassador; an amusing illustration of which I find in my recent correspondence. A late member of the Massachusetts legislature, writes on the Eighth Month (August) 26, 1841: