{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_5123/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_5123","id":"gutenberg_5123","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5123","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865 -- Foreign public opinion","United States -- Politics and government -- 1861-1865"],"text":"Produced by Curtis A. Weyant and David A. Maddock\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CONTEST IN AMERICA\n\nBy John Stuart Mill\n\n\nReprinted From Fraser's Magazine\n\n\n\n[Redactor's note:  Italics are indicated by underscores surrounding\nthe _italicized text_.]\n\n\n\nTHE CONTEST IN AMERICA\n\n\n\nThe cloud which for the space of a month hung gloomily over the\ncivilized world, black with far worse evils than those of simple war,\nhas passed from over our heads without bursting. The fear has not been\nrealized, that the only two first-rate Powers who are also free\nnations would take to tearing each other in pieces, both the one and\nthe other in a bad and odious cause. For while, on the American side,\nthe war would have been one of reckless persistency in wrong, on ours\nit would have been a war in alliance with, and, to practical purposes,\nin defence and propagation of, slavery. We had, indeed, been wronged.\nWe had suffered an indignity, and something more than an indignity,\nwhich, not to have resented, would have been to invite a constant\nsuccession of insults and injuries from the same and from every other\nquarter. We could have acted no otherwise than we have done: yet it is\nimpossible to think, without something like a shudder, from what we\nhave escaped. We, the emancipators of the slave--who have wearied\nevery Court and Government in Europe and America with our protests and\nremonstrances, until we goaded them into at least ostensibly\nco\u00f6perating with us to prevent the enslaving of the negro--we, who for\nthe last half century have spent annual sums, equal to the revenue of\na small kingdom, in blockading the African coast, for a cause in which\nwe not only had no interest, but which was contrary to our pecuniary\ninterest, and which many believed would ruin, as many among us still,\nthough erroneously, believe that it has ruined, our colonies,--_we_\nshould have lent a hand to setting up, in one of the most commanding\npositions of the world, a powerful republic, devoted not only to\nslavery, but to pro-slavery propagandism--should have helped to give a\nplace in the community of nations to a conspiracy of slave-owners, who\nhave broken their connection with the American Federation on the sole\nground, ostentatiously proclaimed, that they thought an attempt would\nbe made to restrain, not slavery itself, but their purpose of\nspreading slavery wherever migration or force could carry it.\n\nA nation which has made the professions that England has, does not\nwith impunity, under however great provocation, betake itself to\nfrustrating the objects for which it has been calling on the rest of\nthe world to make sacrifices of what they think their interest. At\npresent all the nations of Europe have sympathized with us; have\nacknowledged that we were injured, and declared with rare unanimity,\nthat we had no choice but to resist, if necessary, by arms. But the\nconsequences of such a war would soon have buried its causes in\noblivion. When the new Confederate States, made an independent Power\nby English help, had begun their crusade to carry negro slavery from\nthe Potomac to Cape Horn; who would then have remembered that England\nraised up this scourge to humanity not for the evil's sake, but\nbecause somebody had offered an insult to her flag? Or even if\nunforgotten, who would then have felt that such a grievance was a\nsufficient palliation of the crime? Every reader of a newspaper, to\nthe farthest ends of the earth, would have believed and remembered one\nthing only--that at the critical juncture which was to decide whether\nslavery should blaze up afresh with increased vigor or be trodden out\nat the moment of conflict between the good and the evil spirit--at the\ndawn of a hope that the demon might now at last be chained and flung\ninto the pit, England stepped in, and, for the sake of cotton, made\nSatan victorious.\n\nThe world has been saved from this calamity, and England from this\ndisgrace. The accusation would indeed have been a calumny. But to be\nable to defy calumny, a nation, like an individual, must stand very\nclear of just reproach in its previous conduct. Unfortunately, we\nourselves have given too much plausibility to the charge. Not by\nanything said or done by us as a Government or as a nation, but by the\ntone of our press, and in some degree, it must be owned, the general\nopinion of English society. It is too true, that the feelings which\nhave been manifested since the beginning of the American contest--the\njudgments which have been put forth, and the wishes which have been\nexpressed concerning the incidents and probable eventualities of the\nstruggle--the bitter and irritating criticism which has been kept up,\nnot even against both parties equally, but almost solely against the\nparty in the right, and the ungenerous refusal of all those just\nallowances which no country needs more than our own, whenever its\ncircumstances are as near to those of America as a cut finger is to an\nalmost mortal wound,--these facts, with minds not favorably disposed\nto us, would have gone far to make the most odious interpretation of\nthe war in which we have been so nearly engaged with the United\nStates, appear by many degrees the most probable. There