The Continental Monthly, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 1864 / Devoted To Literature And National Policy

by Various

My first objection, then, to the organization against Mr. Lincoln is, that it is a mere party organization, arrayed under an old party name, and marching under an old party banner. In the midst of a great contest like this, when all old party names and prejudices should be forgotten, and when Democrats and Republicans should be united as brethren in the one grand effort to suppress the rebellion, the Chicago McClellan Convention reopens old party strifes, renews old party issues, and, denouncing Republicans, assumes the name and professes to represent the Democratic party. It was the banner of the Union that was raised by the Convention at Baltimore, and the salvation of the Union, with its rescue from present and future perils, the suppression of the rebellion, with the removal of the cause, constituted the only issues presented by that Convention to the people of the loyal States of all parties.

It was far otherwise at Chicago. It was a mere assemblage of partisans, some for, and some against the Union, in the search of power and emoluments. It was the flag of the Union that was given to the breeze at Baltimore. It was the flag of a party that was unfolded at Chicago. 'For the Union' was written on the flag of the one—'For the Democratic party' was inscribed on the standard of the other. It was said that the Baltimore Convention has made the abolition of Slavery one of its issues; but, as well might it be objected that it had made the prosecution of the war, or the maintenance of the army or navy, part of its creed. The Emancipation Proclamation of the President had its whole constitutional force as a war measure to save the Union, and, as such, it was adopted by Mr. Lincoln as ex-officio 'commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.' That it was, as a war measure, perfectly constitutional, I have never doubted, and so declared in an article published at the time in The Continental Magazine. It is the duty of all persons, not aliens, to unite with the President in suppressing a rebellion. Slaves, in the relation which they occupy to the National Government under the Federal Constitution, are 'persons.' As persons, they are thrice named in the Constitution, and by no other name whatever. Especially, under the clause providing for direct taxation, they are enumerated as persons, not valued as property. The term 'person' is used more frequently in the Constitution than any other, and it is applied expressly to slaves, and to the whole people of the United States, including the President and Vice President, who are designated therein as persons. This very question, whether slaves are persons or property under the Constitution, arose in the great case of Groves vs. Slaughter, when, in 1841 (with a single dissenting opinion, that of Judge Baldwin), after the fullest argument on both sides, it was unanimously decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that slaves, in the relation which they hold to the National Government under the Federal Constitution, are persons only, and not property. Were it otherwise, Massachusetts could not forbid the introduction of slaves from the South for sale there as merchandise; for Massachusetts could not prohibit the introduction of the cotton or any property of the South for sale as merchandise within her limits, for that would have been a prohibition of the exports from State to State, which is forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My own elaborate argument before the Court, as one of the counsel in that case, will be found in the appendix to the first edition of the 15th volume of Peters's Reports. As persons, the President has a right to call for the aid of all residing in the United States, except aliens, to suppress the rebellion. He has a right to call for the services of the loyal or rebel masters for such a purpose, as well as for the service of their slaves.

It cannot be denied, that the masters, whether rebel or loyal, may be called and even forced by conscription into the army to suppress the rebellion. Would it not then be strange if the master could exempt his slaves from similar services? The only right of the master recognized by the Constitution, is to the 'service or labor' of his slaves. But he has a right equally strong to his own service or labor; yet both must yield to the paramount right of the Government to the services of both or either to suppress the rebellion. There is not a single word in the Federal Constitution which, either by inference or express declaration, exempts slaves, more than any other persons, from the call of the Federal Government to aid in suppressing a rebellion. Such is the construction given, by the South to the so-called Confederate constitution, which is much more stringent than ours in that respect, for it recognizes slaves as property; yet, the rebel authorities, the rebel congress and government, force slaves, even by conscription, to perform military duty—to dig the trenches—to make the earthworks—to erect the barracks and arsenals—to help to make the cannon, small arms, and powder, and vessels of war—to construct the fortifications—to transport the provisions, munitions, and cannon for their armies, together with the tents and military equipage—to raise the food indispensable for the support of their military forces—and, of course, they would, if they dare, put arms in their hands to meet us on the battle field. It is clear, then, not as a confiscation of property (which is also constitutional under certain circumstances), but as persons, that we have a right to the service of the slaves as well as of their masters to suppress the rebellion. But it is only by emancipation (with compensation for loss of their services by loyal men) that the slaves can be called into our army, and used to suppress the rebellion. A call by the President for the slaves to serve in our armies, to risk their lives and shed their blood for the Union, accompanied by the declaration that they were still slaves, and, upon the termination of the war, such as survived would be restored to their masters, with whom their wives and children must still remain in bondage, would be an atrocious crime, as well as the climax of all absurdities. No; it is only by emancipation that the services of the slaves can or ought to be obtained for the suppression of the rebellion. The Emancipation Proclamation then of the President, with compensation to loyal masters, is most clearly constitutional during the continuance of the war, and as a war measure to suppress the rebellion and save the Union, and such must be the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, to which tribunal the President has properly submitted the final arbitrament of the constitutional question. It is true, when the rebellion is crushed, the President can issue no new emancipation proclamation. But neither can he then recall or modify the one already issued; and if he had the power to recall the proclamation, it would be an act of perfidy unparalleled in the history of the world. The nation would be so utterly disgraced by such bad faith as would be involved in the revocation of the Emancipation Proclamation, as to earn the contempt of all honest and honorable men, and the loss of sympathy of the industrial classes and working men of Europe, whose rulers would then no longer fear to recognize or aid the South. It was the magnificent uprising of the working classes of England in favor of the Union, that alone saved both countries from a bloody and disastrous war.

