Editor's Table.
On the ninth of March President LINCOLN made the first announcement of an official endorsement of the great principle of gradual Emancipation, by transmitting to Congress a message recommending that the United States ought to coöperate with any State which may adopt a gradual emancipation of slavery, by giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used at its discretion, to compensate for the inconvenience, public and private, which may be produced by any such change of system.
Any member of Congress, with the census tables and the treasury notes before him, can readily see for himself how very soon the current expenditures of this war would purchase, at a fair valuation, all the slaves in any named State. Such a position on the part of the General Government sets up no claim of a right by federal authority to interfere with slavery within State limits, referring, as it does, the absolute control of the subject, in each case, to the State and its people immediately interested.
It is almost needless to point out to the reader that the views, both direct and implied, which are urged in this message, are in every respect identical with those to advance which the CONTINENTAL was founded, and for which it has strenuously labored from the beginning. There is nothing in them of the 'Abolitionism' which advocates 'immediate and unconditional' freeing of the blacks; while, on the other hand, the only persons who can object to them are those who hold that slavery is a good thing in itself, never to be disturbed. It is, in short, all that the rational friends of progress can at present desire—an official recognition of the great truth that slavery ought to be abolished, but in such a manner as to cause the least possible trouble.
It is amusing to observe the bewilderment of the pro-slavery Northern Democratic press, which has so earnestly claimed the Executive as 'conservative,' and on which this message has fallen like a thunder-clap. They have, of course, at once cried out that, should it receive the sanction of Congress, it would still amount to nothing, because no legislature of a slave State will accept it; an argument as ridiculous as it is trivial. That the South would, for the present, treat the proposal with scorn, is likely enough. But the edge of the wedge has been introduced, and emancipation has been at least officially recognized as desirable. While such a possible means of securing property exists, there will always be a strong party forming in the South, whether they attain to a majority or not, and this party will be the germ of disaster to the secessionists. There are men enough, even in South Carolina, who would gladly be paid for their slaves, and these men, while maintaining secession views in full bluster, would readily enough find some indirect means of realizing money on their chattels. It may work gradually—but it will work. As disaster and poverty increase in the South, there will increase with them the number of those who will see no insult or injury in the proposition to buy from them property which is becoming, with every year, more and more uncertain in its tenure.
Let it be remembered that this message was based on the most positive knowledge held by the Executive of the desires of the Union men in the South, and of their strength. The reader who will reflect for a moment can not fail to perceive that, unless it had such a foundation, the views advanced in it would have been reckless and inexplicable indeed. It was precisely on this basis, and in this manner, that the CONTINENTAL, in previous numbers, and before it the New York KNICKERBOCKER Magazine, urged the revival of the old WEBSTER theory of gradual remunerated emancipation, declaring that the strength of the Union party in the South was such as to warrant the experiment.[15] We have also insisted, in our every issue, that, while emancipation should be borne constantly in view and provided for as something which must eventually be realized for the sake of the advancing interests of WHITE labor and its expansion, everything should be effected as gradually as possible, so as to neither interfere with the plans of the war now waging, nor to stir up needless political strife. We simply asked for some firmly-based official recognition of the rottenness of the 'slavery plank in the Southern platform,' and trusted that the utmost caution and deliberation would be observed in eventually forwarding emancipation. We were literally alone, as a publication, in these views, and were misrepresented both by the enemies who were behind us and the zealous friends who were before us. We have never cried for that 'unconditional and immediate emancipation of slavery' with which the Liberator, with the kindest intentions, but most erroneously, credits us. We should be glad enough to see it, were it possible; but, knowing that the immediate-action theory has been delaying the cause for thirty years, we have invariably suggested the firm but gradual method. That method has at last been formally advanced by the President, in a manner which can reasonably give offense to no one. The beginning has been made: it is for the country to decide whether it—the most important suggestion of the age—shall be realized.
The news of the capture of Fort Donelson had barely reached us, the roar of the guns celebrating our rapid successes had not died away, ere that fragment of the Northern ultra pro-slavery party which had done so much towards deluding the South into secession, impudently raised its head and began most inopportunely and impertinently to talk of amnesty and the rights of the South. There are things which, under certain limitations, may be right in themselves, but which, when urged at the wrong time, become wrongs and insults; and these premature cries to restore the enemy to his old social and political standing are of that nature. They are insufferable, and would be ridiculous, were it not that in the present critical aspect of our politics they may become dangerous. Since this war began, we have heard much of the want of true loyalty in the ultra abolitionists, who would make the object of the struggle simply emancipation, without regard to consequences; and we have not been sparing in our own condemnations of such a limited and narrow view,—holding, as we do, that emancipation, if adopted, should be for the sake of the white man and the Union, and not of the negro. But 'Abolition' of the most one-sided and suicidal description is less insulting to those who are lavishing blood and treasure on the great cause of freedom, than is the conduct, at this time, of those men who are now, through their traitorous organs, urging the cry that the hour is at hand when we must place slavery firmly on a constitutional basis; this being, as they assert, the only means whereby the Union can ever be harmoniously restored.
In view of the facts, it is preposterous to admit that this assumption is even plausible. He must be ignorant indeed of our political history during the past twenty years, or strangely blind to its results, who has not learned that a belief that the North is ever anxious to concede for the sake of its 'interests' has been the great stimulus to the arrogance of the South. While the principles of the abolitionists have been the shallow pretence, the craven cowardice of such men as BUCHANAN and CUSHING has been the real incitement to the South to pour insult and wrong on the North. Concession has been our bane. It was paltering and concession that palsied the strong will and ready act which should have prevented this war; for had it not been for such men as the traitors who are now crying out for Southern rights, the rebellion would have been far more limited in its area, and long since crushed out. No cruelties on our part, no threats to carry all to the bitter end, would so encourage the South at present, as this offer to shake hands ere the fight be half over.