is no denying\nthat our attitude towards the contending parties (I mean our moral\nattitude, for politically there was no other course open to us than\nneutrality) has not been that which becomes a people who are as\nsincere enemies of slavery as the English really are, and have made as\ngreat sacrifices to put an end to it where they could. And it has been\nan additional misfortune that some of our most powerful journals have\nbeen for many years past very unfavorable exponents of English feeling\non all subjects connected with slavery: some, probably, from the\ninfluences, more or less direct, of West Indian opinions and\ninterests: others from inbred Toryism, which, even when compelled by\nreason to hold opinions favorable to liberty, is always adverse to it\nin feeling; which likes the spectacle of irresponsible power exercised\nby one person over others; which has no moral repugnance to the\nthought of human beings born to the penal servitude for life, to which\nfor the term of a few years we sentence our most hardened criminals,\nbut keeps its indignation to be expended on \"rabid and fanatical\nabolitionists\" across the Atlantic, and on those writers in England\nwho attach a sufficiently serious meaning to their Christian\nprofessions, to consider a fight against slavery as a fight for God.\n\nNow, when the mind of England, and it may almost be said, of the\ncivilized part of mankind, has been relieved from the incubus which\nhad weighed on it ever since the _Trent_ outrage, and when we are no\nlonger feeling towards the Northern Americans as men feel towards\nthose with whom they may be on the point of struggling for life or\ndeath; now, if ever, is the time to review our position, and consider\nwhether we have been feeling what ought to have been felt, and wishing\nwhat ought to have been wished, regarding the contest in which the\nNorthern States are engaged with the South.\n\nIn considering this matter, we ought to dismiss from our minds, as far\nas possible, those feelings against the North, which have been\nengendered not merely by the _Trent_ aggression, but by the previous\nanti-British effusions of newspaper writers and stump orators. It is\nhardly worth while to ask how far these explosions of ill-humor are\nanything more than might have been anticipated from ill-disciplined\nminds, disappointed of the sympathy which they justly thought they had\na right to expect from the great anti-slavery people, in their really\nnoble enterprise. It is almost superfluous to remark that a democratic\nGovernment always shows worst where other Governments generally show\nbest, on its outside; that unreasonable people are much more noisy\nthan the reasonable; that the froth and scum are the part of a\nviolently fermenting liquid that meets the eyes, but are not its body\nand substance. Without insisting on these things, I contend, that all\nprevious cause of offence should be considered as cancelled, by the\nreparation which the American Government has so amply made; not so\nmuch the reparation itself, which might have been so made as to leave\nstill greater cause of permanent resentment behind it; but the manner\nand spirit in which they have made it. These have been such as most of\nus, I venture to say, did not by any means expect. If reparation were\nmade at all, of which few of us felt more than a hope, we thought that\nit would have been made obviously as a concession to prudence, not to\nprinciple. We thought that there would have been truckling to the\nnewspaper editors and supposed fire-eaters who were crying out for\nretaining the prisoners at all hazards. We expected that the\natonement, if atonement there were, would have been made with\nreservations, perhaps under protest. We expected that the\ncorrespondence would have been spun out, and a trial made to induce\nEngland to be satisfied with less; or that there would have been a\nproposal of arbitration; or that England would have been asked to make\nconcessions in return for justice; or that if submission was made, it\nwould have been made, ostensibly, to the opinions and wishes of\nContinental Europe. We expected anything, in short, which would have\nbeen weak and timid and paltry. The only thing which no one seemed to\nexpect, is what has actually happened. Mr. Lincoln's Government have\ndone none of these things. Like honest men, they have said in direct\nterms, that our demand was right; that they yielded to it because it\nwas just; that if they themselves had received the same treatment,\nthey would have demanded the same reparation; and that if what seemed\nto be the American side of a question was not the just side, they\nwould be on the side of justice; happy as they were to find after\ntheir resolution had been taken, that it was also the side which\nAmerica had formerly defended. Is there any one, capable of a moral\njudgment or feeling, who will say that his opinion of America and\nAmerican statesmen, is not raised by such an act, done on such\ngrounds? The act itself may have been imposed by the necessity of the\ncircumstances; but the reasons given, the principles of action\nprofessed, were their own choice. Putting the worst hypothesis\npossible, which it would be the height of injustice to entertain\nseriously, that the concession was really made solely to convenience,\nand that the profession of regard for justice was hypocrisy, even so,\nthe ground taken, even if insincerely, is the most hopeful sign of the\nmoral state of the American mind which has appeared for many years.