Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments Part 16

On this point Daniel O'Connell was very explicit, when, in a public a.s.sembly, he used this language: "When an American comes into society, he will be asked, 'are you one of the thieves, or are you an honest man?

If you are an honest man, then you have given liberty to your slaves; if you are among the thieves, the sooner you take the outside of the house, the better.'"

The error just referred to was this: they based their opposition to slavery on the principle, that it was _malum in se_--a sin in itself--like the slave trade, robbery and murder; and, at the same time, continued to use the products of the labor of the slave as though they had been obtained from the labor of freemen. But this seeming inconsistency was not the only reason why they failed to create such a public sentiment as would procure the emanc.i.p.ation of our slaves. The English emanc.i.p.ationists began their work like philosophers--addressing themselves, respectfully to the power that could grant their requests.

Beside the moral argument, which declared slavery a crime, the English philanthropists labored to convince Parliament, that emanc.i.p.ation would be advantageous to the commerce of the nation. The commercial value of the Islands had been reduced one-third, as a result of the abolition of the slave trade. Emanc.i.p.ation, it was argued, would more than restore their former prosperity, as the labor of freemen was twice as productive as that of slaves. But American abolitionists commenced their crusade against slavery, by charging those who sustained it, and who alone, held the power to manumit, with crimes of the blackest dye. This placed the parties in instant antagonism, causing all the arguments on human rights, and the sinfulness of slavery, to fall without effect upon the ears of angry men. The error on this point, consisted in failing to discriminate between the sources of the power over emanc.i.p.ation in England and in the United States. With Great Britain, the power was in Parliament. The masters, in the West Indies, had no voice in the question. It was the voters in England alone who controlled the elections, and, consequently, controlled Parliament. But the condition of things in the United States is the reverse of what it was in England.

With us, the power of emanc.i.p.ation is in the States, not in Congress.

The slaveholders elect the members to the State Legislatures; and they choose none but such as agree with them in opinion. It matters not, therefore, what public sentiment may be at the North, as it has no power over the Legislatures of the South. Here, then, is the difference: with us the slaveholder controls the question of emanc.i.p.ation, while in England the consent of the master was not necessary to the execution of that work.

Our anti-slavery men seem to have fallen into their errors of policy, by following the lead of those of England, who manifested a total ignorance of the relations existing between our General Government and the State Governments. On the abolition platform, slaveholders found themselves placed in the same category with slave traders and thieves. They were told that all laws, giving them power over the slave, were void in the sight of heaven; and that their appropriation of the fruits of the labor of the slave, without giving him compensation, was robbery. Had the preaching of these principles produced conviction, it must have promoted emanc.i.p.ation. But, unfortunately, while these doctrines were held up to the gaze of slaveholders, in the one hand of the exhorter, they beheld his other hand stretched out, from beneath his cloak of seeming sanct.i.ty, to clutch the products of the very robbery he was professing to condemn! Take a fact in proof of this view of the subject.

At the date of the declarations of Daniel O'Connell, on behalf of the English, and by the Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Convention, on the part of Americans, the British manufacturers were purchasing, annually, about 300,000,000 lbs. of cotton, from the very men denounced as equally criminal with slave traders and thieves; and the people of the United States were almost wholly dependent upon slave labor for their supplies of cotton and groceries. It is no matter for wonder, therefore, that slaveholders, should treat, as fiction, the doctrine that slave labor products are the fruits of robbery, so long as they are purchased without scruple, by all cla.s.ses of men, in Europe and America. The pecuniary argument for emanc.i.p.ation, that free labor is more profitable than slave labor, was also urged here, but was treated as the greatest absurdity. The masters had, before their eyes, the evidence of the falsity of the a.s.sertion, that, if emanc.i.p.ated, the slaves would be doubly profitable as free laborers. The reverse was admitted, on all hands, to be true in relation to our colored people.

But this question, of the moral relations which the consumers of slave labor products sustain to slavery, is one of too important a nature to be pa.s.sed over without a closer examination; and, beside, it is involved in less obscurity than the morality of the relation existing between the master and the slave. Its consideration, too, affords an opportunity of discriminating between the different opinions entertained on the broad question of the morality of the inst.i.tution, and enables us to judge of the consistency and conscientiousness of every man, by the standard which he himself adopts.

The prevalent opinions, as to the morality of the inst.i.tution of slavery, in the United States, may be cla.s.sified under three heads: 1.