The Emancipation Proclamation being, as we have seen, clearly constitutional, as a war measure, with a view to save the Union, was it, as such, wise and expedient? We have seen that the rebel South, even by conscription, when necessary, used slaves for military purposes, and those not used directly in that way are required to raise breadstuff's and provisions (instead of cotton), to supply the Confederate army. Indeed the debates of Congress for many years past, will show that the South boasted, not vainly, of their great military strength, because they declared that, while the slaves would be used in raising provisions to supply their forces, the whole white population capable of bearing arms could then be called into the field. This constituted, as they declared, their great military strength. And is it not then a most important war measure, to deprive them of that all-powerful and efficient weapon: which, we have seen, can only be done by emancipation? Now, let us suppose that while we refuse the use of the colored race, whether bond or free, in aid of the war, they are used for that purpose by the South, what would be the result? By the census of 1860, the whole population of the United States was 31,445,080, of which there were white, 26,975,575; free colored, 487,996; slaves, 3,953,760; total, of colored, 4,441,756, of which there were in the seceded States 3,653,110, and in the loyal States, 788,446. Add the whites in the seceded States, 5,449,463, would thus make the whole population of those States, by the census of 1860, 9,102,573. In the loyal States, the whole population was 22,342,507; of which 21,553,861 were white, and 788,646 colored. Now then, if the colored race, as we have seen, in the seceding States, are used for war purposes by them and not by us, the relative number of opposing forces would be as follows: Loyal States, 21,553,861; seceded States, 9,102,573; difference in favor of the Loyal States, 12,451,288. Now, to begin the process, add to the whites in the Loyal States the free colored, and the total number is 22,342,507; seceded States, 9,102,573; difference in favor of the Loyal States, 13,239,934. Continuing the process, if we deduct by the emancipation policy the whole colored population of the seceded States, the result would be, Loyal States, 22,342,507; seceded States, 5,449,463. But if, concluding the process, by the emancipation policy we not only deduct the colored race from the aid of the South, but add it in aid of the Loyal States, the result would be, Loyal States, 25,995,617; seceded States, 5,449,463; difference in favor of Loyal States, 20,456,154. Thus the policy opposed to emancipation and to the use of the colored race by us in the war, mates the difference in our favor as against the South only 12,451,288, whereas the difference in our favor by the emancipation policy of the President is 20,546,154. Deduct from this the above 12,451,288; final difference, 8,094,866. Thus we see that, by the President's policy, there is, in effect, a gain to the Loyal States equivalent to more than eight millions of people, more than 200,000 of whom are already soldiers in the Union army, all of whom must be disbanded if Mr. Lincoln's policy was erroneous. Will any say that a policy which makes a difference in the relative forces of the two contending parties of more than eight millions of people in favor of the North, and which has already increased our army 200,000, is not a most important war measure, aiding us to suppress the rebellion and save the Government? and, therefore, it is a policy eminently calculated to preserve and perpetuate the Union. Indeed, it is this measure which renders the maintenance of the Union certain, and, without it, the Union is subjected to great peril.