\nThat a sense of justice should be the motive which the rulers of a\ncountry rely on, to reconcile the public to an unpopular, and what\nmight seem a humiliating act; that the journalists, the orators, many\nlawyers, the Lower House of Congress, and Mr. Lincoln's own naval\nsecretary, should be told in the face of the world, by their own\nGovernment, that they have been giving public thanks, presents of\nswords, freedom of cities, all manner of heroic honors to the author\nof an act which, though not so intended, was lawless and wrong, and\nfor which the proper remedy is confession and atonement; that this\nshould be the accepted policy (supposing it to be nothing higher) of a\nDemocratic Republic, shows even unlimited democracy to be a better\nthing than many Englishmen have lately been in the habit of\nconsidering it, and goes some way towards proving that the aberrations\neven of a ruling multitude are only fatal when the better instructed\nhave not the virtue or the courage to front them boldly. Nor ought it\nto be forgotten, to the honor of Mr. Lincoln's Government, that in\ndoing what was in itself right, they have done also what was best\nfitted to allay the animosity which was daily becoming more bitter\nbetween the two nations so long as the question remained open. They\nhave put the brand of confessed injustice upon that rankling and\nvindictive resentment with which the profligate and passionate part of\nthe American press has been threatening us in the event of concession,\nand which is to be manifested by some dire revenge, to be taken, as\nthey pretend, after the nation is extricated from its present\ndifficulties. Mr. Lincoln has done what depended on him to make this\nspirit expire with the occasion which raised it up; and we shall have\nourselves chiefly to blame if we keep it alive by the further\nprolongation of that stream of vituperative eloquence, the source of\nwhich, even now, when the cause of quarrel has been amicably made up,\ndoes not seem to have run dry. {1}\n\n\n{1. I do not forget one regrettable passage in Mr. Seward's letter,\nin which he said that \"if the safety of the Union required the\ndetention of the captured persons, it would be the right and duty of\nthis Government to detain them.\" I sincerely grieve to find this\nsentence in the dispatch, for the exceptions to the general rules of\nmorality are not a subject to be lightly or unnecessarily tampered\nwith. The doctrine in itself is no other than that professed and\nacted on by all governments--that self-preservation, in a State, as\nin an individual, is a warrant for many things which at all other\ntimes ought to be rigidly abstained from. At all events, no nation\nwhich has ever passed \"laws of exception,\" which ever suspended the\nHabeas Corpus Act or passed an Alien Bill in dread of a Chartist\ninsurrection, has a right to throw the first stone at Mr. Lincoln's\nGovernment.}\n\nLet us, then, without reference to these jars, or to the declamations\nof newspaper writers on either side of the Atlantic, examine the\nAmerican question as it stood from the beginning; its origin, the\npurpose of both the combatants, and its various possible or probable\nissues.\n\nThere is a theory in England, believed perhaps by some, half believed\nby many more, which is only consistent with original ignorance, or\ncomplete subsequent forgetfulness, of all the antecedents of the\ncontest. There are people who tell us that, on the side of the North,\nthe question is not one of slavery at all. The North, it seems, have\nno more objection to slavery than the South have. Their leaders never\nsay one word implying disapprobation of it. They are ready, on the\ncontrary, to give it new guarantees; to renounce all that they have\nbeen contending for; to win back, if opportunity offers, the South to\nthe Union by surrendering the whole point.\n\nIf this be the true state of the case, what are the Southern chiefs\nfighting about? Their apologists in England say that it is about\ntariffs, and similar trumpery. _They_ say nothing of the kind. They\ntell the world, and they told their own citizens when they wanted\ntheir votes, that the object of the fight was slavery. Many years ago,\nwhen General Jackson was President, South Carolina did nearly rebel\n(she never was near separating) about a tariff; but no other State\nabetted her, and a strong adverse demonstration from Virginia brought\nthe matter to a close. Yet the tariff of that day was rigidly\nprotective. Compared with that, the one in force at the time of the\nsecession was a free-trade tariff: This latter was the result of\nseveral successive modifications in the direction of freedom; and its\nprinciple was not protection for protection, but as much of it only as\nmight incidentally result from duties imposed for revenue. Even the\nMorrill tariff (which never could have been passed but for the\nSouthern secession) is stated by the high authority of Mr. H. C. Carey\nto be considerably more liberal than the reformed French tariff under\nMr. Cobden's treaty; insomuch that he, a Protectionist, would be glad\nto exchange his own protective tariff for Louis Napoleon's free-trade\none. But why discuss, on probable evidence, notorious facts? The world\nknows what the question between the North and South has been for many\nyears, and still is. Slavery alone was thought of, alone talked of.\nSlavery was battled for and against, on the floor of Congress and in\nthe plains of Kansas; on the slavery question exclusively was the\nparty constituted which now rules the United States: on slavery\nFremont was rejected, on slavery Lincoln was elected; the South\nseparated on slavery, and proclaimed slavery as the one cause of\nseparation.