That it is justified by Scripture example and precept. 2. That it is a great civil and social evil, resulting from ignorance and degradation, like despotic systems of government, and may be tolerated until its subjects are sufficiently enlightened to render it safe to grant them equal rights. 3. That it is _malum in se_, like robbery and murder, and can not be sustained, for a moment, without sin; and, like sin, should be immediately abandoned.

Those who consider slavery sanctioned by the Bible, conceive that they can, consistently with their creed, not only hold slaves, and use the products of slave labor, without doing violence to their consciences, but may adopt measures to perpetuate the system. Those who consider slavery merely a great civil and social evil, a despotism that may engender oppression, or may not, are of opinion that they may purchase and use its products, or interchange their own for those of the slaveholder, as free governments hold commercial and diplomatic intercourse with despotic ones, without being responsible for the moral evils connected with the system, But the position of those who believe slavery _malum in se_, like the slave trade, robbery and murder, is a very different one from either of the other cla.s.ses, as it regards the purchase and use of slave labor products. Let us ill.u.s.trate this by a case in point.

A company of men hold a number of their fellow men in bondage under the laws of the commonwealth in which they live, so that they can compel them to work their plantations, and raise horses, cattle, hogs, and cotton. These products of the labor of the oppressed, are appropriated by the oppressors to their own use, and taken into the markets for sale.

Another company proceed to a community of freemen, on the coast of Africa, who have labored voluntarily during the year, seize their persons, bind them, convey away their horses, cattle, hogs, and cotton, and take the property to market. The first a.s.sociation represents the slaveholders; the second a band of robbers. The commodities of both parties, are openly offered for sale, and every one knows how the property of each was obtained. Those who believe the _per se_ doctrine, place both these a.s.sociations in the same moral category, and call them robbers. Judged by this rule, the first band are the more criminal, as they have deprived their victims of personal liberty, forced them into servitude, and then "despoiled them of the fruits of their labor."[92]

The second band have only deprived their victims of liberty, while they robbed them; and thus have committed but two crimes, while the first have perpetrated three. These parties attempt to negotiate the sale of their cotton, say in London. The first company dispose of their cargo without difficulty--no one manifesting the slightest scruple at purchasing the products of slave labor. But the second company are not so fortunate. As soon as their true character is ascertained, the police drag its members to Court, where they are sentenced to Bridewell. In vain do these robbers quote the Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Convention, and Daniel O'Connell, to prove that their cotton was obtained by means no more criminal than that of the slaveholders, and that, therefore, judgment ought to be reversed. The Court will not entertain such a plea, and they have to endure the penalty of the law. Now, why this difference, if slavery be _malum in se_? And if the receiver of stolen property is _particeps criminis_ with the thief, why is it, that the Englishman, who should receive and sell the cotton of the robbers, would run the risk of being sent to prison with them, while if he acted as agent of the slaveholders, he would be treated as an honorable man? If the master has no moral right to hold his slaves, in what respect can the products of their labor differ from the property acquired by robbery? And if the property be the fruits of robbery, how can any one use it, without violating conscience?

We have met with the following sage exposition of the question, in justification of the use of slave labor products, by those who believe the _per se_ doctrine: The master owns the lands, gives his skill and intelligence to direct the labor, and feeds and clothes the slaves. The slaves, therefore, are ent.i.tled only to a part of the proceeds of their labor, while the master is also justly ent.i.tled to a part of the crop.

When brought into the market, the purchaser can not know what part belongs, rightfully, to the master, and what to his slaves, as the whole is offered in bulk. He may, therefore, purchase the whole, innocently, and throw the sinfulness of the transaction upon the master, who sells what belongs to others. But if the _per se_ doctrine be true, this apology for the purchaser is not a justification. Where a "confusion of goods" has been made by one of the owners, so that they can not be separated, he who "confused" them can have no advantage, in law, from his own wrong, but the goods are awarded to the innocent party. On this well known principle of law, this most equitable rule, the master forfeits his right in the property, and the purchaser, knowing the facts, becomes a party in his guilt. But aside from this, the "confusion of goods," by the master, can give him no moral right to dispose of the interest of his slaves therein for his own benefit; and the persons purchasing such property, acquire no moral right to its possession and use. These are sound, logical views. The argument offered, in justification of those who hold that slavery is _malum in se_, is the strongest that can be made. It is apparent, then, from a fair a.n.a.lysis of their own principles, that they are _participes criminis_ with slaveholders.

