If, indeed, that war has failed, and we cannot thus suppress the rebellion, it would not only be the right, but, upon the principles of international law, the duty of every foreign power to acknowledge Southern independence. Thus is it that the Chicago McClellan platform invites recognition. What is the meaning of the recognition of the independence of the South by France, under such circumstances? It means war. It means, in the first place, commercial treaties stipulating great advantages in favor of France, and perhaps other Powers. It means, of course, the overthrow of the blockade, so as to carry out those treaties. It means conditions destructive of our interests, and favorable to the recognizing Powers. It means advantages and discriminations in tariffs and tonnage duties, and navigation privileges, which would exclude us from Southern ports, including New Orleans and the mouth of the Mississippi, and deprive us of the markets of the South. Such a recognition, then, with its attendant consequences, means war—war not only with France, but probably with England and Spain, and other Powers. Doubtless, upon the election of the Chicago candidates, Napoleon would again ask the Ministry of England to unite with him in recognizing the independence of the South, and to participate in the benefits of the proposed commercial treaties. Who can say that England, under the dangers and sacrifices incurred by a refusal, would again decline the offer?
It is clear, then, that the election of the Chicago candidates involves the most imminent peril of war with France, if not with England, both acting then in alliance with the Confederate government. That my country even then would accept the contest rather than the dishonor and ruin of disunion, I do believe; but who can predict the result of such a conflict? My countrymen, we are speedily approaching the very edge of a dark and perilous abyss, into which we may be soon plunged by the election of the Chicago candidates; I implore you not to make the dread experiment. You must know that there will be no recognition of the independence of the South by France or England, or any other Power, if Abraham Lincoln should be reëlected in November next. The American people will then have loudly proclaimed, through the ballot box, that they can and will subdue the rebellion by force of arms; and that they will continue to negotiate from the mouths of our cannon, until the Southern armies shall have been dispersed and vanquished. Upon the news of the reëlection of Mr. Lincoln reaching Europe, the Confederate stock, now waiting the success of the Chicago candidates, will fall, like Lucifer, to rise no more. American securities, including those of the Federal and loyal State Governments, of railroads, and other companies with real capital, will all be immensely appreciated. The difference in favor of our country, including the rise in greenbacks, would be equivalent in a few months to hundreds of millions of dollars. Nor is it only our stocks that will rise at home and abroad, but the national character will be immensely exalted. The friends of our country and liberty in Europe, including the grand mass of the people, will echo back the exultant shouts of freedom as they roll on from the Pacific to the Mississippi, from the Mississippi to the lakes, and, bounding from the glad Atlantic, are carried by steam and lightning to the shores of Europe. The fetters of American Slavery will be broken by such a result, and man—immortal man, of whatever race or color, born in the image of his Maker, will emerge from chatteldom, and rise to the dignity of our common humanity.
There is one point still remaining of vast importance. It is the question of Slavery, so far as it yet lingers within our borders. Without entering upon other aspects of that case, we call attention to the proposed amendment for the purpose of abolishing Slavery on the recommendation of Congress and the ratification of three fourths of the States, as provided in the Federal Constitution. This is recommended by Mr. Lincoln, and it is a plank in the Baltimore platform. It passed the Senate by a more than two-thirds vote, but was defeated, by the Democrats, by a vote of 69 to 94, in the House, thus failing to receive the two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress as required by the Constitution. If, as has been heretofore shown, Slavery is the great enemy of the Union, and was the sole cause of the rebellion, why not extirpate the cause of the war? Why not remove what may remain of Slavery after the war is ended, by the proposed amendment, as recommended by Mr. Lincoln? This is a war and a Union measure, calculated to crush the rebellion, to maintain the Union, and to prevent any future effort to effect its overthrow. This measure, which would settle finally and forever the Slavery question, will succeed at an early period, if Mr. Lincoln should be reflected. But this measure the Democrats oppose, and desire to keep open the Slavery question, for no object that can be perceived, except to renew the old party alliance between Slavery South and its Northern supporters, with a view to party triumphs. If General McClellan succeeds, Slavery, so far as it still exists, will be cherished, maintained, and perpetuated. The viper will be warmed into life again, and although it might perhaps recoil for the present, it would only be to strike at some future period with greater force and venom at the life of the Republic. These men tell us they are for the Union as it was. Are they for the revival of such scenes as were perpetrated by Brooks in the American Senate? Are they for the Kansas frauds and murders and forgeries, including the forgery of a constitution? Are they for the right of secession, or, while they dispute the right of a State to secede, do they deny with Buchanan and Pendleton the right of the Government to prevent its secession? Are they against secession, but against coercion also? Are they against rebellion, but opposed to its overthrow by force! Throughout the South, under the Union as it was, there was