\n\nIt is true enough that the North are not carrying on war to abolish\nslavery in the States where it legally exists. Could it have been\nexpected, or even perhaps desired, that they should? A great party\ndoes not change suddenly, and at once, all its principles and\nprofessions. The Republican party have taken their stand on law, and\nthe existing constitution of the Union. They have disclaimed all right\nto attempt anything which that constitution forbids. It does forbid\ninterference by the Federal Congress with slavery in the Slave States;\nbut it does not forbid their abolishing it in the District of\nColumbia; and this they are now doing, having voted, I perceive, in\ntheir present pecuniary straits, a million of dollars to indemnify the\nslave-owners of the District. Neither did the Constitution, in their\nown opinion, require them to permit the introduction of slavery into\nthe territories which were not yet States. To prevent this, the\nRepublican party was formed, and to prevent it, they are now fighting,\nas the slave-owners are fighting to enforce it.\n\nThe present government of the United States is not an Abolitionist\ngovernment. Abolitionists, in America, mean those who do not keep\nwithin the constitution; who demand the destruction (as far as slavery\nis concerned) of as much of it as protects the internal legislation of\neach State from the control of Congress; who aim at abolishing slavery\nwherever it exists, by force if need be, but certainly by some other\npower than the constituted authorities of the Slave States. The\nRepublican party neither aim nor profess to aim at this object. And\nwhen we consider the flood of wrath which would have been poured out\nagainst them if they did, by the very writers who now taunt them with\nnot doing it, we shall be apt to think the taunt a little misplaced.\nBut though not an Abolitionist party, they are a Free-soil party. If\nthey have not taken arms against slavery, they have against its\nextension. And they know, as we may know if we please, that this\namounts to the same thing. The day when slavery can no longer extend\nitself, is the day of its doom. The slave-owners know this, and it is\nthe cause of their fury. They know, as all know who have attended to\nthe subject, that confinement within existing limits is its\ndeath-warrant. Slavery, under the conditions in which it exists in the\nStates, exhausts even the beneficent powers of nature. So incompatible\nis it with any kind whatever of skilled labor, that it causes the\nwhole productive resources of the country to be concentrated on one or\ntwo products, cotton being the chief, which require, to raise and\nprepare them for the market, little besides brute animal force. The\ncotton cultivation, in the opinion of all competent judges, alone\nsaves North American slavery; but cotton cultivation, exclusively\nadhered to, exhausts in a moderate number of years all the soils which\nare fit for it, and can only be kept up by travelling farther and\nfarther westward. Mr. Olmsted has given a vivid description of the\ndesolate state of parts of Georgia and the Carolinas, once among the\nrichest specimens of soil and cultivation in the world; and even the\nmore recently colonized Alabama, as he shows, is rapidly following in\nthe same downhill track. To slavery, therefore, it is a matter of life\nand death to find fresh fields for the employment of slave labor.\nConfine it to the present States, and the owners of slave property\nwill either be speedily ruined, or will have to find means of\nreforming and renovating their agricultural system; which cannot be\ndone without treating the slaves like human beings, nor without so\nlarge an employment of skilled, that is, of free labor, as will widely\ndisplace the unskilled, and so depreciate the pecuniary value of the\nslave, that the immediate mitigation and ultimate extinction of\nslavery would be a nearly inevitable and probably rapid consequence.\n\nThe Republican leaders do not talk to the public of these almost\ncertain results of success in the present conflict. They talk but\nlittle, in the existing emergency, even of the original cause of\nquarrel. The most ordinary policy teaches them to inscribe on their\nbanner that part only of their known principles in which their\nsupporters are unanimous. The preservation of the Union is an object\nabout which the North are agreed; and it has many adherents, as they\nbelieve, in the South generally. That nearly half the population of\nthe Border Slave States are in favor of it is a patent fact, since\nthey are now fighting in its defence. It is not probable that they\nwould be willing to fight directly against slavery. The Republicans\nwell know that if they can re\u00ebstablish the Union, they gain everything\nfor which they originally contended; and it would be a plain breach of\nfaith with the Southern friends of the Government, if, after rallying\nthem round its standard for a purpose of which they approve, it were\nsuddenly to alter its terms of communion without their consent.