Again, if the laws regulating the inst.i.tution of slavery, be morally null and void, and not binding on the conscience, then the slaves have a moral right to the proceeds of their labor. This right can not be alienated by any act of the master, but attaches to the property wherever it may be taken, and to whomsoever it may be sold. This principle, in law, is also well established. The recent decision on the "Gardiner fraud," confirms it; the Court a.s.serting, that the money paid out of the Treasury of the United States, under such circ.u.mstances, continued its character as the money and property of the United States, and may be followed into the hands of those who cashed the orders of Gardiner, and subsequently drew the money, but who are not the true owners of the said fund; and decreeing that the amount of funds, thus obtained, be collected off the estate of said Gardiner, and off those who drew funds from the treasury, on his orders.

These principles of law are so well understood, by every man of intelligence, that we can not conceive how those advocating the _per se_ doctrines, if sincere, can continue in the constant use of slave grown products, without a perpetual violation of conscience and of all moral law. Taking them under _protest_, against the slavery which produced them, is ridiculous. Refusing to fellowship the slaveholder, while eagerly appropriating the products of the labor of the slave, which he brings in his hand, is contemptible. The most noted case of the kind, is that of the British Committee, who had charge of the preliminary arrangements for the admission of members to the World's Christian Evangelical Alliance. One of the rules it adopted, but which the Alliance afterward modified, excluded all American clergymen, suspected of a want of orthodoxy on the _per se_ doctrine, from seats in that body. Their language, to American clergymen, was virtually, "Stand aside, I am holier than thou;" while, at the same moment, their parishioners, the manufacturers, had about completed the purchase of 624,000,000 lbs. of cotton, for the consumption of their mills, during the year; the bales of which, piled together, would have reached mountain-high, displaying, mostly, the brands, "New Orleans," "Mobile,"

"Charleston."

As not a word was said, by the Committee, against the Englishmen who were buying and manufacturing American cotton, the case may be viewed as one in which the fruits of robbery were taken under _protest_ against the robbers themselves. To all intelligent men, the conduct of the people of Britain, in protesting against slavery, as a system of robbery, while continuing to purchase such enormous quant.i.ties of the cotton produced by slaves, appears as Pharasaical as the conduct of the _conscientious_ Scotchman, in early times, in Eastern Pennsylvania, who married his wife under protest against the const.i.tution and laws of the Government, and especially, against the authority, power, and right of the magistrate who had just tied the knot.[93]

Such pliable consciences, doubtless, are very convenient in cases of emergency. But as they relax when selfish ends are to be subserved, and retain their rigidity only when judging the conduct of others, the inference is, that the persons possessing them are either hypocritical, or else, as was acknowledged by Parson D., in similar circ.u.mstances, they have mistaken their _prejudices_ for their _consciences_.

So far as Britain is concerned, she is, manifestly, much more willing to receive American slave labor cotton for her factories, than American republican principles for her people. And why so? The profits derived by her, from the purchase and manufacture of slave labor cotton, const.i.tute so large a portion of the means of her prosperity, that the Government could not sustain itself were the supplies of this article cut off. It is easy to divine, therefore, why the people of England are boundless in their denunciation of American slavery, while not a single remonstrance goes up to the throne, against the importation of American cotton.

Should she exclude it, the act would render her unable to pay the interest on her national debt; and many a declaimer against slavery, losing his income, would have to go supperless to bed.

Let us contrast the conduct of a pagan government with that of Great Britain. When the Emperor of China became fully convinced of his inability to resist the prowess of the British arms, in the famous "Opium War," efforts were made to induce him to legalize the traffic in opium, by levying a duty on its import, that should yield him a heavy profit. This he refused to do, and recorded his decision in these memorable words:

"It is true, I can not prevent the introduction of the flowing poison.

Gain-seeking and corrupt men will, for profit and sensuality, defeat my wishes, but nothing will induce me to derive a revenue from the vice and misery of my people."[94]