no freedom of speech or of the press, on any question connected with Slavery. Are they for the sale, under the Union as it was, even of free negroes into perpetual bondage? Are they for the denial of the rights of Northern citizens throughout the South? Above all, are they for the renewal of the African slave trade, as notoriously occurred in 1859 (during the Administration of Buchanan), at Savannah, in Georgia, when the wretched victims, just stolen from their native homes in Africa, were carried to Savannah, and there, in defiance of the Federal Constitution, openly distributed by sale among the boasted chivalry of the South? If the Chicago candidates and their party are for these things—if they are for the Union as it was in these respects, I am against them. I am for the Union (as clearly intended by the fathers and founders of the Government) as it will be when Slavery (its great, and, in fact, its only domestic foe) shall have been entirely extinguished. While I am for the extinction of Slavery as a Union and as a war measure, I am consoled by the reflection that, while it will secure the perpetuity of the Union, it will vastly increase our wealth and power, and advance all our industrial and material interests. For several years past I have examined this question, and, in various essays, published at home, but more especially abroad, have proved by official statistics, from the censuses of 1850 and 1860, that, under the system of free labor and free schools which exist in the North, as compared with the South, the product of the Free States is $217 per capita, and that of the slave-holding States $96 per capita. Also, that the lands of the South are worth $10 per acre, and of the North $25 per acre. It was further proved by me, in those essays, by the same official data, that, exactly in proportion to the number of slaves is the decreased production per capita in the Slave States; that of South Carolina, with 402,406 slaves and 291,388 whites, being $66 per capita, and of Delaware, with 90,589 whites and 1,798 slaves, being $143 per capita; while that of Massachusetts, with her sterile soil and severe climate, and far inferior natural advantages, was $235 per capita; and the same rule was also shown to hold in counties of the same Slave States, those counties with few slaves always producing more per capita than those having many. The result was, as shown by the census, that if the production of the South in 1859 had been equal per capita during the same year to that of the Free States, the additional value of the Southern products would have been $1,531,631,000 in 1859, and in the aggregate of the decade from 1859 to 1869, $17,873,539,511, exclusive of the addition from the annual reinvestment of capital. The addition, then, to the value of the products of the South in a single year, caused by the substitution of free for slave labor, would be nearly equal to our whole present national debt, while in the aggregate of the ten years succeeding it would be nearly ten times greater than the whole national debt, thus leaving us far richer after the next census, as a consequence of increased production, notwithstanding the national debt, than if the rebellion had never occurred. Thus is it that the ways of Providence are justified to man, and that Slavery chastises its own advocates, while its overthrow brings increased wealth and safety and honor and happiness and prosperity to the country. While I do not advocate, then, the abolition of Slavery in defiance of the Constitution, because it would make us more wealthy and powerful, more honored, happy, and prosperous, yet I rejoice that in supporting emancipation, as Mr. Lincoln does, as a Union and as a war measure, the overthrow of this accursed institution will be attended with countless benefits to my country and mankind. Suppress the rebellion by the overthrow of the Southern armies, and re-establish the Government throughout all our wide domain upon the broad and eternal foundations of freedom, truth, and justice, then neither domestic traitors nor foreign despots will ever dash against its adamantine base. There it will stand, and stand forever, the mighty continental breakwater between the continents of Asia and of Europe, against which the breakers of internal faction, and the waves of despotic power would dash in vain. To that home of the oppressed, to that asylum of genuine and universal freedom, millions from the Old World would then come, and unite with us in strengthening and maintaining a Government based upon the rights of humanity, and sustained by the affections of the people. While our physical force and accumulating wealth would thus be rapidly and vastly augmented, our moral power would be increased in a still grander ratio. Then the cry of tyrants, that self-government is a phantom, and republics a failure, would cease to oppress the listening ear of humanity. Then the chains would soon fall everywhere from the limbs of the slave. Then the reactionary and feudal party of Europe, now so loudly proclaiming republics a failure, while exulting over the anticipated fall of the American Union, would retire discomfited from the contest, while the rights of man would be immensely promoted, and civilization advance, at a single bound, more than in the lapse of many centuries. The great liberal party of England, headed by those immortal champions Bright and Cobden, would rouse like giants refreshed from their slumber, and carry the flag of the vote by ballot and extended suffrage triumphantly throughout the British realm, while Ireland, oppressed Ireland, would then receive the fullest justice. Then, indeed, all past differences between England and America would be sunk forever in fraternal concord, and the peace of the world be maintained. Then Napoleon the Third, who keeps an army of 600,000 men as a standing menace to Europe and the world, and who has just, for the present, and for the present only, extinguished in blood the freedom of Mexico, must abandon his ambitious projects, or shiver his diadem upon the adamantine rock of popular freedom.