\n\nBut the parties in a protracted civil war almost invariably end by\ntaking more extreme, not to say higher grounds of principle, than they\nbegan with. Middle parties and friends of compromise are soon left\nbehind; and if the writers who so severely criticize the present\nmoderation of the Free-soilers are desirous to see the war become an\nabolition war, it is probable that if the war lasts long enough they\nwill be gratified. Without the smallest pretension to see further into\nfuturity than other people, I at least have foreseen and foretold from\nthe first, that if the South were not promptly put down, the contest\nwould become distinctly an antislavery one; nor do I believe that any\nperson, accustomed to reflect on the course of human affairs in\ntroubled times, can expect anything else. Those who have read, even\ncursorily, the most valuable testimony to which the English public\nhave access, concerning the real state of affairs in America--the\nletters of the _Times'_ correspondent, Mr. Russell--must have observed\nhow early and rapidly he arrived at the same conclusion, and with what\nincreasing emphasis he now continually reiterates it. In one of his\nrecent letters he names the end of next summer as the period by which,\nif the war has not sooner terminated, it will have assumed a complete\nanti-slavery character. So early a term exceeds, I confess, my most\nsanguine hopes; but if Mr. Russell be right, Heaven forbid that the\nwar should cease sooner; for if it lasts till then, it is quite\npossible that it will regenerate the American people.\n\nIf, however, the purposes of the North may be doubted or\nmisunderstood, there is at least no question as to those of the South.\nThey make no concealment of _their_ principles. As long as they were\nallowed to direct all the policy of the Union; to break through\ncompromise after compromise, encroach step after step, until they\nreached the pitch of claiming a right to carry slave property into the\nFree States, and, in opposition to the laws of those States, hold it\nas property there; so long, they were willing to remain in the Union.\nThe moment a President was elected of whom it was inferred from his\nopinions, not that he would take any measures against slavery where it\nexists, but that he would oppose its establishment where it exists\nnot,--that moment they broke loose from what was, at least, a very\nsolemn contract, and formed themselves into a Confederation professing\nas its fundamental principle not merely the perpetuation, but the\nindefinite extension of slavery. And the doctrine is loudly preached\nthrough the new Republic, that slavery, whether black or white, is a\ngood in itself, and the proper condition of the working classes\neverywhere.\n\nLet me, in a few words, remind the reader what sort of a thing this\nis, which the white oligarchy of the South have banded themselves\ntogether to propagate and establish, if they could, universally. When\nit is wished to describe any portion of the human race as in the\nlowest state of debasement, and under the most cruel oppression, in\nwhich it is possible for human beings to live, they are compared to\nslaves. When words are sought by which to stigmatize the most odious\ndespotism, exercised in the most odious manner, and all other\ncomparisons are found inadequate, the despots are said to be like\nslave-masters, or slave-drivers. What, by a rhetorical license, the\nworst oppressors of the human race, by way of stamping on them the\nmost hateful character possible, are said to be, these men, in very\ntruth, are. I do not mean that all of them are hateful personally, any\nmore than all the Inquisitors, or all the buccaneers. But the position\nwhich they occupy, and the abstract excellence of which they are in\narms to vindicate, is that which the united voice of mankind\nhabitually selects as the type of all hateful qualities. I will not\nbandy chicanery about the more or less of stripes or other torments\nwhich are daily requisite to keep the machine in working order, nor\ndiscuss whether the Legrees or the St. Clairs are more numerous among\nthe slave-owners of the Southern States. The broad facts of the case\nsuffice. One fact is enough. There are, Heaven knows, vicious and\ntyrannical institutions in ample abundance on the earth. But this\ninstitution is the only one of them all which requires, to keep it\ngoing, that human beings should be burnt alive. The calm and\ndispassionate Mr. Olmsted affirms that there has not been a single\nyear, for many years past, in which this horror is not known to have\nbeen perpetrated in some part or other of the South. And not upon\nnegroes only; the _Edinburgh Review_, in a recent number, gave the\nhideous details of the burning alive of an unfortunate Northern\nhuckster by Lynch law, on mere suspicion of having aided in the escape\nof a slave. What must American slavery be, if deeds like these are\nnecessary under it?--and if they are not necessary and are yet done,\nis not the evidence against slavery still more damning? The South are\nin rebellion not for simple slavery; they are in rebellion for the\nright of burning human creatures alive.\n\nBut we are told, by a strange misapplication of a true principle, that\nthe South had a _right_ to separate; that their separation ought to\nhave been consented to, the moment they showed themselves ready to\nfight for it; and that the North, in resisting it, are committing the\nsame error and wrong which England committed in opposing the original\nseparation of the thirteen colonies. This is carrying the doctrine of\nthe sacred right of insurrection rather far. It is wonderful how easy\nand liberal and complying people can be in other people's concerns.