Let us revert a moment to the case of robbery, before cited, in further ill.u.s.tration of this subject. The prisoners serve out their term in Bridewell, and, after a year or two, again visit London with a cargo of cotton. The police recognize them, and they are a second time arraigned before the court for trial. The judge demands why they should have dared to revisit the soil of England, to offer for sale the products of their robbery. The prisoners a.s.sure his honor that they have neither outraged the public sentiment of the kingdom, nor violated its laws. "While in your prison, sir," they go on to say, "we became instructed in the morals of British economics. Anxious to atone for our former fault, and to restore ourselves to the confidence and respect of the pious subjects of your most gracious Queen, no sooner were we released from prison, than we hastened to the African coast, from whence our former cargo was obtained, and seizing the self-same men whom we had formerly robbed, we bore them off, bodily, to the soil of Texas. They resisted st.u.r.dily, it is true, but we mastered them. We touched none of the fruits of their previous labors. Their cotton we left in the fields, to be drenched by the rains or drifted by the winds; because, to have brought it into your markets would have subjected us, anew, to a place in your dungeons. In Texas, we brought our prisoners under the control of the laws, which there give us power to hold them as slaves. Stimulated to labor, under the lash of the overseer, they have produced a crop of cotton, which is now offered in your markets as a lawful article of commerce. We are not subjects of your Government, and, therefore, not indictable under your laws against slave trading. Your honor, will perceive, then, that our moral relations are changed. We come now to your sh.o.r.es, not as dealers in stolen property, but as slaveholders, with the products of slave labor. We are aware that _bunk.u.m_ speakers, at your public a.s.semblies, denounce the slaveholder as a thief, and his appropriation of the fruits of the labor of his slaves, as robbery. We comprehend the motives prompting such utterances. We come not to attend meetings of Ecclesiastical Conventions, representing the republican principles of America, to unsettle the doctrines upon which the throne of your kingdom is based. But we come as cotton planters, to supply your looms with cotton, that British commerce may not be abridged, and England, the great civilizer of the world, may not be forced to slack her pace in the performance of her mission. This is our character and position; and your honor will at once see that it is your duty, and the interest of your Government, to treat us as gentlemen and your most faithful allies." The judge at once admits the justice of their plea, rebukes the police, apologizes to the prisoners, a.s.sures them that they have violated no law of the realm; and that, though the public sentiment of the nation denounces the slaveholder as a thief, yet the public necessity demands a full supply of cotton from the planter. He then orders their immediate discharge, and invites them to partake of the hospitalities of his house during their stay in London.

This is a fair example of British consistency, on the subject of slavery, so far as the supply of cotton is concerned. The English manufacturers are under the absolute necessity of procuring it; but as free labor is incapable of increasing its production, slave labor must be made to remedy the defect.

The reason can now be clearly comprehended, why abolitionists have had so little moral power over the conscience of the slaveholder. Their practice has been inconsistent with their precepts; or, at least, their conduct has been liable to this construction. Nor do we perceive how they can exert a more potent influence, in the future, unless their energies are directed to efforts such as will relieve them from a position so inconsistent with their professions, as that of constantly purchasing products which they, themselves, declare to be the fruits of robbery. While, therefore, things remain as they are, with the world so largely dependent upon slave labor, how can it be otherwise, than that the system will continue to flourish? And while its products are used by all cla.s.ses, of every sentiment, and country, nearly, how can the slaveholder be brought to see any thing, in the practice of the world, to alarm his conscience, and make him cringe, before his fellow-men, as a guilty robber?

But, has nothing worse occurred from the advocacy of the _per se_ doctrine, than an exhibition of inconsistency on the part of abolitionists, and the perpetuation of slavery resulting from their conduct? This has occurred. Three highly respectable religious denominations, now limited to the North, had once many flourishing congregations in the South. On the adoption of the _per se_ doctrine, by their respective Synods, their congregations became disturbed, were soon after broken up, or the ministers in charge had to seek other fields of labor. Their system of religious instruction, for the family, being quite thorough, the slaves were deriving much advantage from the influence of these bodies. But when they resolved to withhold the gospel from the master, unless he would emanc.i.p.ate, they also withdrew the means of grace from the slave; and, so far as they were concerned, left him to perish eternally! Whether this course was proper, or whether it would have been better to have pa.s.sed by the morality of the legal relation, in the creation of which the master had no agency, and considered him, under Providence, as the moral guardian of the slave, bound to discharge a guardian's duty to an immortal being, we shall not undertake to determine. Attention is called to the facts, merely to show the practical effects of the action of these churches upon the slave, and what the _per se_ doctrine has done in depriving him of the gospel.