But there are complaints from the so-called Democratic party that the President, and especially the Secretary of State, have surrendered the Monroe doctrine, and abandoned Mexico to her fate. There is no truth in this accusation. The President and the Secretary of State, as regards the future, are wholly uncommitted on this question, unless, indeed, it be for Mexico, by announcing that the people of the loyal States are unanimously in her favor. I say they are uncommitted for the future, and the real objection to their course is this: that they have not gratified the South and its Northern allies, by engaging, ere this, in a war with France, so as to bring her vast forces in aid of the Confederate government. Indeed, Mr. Seward is cursed everywhere by the Confederates and their allies throughout Europe for preventing a war, at this time, on the Mexican question, between France and the United States, 'There is a time for all things,' and, as I have said before, our only question now, is the salvation of the Union; and when that is secured, will be the proper period to consider other subordinate questions, foreign or domestic. No man can speak with more feeling on this question than myself, for it is a well-known fact that I earnestly opposed, as a member of the Cabinet of Mr. Polk, the Mexican treaty of 1848, among other reasons, upon the suggestion then made by me, that if we abandoned Mexico, it would subject us to the danger of European interference there (just as it has occurred) by force of arms. That treaty was carried by a constitutional majority of only three votes, mainly through the instrumentality of Mr. Calhoun, who was against the invasion of Mexico, and for 'masterly inactivity,' resting on the banks of the Rio Grande, because he knew (as declared in my Texas letter of January, 1844) 'Slavery never could cross the Rio Grande,' and that, as a consequence, all of Mexico which we would permanently hold, as we ought to have done, from Texas to Tehuantepec, would, Mexico having abolished Slavery, have become Free States. I believed also that the permanent occupation and annexation of Mexico would have forever settled all the dangers of the Slavery question, because it would have flanked the Slave States of the Southwest, by many powerful Free States adjacent on the Southwest, containing already seven millions of people, most of whom were of the colored race, and who would have fought to the last against the reëstablishment of Slavery.
Yet, strong and decided as is my opposition to the course of Napoleon on the Mexican as well as the Confederate question, I believe that the policy of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward on this question has been marked by great courage, devoted patriotism, and the highest statesmanship. I am not for mingling this or any other question of foreign or domestic policy with the maintenance of the Union, but have only answered the assaults of adversaries on the Mexican and other subordinate issues. This, however, I must say: that the treaty with Mexico, by which we abandoned that country, having been ratified, I am opposed to any violation of its provisions. While I adhere to the opinions expressed at the time by me against that treaty; while I am opposed to forcing Mexico into our Union, I believe that Napoleon the Third, unwittingly, by his invasion, has caused Mexico soon to gravitate, by the overwhelming wish of her people, into the arms of the great Republic. Thus is it that the French invasion will have settled forever in our favor the question of the American equilibrium.
I have published the views expressed in these letters on consultation with no one. They are my own individual opinions, and I only am responsible for them. It is quite possible that the Administration may differ from some of them, but I am just as independent of the Administration as they are of me. I am not, and never was, a Republican of 1856 or 1860, and while I have been falsely charged in Europe with abandoning my free-trade principles, in consequence of the constant and earnest support given by me to Mr. Lincoln, it must be remembered that a majority of his Cabinet of 1863 had been Democrats, and supported the Tariff of 1846. But the Tariff is a very subordinate question, compared with the salvation of the Union. Besides, if the Tariff of 1846 was changed, it was not until the 2d of March, 1861, and the change was caused intentionally, by the previous withdrawal of the Senators and Representatives of the seceded States from both Houses of Congress.
I have another answer to this charge. I was for the free list of the Tariff of 1842, as distinctly stated in my first annual Treasury report, so as to increase our exports, especially of dyed cotton goods, thereby producing a corresponding augmentation of our imports and revenue. That portion of the act of 1846 was defeated by Mr. Calhoun, much to my regret, injury, and annoyance.
Besides, the South, by its rebellion, and by thus forcing on us an enormous Federal debt, has rendered impossible for many years any other Tariff but that which will bring the largest revenue. Until this debt is paid, we must have the highest Tariff for revenue, and it can be so arranged as, while yielding, when the Union is restored, at least $150,000,000 annually in gold, at the same time to furnish all incidental aid to American industry that could be desired.