\nBecause they are willing to surrender their own past, and have no\nobjection to join in reprobation of their great-grandfathers, they\nnever put themselves the question what they themselves would do in\ncircumstances far less trying, under far less pressure of real\nnational calamity. Would those who profess these ardent revolutionary\nprinciples consent to their being applied to Ireland, or India, or the\nIonian Islands. How have they treated those who did attempt so to\napply them? But the case can dispense with any mere _argumentum ad\nhominem_. I am not frightened at the word rebellion. I do not scruple\nto say that I have sympathized more or less ardently with most of the\nrebellions, successful and unsuccessful, which have taken place in my\ntime. But I certainly never conceived that there was a sufficient\ntitle to my sympathy in the mere fact of being a rebel; that the act\nof taking arms against one's fellow-citizens was so meritorious in\nitself, was so completely its own justification, that no question need\nbe asked concerning the motive. It seems to me a strange doctrine that\nthe most serious and responsible of all human acts imposes no\nobligation on those who do it of showing that they have a real\ngrievance; that those who rebel for the power of oppressing others,\nexercise as sacred a right as those who do the same thing to resist\noppression practised upon themselves. Neither rebellion nor any other\nact which affects the interests of others, is sufficiently legitimated\nby the mere will to do it. Secession may be laudable, and so may any\nother kind of insurrection; but it may also be an enormous crime. It\nis the one or the other, according to the object and the provocation.\nAnd if there ever was an object which, by its bare announcement,\nstamped rebels against a particular community as enemies of mankind,\nit is the one professed by the South. Their right to separate is the\nright which Cartouche or Turpin would have had to secede from their\nrespective countries, because the laws of those countries would not\nsuffer them to rob and murder on the highway. The only real difference\nis that the present rebels are more powerful than Cartouche or Turpin,\nand may possibly be able to effect their iniquitous purpose.\n\nSuppose, however, for the sake of argument, that the mere will to\nseparate were in this case, or in any case, a sufficient ground for\nseparation, I beg to be informed _whose_ will? The will of any knot of\nmen who, by fair means or foul, by usurpation, terrorism, or fraud,\nhave got the reins of government into their hands? If the inmates of\nParkhurst Prison were to get possession of the Isle of Wight, occupy\nits military positions, enlist one part of its inhabitants in their\nown ranks, set the remainder of them to work in chain gangs, and\ndeclare themselves independent, ought their recognition by the British\nGovernment to be an immediate consequence? Before admitting the\nauthority of any persons, as organs of the will of the people, to\ndispose of the whole political existence of a country, I ask to see\nwhether their credentials are from the whole, or only from a part. And\nfirst, it is necessary to ask, Have the slaves been consulted? Has\ntheir will been counted as any part in the estimate of collective\nvolition? They are a part of the population. However natural in the\ncountry itself, it is rather cool in English writers who talk so\nglibly of the ten millions (I believe there are only eight), to pass\nover the very existence of four millions who must abhor the idea of\nseparation. Remember, _we_ consider them to be human beings, entitled\nto human rights. Nor can it be doubted that the mere fact of belonging\nto a Union in some parts of which slavery is reprobated, is some\nalleviation of their condition, if only as regards future\nprobabilities. But even of the white population, it is questionable if\nthere was in the beginning a majority for secession anywhere but in\nSouth Carolina. Though the thing was pre-determined, and most of the\nStates committed by their public authorities before the people were\ncalled on to vote; though in taking the votes terrorism in many places\nreigned triumphant; yet even so, in several of the States, secession\nwas carried only by narrow majorities. In some the authorities have\nnot dared to publish the numbers; in some it is asserted that no vote\nhas ever been taken. Further (as was pointed out in an admirable\nletter by Mr. Carey), the Slave States are intersected in the middle,\nfrom their northern frontier almost to the Gulf of Mexico, by a\ncountry of free labor--the mountain region of the Alleghanies and\ntheir dependencies, forming parts of Virginia, North Carolina,\nTennessee, Georgia, and Alabama, in which, from the nature of the\nclimate and of the agricultural and mining industry, slavery to any\nmaterial extent never did, and never will, exist. This mountain zone\nis peopled by ardent friends of the Union. Could the Union abandon\nthem, without even an effort, to be dealt with at the pleasure of an\nexasperated slave-owning oligarchy? Could it abandon the Germans who,\nin Western Texas, have made so meritorious a commencement of growing\ncotton on the borders of the Mexican Gulf by free labor? Were the\nright of the slave-owners to secede ever so clear, they have no right\nto carry these with them; unless allegiance is a mere question of\nlocal proximity, and my next neighbor, if I am a stronger man, can be\ncompelled to follow me in any lawless vagaries I choose to indulge.\n\nBut (it is said) the North will never succeed in conquering the South;\nand since the separation must in the end be recognized, it is better\nto do at first what must be done at last; moreover, if it did conquer\nthem, it could not govern them when conquered, consistently with free\ninstitutions. With no one of these propositions can I agree.