Another remark, and we have done with this topic. Nothing is more common, in certain circles, than denunciations of the Christian men and ministers, who refuse to adopt the _per se_ principle. We leave others to judge whether these censures are merited. One thing is certain: those who believe that slavery is a great civil and social evil, entailed upon the country, and are extending the gospel to both master and slave, with the hope of removing it peacefully, can not be reproached with acting inconsistently with their principles; while those who declare slavery _malum in se_, and refuse to fellowship the Christian slaveholder, because they consider him a robber, but yet use the products of slave labor, may fairly be cla.s.sified, on their own principles, with the hypocritical people of Israel, who were thus reproached by the Most High: "What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant in thy mouth?. . . . . When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him."[95]

FOOTNOTES:

[92] This is the phrase, nearly verbatim, used by Mr. Sumner in his speech on the Fugitive Slave Bill. Language, a little more to the point, is used in "The Friendly Remonstrance of the People of Scotland, on the Subject of Slavery," published in the _American Missionary_, September, 1855. In depicting slavery it speaks of it as a system "which robs its victims of the fruits of their toil."

[93] An anecdote, ill.u.s.trative of the pliability of some consciences, of this apparently rigid cla.s.s, where interest or inclination demands it, has often been told by the late Governor Morrow, of Ohio. An old Scotch "Cameronian," in Eastern Pennsylvania, became a widower, shortly after the adoption of the Const.i.tution of the United States. He refused to acknowledge either the National or State Government, but p.r.o.nounced them both unlawful, unrighteous, and unG.o.dly. Soon he began to feel the want of a wife, to care for his motherless children. The consent of a woman in his own Church was gained, because to take any other would have been like an Israelite marrying a daughter of the land of Canaan. On this point, as in refusing to swear allegiance to Government, he was controlled by conscience. But now a practical difficulty presented itself. There was no minister of his Church in the country--and those of other denominations, in his judgment, had no Divine warrant for exercising the functions of the sacred office. He repudiated the whole of them. But how to get married, that was the problem. He tried to persuade his intended to agree to a marriage contract, before witnesses, which could be confirmed whenever a proper minister should arrive from Scotland. But his "lady-love" would not consent to the plan. She must be married "like other folk," or not at all--because "people would talk so." The Scotchman for want of a wife, like Great Britain for want of cotton, saw very plainly that his children must suffer; and so he resolved to get married at all hazards, as England buys her cotton, but so as not to violate conscience. Proceeding with his intended to a magistrate's office, the ceremony was soon performed, and they twain p.r.o.nounced "one flesh." But no sooner had he "kissed the bride," the sealing act of the contract at that day, than the good Cameronian drew a written doc.u.ment from his pocket, which he read aloud before the officer and witnesses; and in which he entered his solemn protest against the authority of the Government of the United States, against that of the State of Pennsylvania, and especially against the power, right, and lawfulness of the acts of the magistrate who had just married him. This done, he went his way, rejoicing that he had secured a wife without recognizing the lawfulness of unG.o.dly governments, or violating his conscience.

[94] _National Intelligencer_, 1854.

[95] Psalm 1: 16, 18.

CONCLUSION.

IN concluding our labors, there is little need of extended observation.

The work of emanc.i.p.ation, in our country, was checked, and the extension of slavery promoted:--first, by the neglect of the free colored people to improve the advantages afforded them; second, by the increasing value imparted to slave labor; third, by the mistaken policy into which the English and American abolitionists have fallen. Whatever reasons might now be offered for emanc.i.p.ation, from an improvement of our free colored people, is far more than counterbalanced by its failure in the West Indies, and the constantly increasing value of the labor of the slave.

If, when the planters had only a moiety of the markets for cotton, the value of slavery was such as to arrest emanc.i.p.ation, how must the obstacles be increased, now, when they have the monopoly of the markets of the world? And, besides all this, a more deadly blow, than has been given by all other causes combined, is now levelled at negro freedom from a quarter the least suspected. The failure of the Canadian immigrants to improve the privileges afforded them under British law, proves, conclusively, that the true laws of progress for the African race, do not consist in a mere escape from slavery.

We propose not to speak of remedies for slavery. That we leave to others. Thus far this very perplexing question, has baffled all human wisdom. Either some radical defect must have existed, in the measures devised for its removal, or the time has not yet come for successfully a.s.sailing the inst.i.tution. Our work is completed, in the delineation we have given of its varied relations to our agricultural, commercial, and social interests. As the monopoly of the culture of cotton, imparts to slavery its economical value, the system will continue as long as this monopoly is maintained. Slave labor products have now become necessities of human life, to the extent of more than half the commercial articles supplied to the Christian world. Even free labor, itself, is made largely subservient to slavery, and vitally interested in its perpetuation and extension.