As, then, the emancipation policy of the President is not only wise, beneficent, and constitutional, but renders certain the preservation of the Union, while that of his opponents subjects it to imminent peril, I go for the reëlection of Mr. Lincoln. I go for him as a Union man, and because his emancipation policy will certainly save the Union; and I go against his opponent, because, however loyal he may be, and however sincere his desire to save the Union, practically he is a disunionist, because, independent of the Chicago McClellan platform, his anti-emancipation and anti-negro policy subjects the Union to imminent peril. Now, with me, in this, as in all preceding elections, the preservation and perpetuation of the Union constituted the great transcendent question, involving the liberty of our country and mankind, and I can give no vote which subjects it to the slightest peril. Save the Union, and all else will be added in time (including the ultimate downfall of Slavery, which I predicted and advocated in January, 1844), has been the doctrine of my life. To that doctrine I still adhere, but support the President's emancipation policy now, because it is the most efficient, if not the only means of saving and perpetuating the Union. I opposed emancipation when it was unconstitutional as a peace measure, and because I knew it would cause civil war, invite foreign intervention, and endanger the Union. I support emancipation now, because it is constitutional as a war measure, greatly diminishes the danger of foreign intervention, and insures the maintenance and perpetuity of the Union. I supported Judge Douglas and opposed the election of Mr. Lincoln in 1860, because I believed it would imperil the Union. While always denying that his election would justify disunion, I feared that the rebellion would be the result. In voting against Mr. Lincoln in 1860, I did so to save the Union from peril. In voting for him now, it is to suppress the rebellion and maintain the Union. It is not for Mr. Lincoln as a man (however worthy he may be), that I now vote—I vote for principles—I vote for the Union—and in supporting him, I vote for the best, if not the only means to maintain and perpetuate the Union.

But there is another principle of vital importance involved in this election. The South, under the banner of Slavery, proceeded to secede from the Union, immediately after the result of the Presidential election of 1860 was made known. South Carolina seceded in December, 1860. Mississippi followed early in January, 1861, and the Cotton States all followed during that and the succeeding month of February. Now, Mr. Lincoln was not and could not be inaugurated as President until March, 1861. The South did not and would not wait for his inaugural address of that date to know, under the new condition of affairs, what would be the policy of his Administration. They did not and would not wait for any measures of his Administration, much less any act of the Government or of Congress, but proceeded to secede merely because Mr. Lincoln had been constitutionally elected to the Presidency by the people of the United States. Such an act was an overthrow of the great fundamental principle of all free government, namely, that the majority shall govern under the forms of the Constitution. It was an attack upon the right of suffrage, an assault upon the ballot box and the great principle of an elective President, as provided in our Constitution, and which lies at the very basis of free institutions. That principle is the vital element of our existence. It is 'the casing air' of liberty. Take it away, and freedom instantly expires. The right of suffrage is the great American right of every citizen, rich or poor, humble or exalted. It is the great palladium of our liberty. It is a Government, like a mighty pyramid, reposing on its broad and immovable base, the will and affections of the people. It is the people's Government, and therefore the people maintain it, and with us two millions of volunteers have rushed to its support. Therefore, while it is the best Government in peace, it is the strongest in war. But secession because of the election of a President, is not only war upon the Union, but war upon the elective franchise, the great fundamental principle of free government, and without which it is but a fleeting shadow. Democrats—people of all parties—my countrymen, while you are asked now by the Chicago Convention to vote against Mr. Lincoln, you would nullify by that very vote the right of suffrage, because, what is that suffrage worth, what is your vote but an empty form, if it may not elect your President? But if, because the minority who have voted against you, dissatisfied with your choice, can rebel, make war upon you, because you thus voted, and set up another President for that minority by force of arms, what is that but to say that the majority shall not rule; that the right of suffrage shall be nullified; that the Constitution, under which that vote was given, shall be overthrown? This is what the rebellion has done in attempting to destroy the Republic, merely because of the election of Mr. Lincoln. This arrogant and insolent slave-holding oligarchy would not even wait to hear what the President of your choice would say. They treated the President of your choice, and therefore they treated you and the Constitution under which you acted, with scorn and defiance. So long as you would act with them, so long as the Northern parasites would adhere to the Southern upas tree of Slavery, so long as the 'mudsills' of the North, as they arrogantly called you, would obey the orders of their Southern masters, so long as you would be their slaves, they would permit the President to be inaugurated. But so soon as you elected a President against their dictation, then your suffrages should be nullified by the rebellion of a minority against the majority. What is this but to say, that the majority shall not elect a President, and thus render the right of suffrage an empty form, striking at the fundamental principle of free government, and substituting the bayonets of the minority for the ballots of the majority of the people? Freemen of America, is it possible that by voting against Mr. Lincoln now because of the Southern rebellion, you will thus declare that the election of a President by the people is not to be maintained, but that his reëlection is to be defeated, and that his authority, as your President and as your representative, is therefore never to extend over the whole United States, because a rebellious minority oppose it by force of arms? This is one of the transcendent issues involved in this contest. It is in fact the great question whether the majority shall rule or the minority—whether self-government is an unreal mockery, or whether it is indeed a God-given right of man, born in the image of his Maker. You voted that Mr. Lincoln should be President of the whole United States. That was your decision at the ballot box. Has it been obeyed? No: an arrogant slave-holding minority has rebelled against it, and, within the boundaries of the area occupied by that minority, has suppressed your election by the bayonet, and substituted Jefferson Davis, one of the rebel leaders, in place of Abraham Lincoln. Within the limits of that rebellion, the power, under the Constitution, which you devolved upon Abraham Lincoln, has been nullified by force of arms, and now, if you abandon the war, or defeat his reëlection, your choice will have been nullified, and he never will have exercised throughout the United States the power given to him by your suffrages under the Constitution. Now the party in the North thus acquiescing in this destruction of the right of suffrage, dares to assume the sacred name of Democracy, which you know is but Anglicized Greek, meaning the power of the people. Shade of the immortal Jackson! the father and founder of the Democratic party, burst the cerements of the Hermitage, and blast with the thunders of New Orleans the wretched traitors who thus dare to profane the sacred name under which you were chosen President of the United States.