\n\nWhether or not the Northern Americans will succeed in reconquering the\nSouth, I do not affect to foresee. That they _can_ conquer it, if\ntheir present determination holds, I have never entertained a doubt;\nfor they are twice as numerous, and ten or twelve times as rich. Not\nby taking military possession of their country, or marching an army\nthrough it, but by wearing them out, exhausting their resources,\ndepriving them of the comforts of life, encouraging their slaves to\ndesert, and excluding them from communication with foreign countries.\nAll this, of course, depends on the supposition that the North does\nnot give in first. Whether they will persevere to this point, or\nwhether their spirit, their patience, and the sacrifices they are\nwilling to make, will be exhausted before reaching it, I cannot tell.\nThey may, in the end, be wearied into recognizing the separation. But\nto those who say that because this may have to be done at last, it\nought to have been done at first, I put the very serious question--On\nwhat terms? Have they ever considered what would have been the meaning\nof separation if it had been assented to by the Northern States when\nfirst demanded? People talk as if separation meant nothing more than\nthe independence of the seceding States. To have accepted it under\nthat limitation would have been, on the part of the South, to give up\nthat which they have seceded expressly to preserve. Separation, with\nthem, means at least half the Territories; including the Mexican\nborder, and the consequent power of invading and overrunning Spanish\nAmerica for the purpose of planting there the \"peculiar institution\"\nwhich even Mexican civilization has found too bad to be endured. There\nis no knowing to what point of degradation a country may be driven in\na desperate state of its affairs; but if the North _ever_, unless on\nthe brink of actual ruin, makes peace with the South, giving up the\noriginal cause of quarrel, the freedom of the Territories; if it\nresigns to them when out of the Union that power of evil which it\nwould not grant to retain them in the Union--it will incur the pity\nand disdain of posterity. And no one can suppose that the South would\nhave consented, or in their present temper ever will consent, to an\naccommodation on any other terms. It will require a succession of\nhumiliation to bring them to that. The necessity of reconciling\nthemselves to the confinement of slavery within its existing\nboundaries, with the natural consequence, immediate mitigation of\nslavery, and ultimate emancipation, is a lesson which they are in no\nmood to learn from anything but disaster. Two or three defeats in the\nfield, breaking their military strength, though not followed by an\ninvasion of their territory, may possibly teach it to them. If so,\nthere is no breach of charity in hoping that this severe schooling may\npromptly come. When men set themselves up, in defiance of the rest of\nthe world, to do the devil's work, no good can come of them until the\nworld has made them feel that this work cannot be suffered to be done\nany longer. If this knowledge does not come to them for several years,\nthe abolition question will by that time have settled itself. For\nassuredly Congress will very soon make up its mind to declare all\nslaves free who belong to persons in arms against the Union. When that\nis done, slavery, confined to a minority, will soon cure itself; and\nthe pecuniary value of the negroes belonging to loyal masters will\nprobably not exceed the amount of compensation which the United States\nwill be willing and able to give.\n\nThe assumed difficulty of governing the Southern States as free and\nequal commonwealths, in case of their return to the Union, is purely\nimaginary. If brought back by force, and not by voluntary compact,\nthey will return without the Territories, and without a Fugitive Slave\nLaw. It may be assumed that in that event the victorious party would\nmake the alterations in the Federal Constitution which are necessary\nto adapt it to the new circumstances, and which would not infringe,\nbut strengthen, its democratic principles. An article would have to be\ninserted prohibiting the extension of slavery to the Territories, or\nthe admission into the Union of any new Slave State. Without any other\nguarantee, the rapid formation of new Free States would ensure to\nfreedom a decisive and constantly increasing majority in Congress. It\nwould also be right to abrogate that bad provision of the Constitution\n(a necessary compromise at the time of its first establishment)\nwhereby the slaves, though reckoned as citizens in no other respect,\nare counted, to the extent of three fifths of their number, in the\nestimate of the population for fixing the number of representatives of\neach State in the Lower House of Congress. Why should the masters have\nmembers in right of their human chattels, any more than of their oxen\nand pigs? The President, in his Message, has already proposed that\nthis salutary reform should be effected in the case of Maryland,\nadditional territory, detached from Virginia, being given to that\nState as an equivalent: thus clearly indicating the policy which he\napproves, and which he is probably willing to make universal.