Can this condition of things be changed? It may be reasonably doubted, whether any thing efficient can be speedily accomplished: not because there is lack of territory where freemen may be employed in tropical cultivation, as all Western and Central Africa, nearly, is adapted to this purpose; not because intelligent free labor, under proper incentives, is less productive than slave labor; but because freemen, whose const.i.tutions are adapted to tropical climates, will not avail themselves of the opportunity offered for commencing such an enterprise.

KING COTTON cares not whether he employs slaves or freemen. It is the _cotton_, not the _slaves_, upon which his throne is based. Let freemen do his work as well, and he will not object to the change. The efforts of his most powerful ally, Great Britain, to promote that object, have already cost her people many hundreds of millions of dollars, with total failure as a reward for her zeal; and she is now compelled to resort to the expedient of employing the slave labor of Africa, to meet the necessities of her manufacturers. One-sixth of the colored people of the United States are free; but they shun the cotton regions, and have been instructed to detest emigration to Liberia. Their improvement has not been such as was antic.i.p.ated; and their more rapid advancement can not be expected, while they remain in the country. The free colored people of the British West Indies, can no longer be relied on to furnish tropical products, for they are resting contented in a state of almost savage indolence; and the introduction of coolie labor has become indispensable as a means of saving the Islands from ruin, as well as of forcing the negro into habits of industry. Hayti is not in a more promising condition; and even if it were, its population and territory are too limited to enable it to meet the increasing demand. HIS MAJESTY, KING COTTON, therefore, is forced to continue the employment of his slaves; and, by their toil, is riding on, conquering and to conquer! He receives no check from the cries of the oppressed, while the citizens of the world are dragging forward his chariot, and shouting aloud his praise!

KING COTTON is a profound statesman, and knows what measures will best sustain his throne. He is an acute mental philosopher, acquainted with the secret springs of human action, and accurately perceives who can best promote his aims. He has no evidence that colored men can grow his cotton, except in the capacity of slaves. Thus far, all experiments made to increase the production of cotton, by emanc.i.p.ating the slaves employed in its cultivation, have been a total failure. It is his policy, therefore, to defeat all schemes of emanc.i.p.ation. To do this, he stirs up such agitations as lure his enemies into measures that will do him no injury. The venal politician is always at his call, and a.s.sumes the form of saint or sinner, as the service may demand. Nor does he overlook the enthusiast, engaged in Quixotic endeavors for the relief of suffering humanity, but influences him to advocate measures which tend to tighten, instead of loosing the bands of slavery. Or, if he can not be seduced into the support of such schemes, he is beguiled into efforts that waste his strength on objects the most impracticable; so that slavery receives no damage from the exuberance of his philanthropy. But should such a one, perceiving the futility of his labors, and the evils of his course, make an attempt to avert the consequences; while he is doing this, some new recruit, pushed forward into his former place, charges him with lukewarmness, or pro-slavery sentiments, destroys his influence with the public, keeps alive the delusions, and sustains the supremacy of KING COTTON in the world.

In speaking of the economical connections of slavery, with the other material interests of the world, we have called it a _tripart.i.te alliance_. It is more than this. It is _quadruple_. Its structure includes four parties, arranged thus: The Western Agriculturists; the Southern Planters; the English Manufacturers; and the American Abolitionists! By this arrangement, the abolitionists do not stand in direct contact with slavery; they imagine, therefore, that they have clean hands and pure hearts, so far as sustaining the system is concerned. But they, no less than their allies, aid in promoting the interests of slavery. Their sympathies are with England on the slavery question, and they very naturally incline to agree with her on other points. She advocates _Free Trade_, as essential to her manufactures and commerce; and they do the same, not waiting to inquire into its bearings upon _American slavery_. We refer now to the people, not to their leaders, whose integrity we choose not to indorse. The free trade and protective systems, in their bearings upon slavery, are so well understood, that no man of general reading, especially an editor, or member of Congress, who professes anti-slavery sentiments, at the same time advocating free trade, will ever convince men of intelligence, pretend what he may, that he is not either woefully perverted in his judgment, or emphatically, a "dough-face" in disguise! England, we were about to say, is in alliance with the cotton planter, to whose prosperity free trade is indispensable. Abolitionism is in alliance with England. All three of these parties, then, agree in their support of the free trade policy. It needed but the aid of the Western farmer, therefore, to give permanency to this principle. His adhesion has been given, the _quadruple alliance_ has been perfected, and slavery and free trade _nationalized_!