But there is another grave objection to the McClellan platform adopted at Chicago. It is its intentional ambiguity. The Convention was composed of unionists and disunionists, of peace and war Democrats, as they style themselves, and the platform was adapted to suit the views of both these parties in and out of the Convention. It was a platform upon which the temple of Janus was to be closed, but with side doors at either extremity, into one of which the peace men with their olive branches should enter, and the war men in full military array in the other, and the lion and the lamb meet together in the centre in cordial agreement. But, it appears that the war men in this case were only asses in lions' skins, for in the compromise between antagonistic principles and candidates, the peace men got far the better of the bargain. While there were some vague and glittering generalities in favor of the Union, they were connected with conditions which rendered the destruction of the Union certain, namely, an armistice and cessation of hostilities, accompanied by the false and flagitious declaration, calculated to encourage the enemies of our country at home and abroad, namely, that the war to suppress the rebellion was a failure. Remember, soldiers, that the McClellan platform declares that your battles are failures; that your blood has been shed in vain; that your arms can never crush the rebellion; that you are inferior in courage to the slave-holding rebels; that you must admit your defeat, throw down your muskets, return in disgrace to your homes, disband the army, lay up the navy, recall Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, and Gilmore, and Admirals Farragut, Porter, Dupont, Davis, and Winslow, and leave it to the civilians of Chicago, Vallandigham, Harris, Long, Pendleton, and others, to negotiate a peace.

Now what is an armistice? It is defined to be a suspension of the war for a limited period. There may be conditions added, but none are named in the McClellan Chicago platform. Of course, then, it means a cessation of hostilities by land and sea. Indeed, the platform is weaker than this, for it proposes directly a 'cessation of hostilities,' not by land only, or by sea only, but, of course, by both, as the words are general. Now then, the blockade of the rebel ports, and the capture or destruction of blockade runners and their cargoes, is war upon the ocean. This blockade, then, is to be abandoned during the armistice, for there is to be a cessation of hostilities upon the ocean and the land.