\n\nAs it is necessary to be prepared for all possibilities, let us now\ncontemplate another. Let us suppose the worst possible issue of this\nwar--the one apparently desired by those English writers whose moral\nfeeling is so philosophically indifferent between the apostles of\nslavery and its enemies. Suppose that the North should stoop to\nrecognize the new Confederation on its own terms, leaving it half the\nTerritories, and that it is acknowledged by Europe, and takes its\nplace as an admitted member of the community of nations. It will be\ndesirable to take thought beforehand what are to be our own future\nrelations with a new Power, professing the principles of Attila and\nGenghis Khan as the foundation of its Constitution. Are we to see with\nindifference its victorious army let loose to propagate their national\nfaith at the rifle's mouth through Mexico and Central America? Shall\nwe submit to see fire and sword carried over Cuba and Porto Rico, and\nHayti and Liberia conquered and brought back to slavery? We shall soon\nhave causes enough of quarrel on our own account. When we are in the\nact of sending an expedition against Mexico to redress the wrongs of\nprivate British subjects, we should do well to reflect in time that\nthe President of the new Republic, Mr. Jefferson Davis, was the\noriginal inventor of repudiation. Mississippi was the first State\nwhich repudiated, Mr. Jefferson Davis was Governor of Mississippi, and\nthe Legislature of Mississippi had passed a Bill recognizing and\nproviding for the debt, which Bill Mr. Jefferson Davis vetoed. Unless\nwe abandon the principles we have for two generations consistently\nprofessed and acted on, we should be at war with the new Confederacy\nwithin five years about the African slave-trade. An English Government\nwill hardly be base enough to recognize them, unless they accept all\nthe treaties by which America is at present bound; nor, it may be\nhoped, even if _de facto_ independent, would they be admitted to the\ncourtesies of diplomatic intercourse, unless they granted in the most\nexplicit manner the right of search. To allow the slave-ships of a\nConfederation formed for the extension of slavery to come and go free,\nand unexamined, between America and the African coast, would be to\nrenounce even the pretence of attempting to protect Africa against the\nman-stealer, and abandon that Continent to the horrors, on a far\nlarger scale, which were practised before Granville Sharp and Clarkson\nwere in existence. But even if the right of intercepting their slavers\nwere acknowledged by treaty, which it never would be, the arrogance of\nthe Southern slave-holders would not long submit to its exercise.\nTheir pride and self-conceit, swelled to an inordinate height by their\nsuccessful struggle, would defy the power of England as they had\nalready successfully defied that of their Northern countrymen. After\nour people by their cold disapprobation, and our press by its\ninvective, had combined with their own difficulties to damp the spirit\nof the Free States, and drive them to submit and make peace, we should\nhave to fight the Slave States ourselves at far greater disadvantages,\nwhen we should no longer have the wearied and exhausted North for an\nally. The time might come when the barbarous and barbarizing Power,\nwhich we by our moral support had helped into existence, would require\na general crusade of civilized Europe, to extinguish the mischief\nwhich it had allowed, and we had aided, to rise up in the midst of our\ncivilization.\n\nFor these reasons I cannot join with those who cry Peace, peace. I\ncannot wish that this war should not have been engaged in by the\nNorth, or that being engaged in, it should be terminated on any\nconditions but such as would retain the whole of the Territories as\nfree soil. I am not blind to the possibility that it may require a\nlong war to lower the arrogance and tame the aggressive ambition of\nthe slave-owners, to the point of either returning to the Union, or\nconsenting to remain out of it with their present limits. But war, in\na good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War\nis an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and\ndegraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing\nworth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human\ninstruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service\nand for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.\nA war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a\nwar to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is\ntheir own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free\nchoice--is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has\nnothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more\nabout than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature,\nwho has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the\nexertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice\nhave not terminated _their_ ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the\naffairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do\nbattle for the one against the other. I am far from saying that the\npresent struggle, on the part of the Northern Americans, is wholly of\nthis exalted character; that it has arrived at the stage of being\naltogether a war for justice, a war of principle. But there was from\nthe beginning, and now is, a large infusion of that element in it; and\nthis is increasing, will increase, and if the war lasts, will in the\nend predominate. Should that time come, not only will the greatest\nenormity which still exists among mankind as an institution, receive\nfar earlier its _coups de gr\u00e2ce_ than there has ever, until now,\nappeared any probability of; but in effecting this the Free States\nwill have raised themselves to that elevated position in the scale of\nmorality and dignity, which is derived from great sacrifices\nconsciously made in a virtuous cause, and the sense of an inestimable\nbenefit to all future ages, brought about by their own voluntary\nefforts.","title":"The Contest in America","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":7595}