Slavery, thus intrenched in the midst of such powerful allies, and without compet.i.tion in tropical cultivation, has become the sole reliance of KING COTTON. Lest the sources of his aggrandis.e.m.e.nt should be a.s.sailed, we can well imagine him as being engaged constantly, in devising new questions of agitation, to divert the public from all attempts to abandon free trade and restore the protective policy. He now finds an ample source of security, in this respect, in agitating the question of slavery extension. This exciting topic, as we have said, serves to keep politicians of the abolition school at the North in his constant employ. But for the agitation of this subject, few of these men would succeed in obtaining the suffrages of the people. Wedded to England's free trade policy, their votes in Congress, on all questions affecting the tariff, are always in perfect harmony with Southern interests, and work no mischief to the system of slavery. If Kansas comes into the Union as a slave State, he is secure in the political power it will give him in Congress; but if it is received as a free State, it will still be tributary to him, as a source from whence to draw provisions to feed his slaves. Nor does it matter much which way the controversy is decided, so long as all agree not to disturb slavery in the States where it is already established by law. Could KING COTTON be a.s.sured that this position will not be abandoned, he would care little about slavery in Kansas; but he knows full well that the public sentiment in the North is adverse to the system, and that the present race of politicians may readily be displaced by others who will pledge themselves to its overthrow in all the States of the Union, Hence he wills to retain the power over the question in his own hands.

The crisis now upon the country, as a consequence of slavery having become dominant, demands that the highest wisdom should be brought to the management of national affairs. Slavery, nationalized, can now be managed only as a national concern. It can now be abolished only with the consent of those who sustain it. Their a.s.sent can be gained only by employing other agents to meet the wants it now supplies. It must be superseded, then, if at all, by means that will not injuriously affect the interests of commerce and agriculture, to which it is now so important an auxiliary. None other will be accepted, for a moment, by the slaveholder. To supply the existing demand for tropical products, except by the present mode, is impossible. To make the change, is not the work of a day, nor of a generation. Should the influx of foreigners continue, such a change may, one day, be possible. But to effect the transition from slavery to freedom, on principles that will be acceptable to the parties who control the question; to devise and successfully sustain such measures as will produce this result; must be left to statesmen of broader views and loftier conceptions than are to be found among those at present engaged in this great controversy.

Take a more particular view of this subject, in the light of the commercial operations of the United States, for the year 1859, as best indicating the relations of the North and the South, and their mutual dependence upon each other. The total value of the imports of foreign commodities, including specie, was $338,768,130.[96] Of this $20,895,077 were re-exported, leaving for home consumption, $317,873,053--an amount more than eleven times greater than the whole foreign commerce of Great Britain one hundred and fifty-six years ago, and more than four times greater than her exports eighty-six years ago.[97]

Let us inquire how this immense foreign commerce is sustained; how these $317,873,000 of foreign imports are paid for by the American people; and how far the Northern and Southern States respectively have contributed to its payment. More than one-half the amount, or $161,434,923, was paid in raw cotton, and more than one-third of the remainder, or $57,502,305, in the precious metals; leaving less than $100,000,000 to be paid in the other productions of the country. More than one-third of this remainder was paid in cotton fabrics, tobacco, and rice; while the products of the forest, of the sea, and of various minor manufactures, swelled up our credits, so that the exports of breadstuffs and provisions, needed to liquidate the debt, only amounted to a little over $38,000,000.[98] Of this amount the exports, from the Northern States, of wheat and wheat flour, made up only $15,262,769, and the corn and corn meal but $2,206,396. "King Hay," so much lauded for his magnitude and money value, never once ventured on board a merchant vessel, to seek a foreign land, so as to aid in paying for the commodities which we imported.[99]

In a word, the products of the forest and of agriculture, exported by the free States, amounted in value to about $45,300,000; while the same cla.s.ses of products, supplied for export by the Slave States, amounted to more than $193,400,000.[100]

The economical relations of the North and the South can now be understood more clearly than they could be from the statistics referred to in the body of this work. The facts, in relation to the commerce of the United States, for 1859, were not accessible until after the stereotyping had been completed; and they are only crowded in here by omitting two or three pages of remarks of another kind, but of less importance, which closed the volume. By consulting Table XII, and two or three of the others, which contain similar facts, covering the commercial operations of the country since the year 1821, the whole question of the relations of the North and the South can be fully comprehended. It will be seen that the exports of tobacco, which are mainly from the South, have equaled in value considerably more than one-third the amount of that of breadstuffs and provisions; and that, in the same period, the exports of cotton have exceeded in value those of breadstuffs and provisions to the amount of $1,421,482,261.[101] Here, now, a just conception can be formed of the importance of cotton to the commerce of the country, as compared with our other productions. The amount exported, of that article, in the last thirty-nine years, has exceeded in value the exports of breadstuffs and provisions to the extent of _fourteen hundred and twenty-one millions of dollars_! Verily, Cotton is King!