I have thus far discussed the question as confined to the contest between the respective candidates for the Presidency of the United States. But let those who think of supporting General McClellan for the Presidency remember that, in sustaining him, they must necessarily vote for Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Presidency. McClellan and Pendleton are the Siamese twins of Chicago, inseparable, and all who vote for the one, vote at the same time for the other. No voter can cast his suffrage in this contest, except by voting for an electoral ticket, and the same electors for General McClellan who may be chosen in any State, are to vote for Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Presidency. In other words, if General McClellan is chosen President, Mr. Pendleton is elected at the same time to the Vice Presidency of the United States. Now, recollect, that the Vice President not only presides over the Senate of the United States, and gives the casting vote in that body, but that, in case of the death of the President, the Vice President becomes President of the United States. Now, two Presidents of the United States, within the last twenty-three years, have died during their term of office (Harrison and Taylor), and one of them within a month after his inauguration. In both these cases, the Vice Presidents chosen on the same electoral ticket with the President, reversed the policy of the President elect. Tyler reversed the policy of Harrison, and Fillmore reversed the policy of Taylor. Why may not the same thing again occur, if Mr. Pendleton, by the death of General McClellan, should succeed him as President? This renders an inquiry into the course and views of Mr. Pendleton a question of vital importance.
Now, Mr. Pendleton, as his votes and speeches show, is against the war for the Union, and has declared the coercion of a seceding rebel State not only 'impracticable,' but 'unconstitutional.' His words are, in big speech in Congress of the 18th January, 1861, after most of the Cotton States had seceded: 'Sir (he then said) the whole scheme of coercion is impracticable. It is contrary to the genius and spirit of the Constitution.' In accordance with these anti-coercion and anti-war views, he continued to vote against the prosecution of the war, and against all the great measures passed for that purpose. He further then said, 'If your differences are so great that you cannot or will not reconcile them, then, gentlemen, let the seceding States depart in peace; let them establish their government and empire, and work out their destiny according to the wisdom which God has given them.' This is exactly the doctrine of Jefferson Davis, and of all the rebel leaders: 'Let us alone.' Let us alone, while we overthrow the Government and dissolve the Union; let us alone, while we seize the mouth of the Mississippi, and tear down or shoot down the flag of the Union from every fort of the South. This is their language, and the Chicago Convention might just as well have nominated Jefferson Davis as George H. Pendleton as their candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States. Such a nomination of an avowed disunionist shows the true spirit of the Chicago Convention, and that all their general expressions of devotion to the Union were mere empty sounds, calculated to secure votes, but utterly false and hypocritical; for, while indulging in these pharasaical expressions of love for the Union, they nominate, at the same time, as their candidate for the Vice President, an avowed secessionist and disunionist. We have nothing to do with the abstract opinions or wishes of Mr. Pendleton as regards the Union. Jefferson Davis repeatedly, and up to the very period of secession, expressed quite as much devotion to the old flag and to the Union as Mr. Pendleton. But Mr. Davis soon became the head of the rebellion which Mr. Pendleton declares we ought not, and have no constitutional power, to suppress by force. Far all practical purposes, then, Mr. Pendleton is just as much a secessionist and disunionist as Jefferson Davis. Nor can it be alleged that Mr. Pendleton has changed these views. On the contrary, as late as this year he voted in Congress against the test resolution of Green Clay Smith, of Kentucky, declaring 'that it is the political, civil, moral, and sacred duty of the people to meet the rebellion, fight it, crush it, and forever destroy it.' Now then, the Chicago Convention, with a full knowledge of these votes and speeches, nominated Mr. Pendleton for the Vice Presidency, and contingently for the Presidency of the United States. They knew full well that Mr. Pendleton had declared the effort to crush the rebellion impracticable and unconstitutional, and that, therefore, if the power they proposed to give him were ratified by his election, he could, and under his oath of office to support the Constitution, he must, disband our armies, terminate the war, and permit the dissolution of the Union to be consummated; or he might repeat his own words of 1861: Let the seceding States depart in peace; let them establish their government and empire, and work out their destiny according to the wisdom which God has given them.' It is, then, a sufficient objection to the Chicago candidates that Mr. Pendleton, one of the candidates, inseparably connected with General McClellan on the same electoral ticket, is, as we have seen, opposed to the war, and for all practical purposes as much a secessionist and disunionist as Jefferson Davis. This being clear, if General McClellan is really for the war to save the Union, by crushing the rebellion, he must refuse to run on the same electoral ticket with Mr. Pendleton; and if he does not, the people and history will assign to him the same position. He cannot lend his name to aid the election of Mr. Pendleton on the same ticket with himself, and profess devotion to the Union.