During this interval of peace, when there is to be no blockade of the Southern ports, what is to follow? By their own accounts and estimates, the Confederates have within their limits, in cotton (at present prices), tobacco, and naval stores, a value exceeding one billion of dollars in gold. Now then, so soon as the armistice was agreed upon, the war upon the ocean, including the blockade, having ceased, the whole of this cotton, tobacco, and naval stores, would be shipped to Europe, or partly to Nassau, on the way to Europe, and this enormous amount realized by the Confederate government in gold. We know what tremendous disasters have been produced by the cotton famine in England, France, and other countries. Now, the first effect of such shipments would be the total ruin of all our manufactures of cotton and other textile fabrics. But another still more serious result would follow. We know that Louis Napoleon is the bitter enemy of the Union; we know that he has again and again declared that we could not suppress the rebellion; that he has earnestly thrice endeavored to persuade the British Government to unite with him in acknowledging the independence of the South—twice through efforts made directly upon the British Cabinet, and once through Roebuck and Lindsay, members of the House of Commons, to induce it by a parliamentary vote to compel the British Ministry to unite with the Emperor in acknowledging the independence of the South. That Louis Napoleon is our bitter enemy, is proved also by the French-Mexican war, in which England, and even Spain, separated from him. It is proved also by the diplomatic correspondence of Jefferson Davis, and by his friendly and approving recognition of the establishment of the French Imperial Government in Mexico. It is further proved by Louis Napoleon's own letter, in which he declared, that one of the objects of the Mexican war was the establishment of the equilibrium of the Latin race upon the American continent. It is farther demonstrated by the proceedings of the French in Mexico, and especially recently at Matamoras, in the mutual aid given and received by the French and Confederate forces. Now, what is the meaning of establishing the equilibrium of the Latin race on the 'American continent'? In the first place, it means European military intervention; in the second place, it means to embrace not only Mexico, but the whole Latin race on the American continent. By the Latin race is included all Spanish America. It means, then, in the future, if our Government is overthrown, that all Spanish America, from the northern boundary of Mexico to Cape Horn, is to be consolidated into one great Power under imperial sway. It means to include in this vast empire the command of the Isthmus of Tehauntepec, the route by Central America (about which Louis Napoleon has written so much), by Honduras and Chiriqui, but more especially the Panama, as also the Atrato routes.

In the great future, whoever commands these routes, especially together with that of the Isthmus of Suez, which I visited a few months since, and which Louis Napoleon has nearly completed, will command the commerce of the world, and, as a consequence, ultimately control the institutions of the world. Such are the tremendous problems teeming in the brain of Napoleon the Third, and all, as he believes, depending upon the destruction of the American Union. I speak of what I know from a residence now of nearly two years in Europe. Thus it is that Louis Napoleon intends to bring us within the centrifugal gravitation of the European balance of power. This wonderful man proposes to extend this system from the old continents to the new, embracing both, and thus hold in his grasp the equilibrium—the balance of power of the world. We may well imagine what that equilibrium will be when Napoleon the Third shall hold the balance in his hands. Already he has considerable possessions (insular and continental) in North and South America, and Mexico, under Maximilian, is substantially a French dependency. He holds Algiers. He is colonizing Egypt (as I myself saw this year) by his railroads and canals. He has seized and colonized Cochin China and Annam. He has made Italy a dependency on the bayonets of Franco. Now then, under these circumstances, when the blockade shall have terminated, and Jefferson Davis, who is quite as ambitious and even more talented than Louis Napoleon, shall hold in his hand more than a billion of dollars' worth of Southern products ready for immediate shipment, may he not, and will he not say, through his most able and adroit diplomatic representative at Paris, 'Recognize the independence of the South, and all these products shall be shipped for sale in France, and to French manufacturers,' and thus enable France to crush for the present the cotton manufacturers of all the rest of the world. It is well known in Paris that Mr. Slidell is upon terms of the most intimate association with Louis Napoleon, and has thoroughly convinced him that we cannot suppress the rebellion. Is it not, then, clear, anxious as Napoleon is for the success of the South, that he would, in the event of McClellan's election, at once recognize Southern independence. Indeed, it is the boast of the Confederate leaders in Europe, since the adoption of the platform at Chicago, that, upon the election of their candidates, without waiting four months for the inauguration in March next, Napoleon will at once recognize the Confederate government. Indeed, I do not doubt, from the circumstantial evidence (although I do not know the fact), that there is already a secret understanding between Jefferson Davis and Napoleon the Third to recognize the independence of the South upon the election of the Chicago candidates. Why wait four months, until the 4th of March next, when the American people, by indorsing the Chicago platform, shall have declared for peace, with the additional announcement in that platform, that the war for the suppression of the rebellion has failed?