Another point needs consideration. It is a fact, not to be questioned, that the productions of the Northern States amount to an immense sum, above those of the Southern States, when valued in dollars and cents; but the proportion of the products of the former; exported to foreign countries, is very insignificant, indeed, when compared with the value of the exports from the latter.[102] And, yet, the North is acquiring wealth with amazing rapidity. This fact could not exist, unless the Northern people produce more than they consume--unless they have a surplus to sell, after supplying their own wants. They must, therefore, find a permanent and profitable market, somewhere, for the surplus products that yield them their wealth. As that market is not in Europe, it must be in the Southern States. But the extent to which the South receive their supplies from the North, cannot be determined by any data now in the possession of the public. It must, however, be very large in amount, and, if withheld, would greatly embarra.s.s the Southern people, by lessening their ability to export as largely as. .h.i.therto. So, on the other hand, if the Northern people were deprived of the markets afforded by the South, they would find so little demand elsewhere for their products, that it would have a ruinous effect upon their prosperity. All that can be safely said upon this subject is, that the interests of both sections of the country are so intimately connected, so firmly blended together, that a dissolution of the Union would be destructive to all the economical interests of both the North and the South. Cut off from the South all that the North supplies to the planters, in such articles as agricultural implements, furniture, clothing, provisions, horses, and mules, and cotton culture would at once have to be abandoned to a great extent. But would the South alone be the sufferer? Could the Northern agriculturist, manufacturer, and mechanic, remain prosperous, and continue to acc.u.mulate wealth, without a market for their products?

Could Northern merchants dwell in their palaces, and roll in luxury, with a foreign commerce contracted to one-third of its present extent, and a domestic demand for merchandize reduced to one-half its present amount? Certainly not.

And if the mere necessity of self supply, of food and clothing, such as existed in 1820, would now be disastrous to the South, and react destructively upon the North, what would be the effect of emanc.i.p.ation upon the country at large? What would be the effect of releasing from restraint three and a half millions of negroes, to bask in idleness, under the genial sunshine of the South, or to emigrate hither and thither, at will, with none to control their actions? It is too late to insist that free labor would be more profitable than slave labor, when negroes are to be the operatives: Jamaica has solved that problem. It is too late to claim that white labor could be made to take the place of black labor, while the negroes remain upon the ground: Canada, and the Northern States, demonstrate that the two races cannot be made to labor together peacefully and upon terms of equality. Nothing is more certain, therefore, than that emanc.i.p.ation would inevitably place the Southern States in a similar position to that of Jamaica. On this point take a fact or two.

The _Colonial Standard_,[103] of the 13th January, 1859, in speaking of the present industrial condition of that Island, says, that there are not more than twenty thousand laborers who employ themselves in sugar cultivation for wages. This will seem astonishing to those who expected so much from emanc.i.p.ation, when it is stated that the black population of Jamaica, when liberated from slavery, numbered three hundred and eleven thousand, six hundred and ninety two; and that the exports of sugar from the Island, in 1805, before the slave trade was prohibited, amounted to 237,751,150 lbs.;[104] while, in 1859, the exports of that staple commodity, only amounted to 44,800,000 lbs.[105] It will thus be seen that the exports of sugar from Jamaica is now less than one-fifth of what it was in the prosperous days of slavery; and so it must be as to cotton, in the South, were emanc.i.p.ation forced upon this country. And what would be the condition of our foreign commerce, and what the effect upon the country, generally, were the exports of the South diminished to less than one-fifth of their present amount? Would the lands of the Northern farmers still continue to advance in price, if the markets for the surplus products of the soil no longer existed? Would those of the Southern planters rise in value, in the event of emanc.i.p.ation, to an equality with the lands at the North, when no laborers could be found to till the soil? No man ent.i.tled to the name of statesman--no man of practical common sense--could imagine that such a result would follow the liberation of the slaves in the Southern States. Under the philanthropic legislation of Great Britain, no such result followed the pa.s.sage of the act for the abolition of slavery in her colonies; but, on the contrary, the value of their real estate soon became reduced to a most ruinous extent; and such must inevitably be the result under the adoption of similar measures in the United States. This is the conviction of the men of the South, and they will act upon their own judgment.