Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

supporters. Therefore his influence died with his own death. He was the head of a powerful party in momentous times: he led a nation to the highest pinnacle of renown; he laid down landmarks of policy, which have lasted through many revolutions of opinion and are respected still. But he did not found a school. His name contained no spell to bind together after his death those whom he had influenced in life: none of the tender reverence gathered round his memory with which disciples recall the deeds and treasure up the sayings of a departed master. Pitt, Canning, Peel, wielded an authority over their friends that endured beyond the grave. Those who had served under them clung to the memory of that service as a bond among themselves which neither divergent opinions nor clashing interests might relax. There were Pittites, and Canningites, and Peelites, long after the death of the statesmen whose names they bore; and their cohesion has in no small degree affected our recent history: but no such adjective, in fact or in idea, has been formed upon the name of Castlereagh.

This effect of his calm, cold, self-contained temperament has undoubtedly in the first instance been damaging to his fame. The claims of other statesmen to the plaudits of posterity have been repeated noisily and indefatigably by bands of devoted admirers. Lord Castlereagh's memory, honoured only by the silent witness of events, has for the moment been thrust aside and neglected. No school of political thinkers have charged themselves in his case with the duty of sweeping away the detraction that gathers upon great men's tombs. But the time has come when these causes should cease to operate. It matters little to us now that his metaphors were Irish, his oratory dull, his temper unsympathising and cold. We are only concerned to recognise with gratitude the great results of his life-the triumphs that he won, and the peace-loving policy of which those triumphs were made the base. As the events in which he acted recede into the past, the pettier details in his character by which some of his leading contemporaries were repelled disappear altogether from our sight. From the point where we stand now, nothing is visible but the splendid outlines of the courage, the patience, and the faultless sagacity which contributed so much to liberate Europe and to save England in the crisis of her fate.

ART.

ART. VIII.-1. The American Union. By James Spence. London, 1861.

2. Two Lectures on the Present American War. By Montague Bernard, B.C.L., Chichele Professor of International Law in the University of Oxford. Oxford and London, 1861.

3. The Constitution of the United States compared with our own. By Hugh Seymour Tremenheere. London, 1854.

4. L'Union Américaine et l'Europe. Par Sidney Renouf. Paris,

1861.

W

WHAT the causes have been which led to the disunion of the United States-what quarrel has arrayed the North and the South in opposite and hostile camps, and made them regard each other with a frenzy of hatred almost without a parallel in the history of nations-what the conduct of England towards America both before and since the outbreak of civil war has been, and how that conduct has been requited, are subjects of sufficient interest to justify us in devoting a few pages to their consideration. They require a much fuller examination than we can bestow upon them within the limits of an article, but we hope to make the salient points clear.

Practically it now matters little whether the Federal or the Confederate States were correct in the view they respectively took as to the right of any State or States to secede from the Union. The question has passed from the jurist to the soldier, and will be decided not by argument but the sword. The war has assumed such proportions, that, whatever may be the theory of the North, it cannot deal with the secession merely as a rebellion. Southerners taken with arms in their hands are not hanged as traitors; and a blockade is established, which -worthless as we shall show it to be-would be unmeaning and ridiculous, as directed by a Government against its own subjects. In point of fact there are two belligerent powers in presence, and the rights of belligerents are tacitly conceded by the North to the South, however the unpalatable truth may be denied in official despatches and diplomatic circulars. But History will ask which side was right in the commencement of the struggle, and we naturally wish to know where the blame ought to be thrown of provoking the terrible calamity of civil war. To assist in the inquiry is our present object, and for this purpose we shall avail ourselves of the recent work of Mr. Spence, The American Union,' which we have placed at the head of this article, and which has most opportunely appeared. We can hardly speak too highly of it. It is a most able statement of the whole case, written with remarkable

[ocr errors]

able knowledge and power; and we strongly recommend it to our readers, if they wish to make themselves acquainted with the facts of the great American controversy, which are so often obscured by passion and distorted by interest. Mr. Spence tells us in his preface, that personal considerations and valued friendships inclined him, without exception, to the Northern side; but he warns the reader that he will soon encounter a current of reasoning adverse to the present doctrine and action of the Northern party.' But, as he says, these opinions have not been adopted from choice, and are directly opposed to interest; they are convictions forced upon the mind by the facts and reasonings contained in the work, and submitted to the judgment of the public. Such a man is, at all events, entitled to be heard.

6

It has been industriously represented by some, that the sole cause of the present quarrel is Slavery. It is supposed, even by persons who ought to be well informed on the subject, that the existence of slavery, having long been imperilled by the aggressive attacks of the Northern States, the signal for its destruction was given by the election of Mr. Lincoln as President; and the South, therefore, withdrew from the Union in order to protect its property in human flesh from confiscation. The war is by many, not only in this country but America, described as a crusade in the holiest of causes- -to break the chains of the negro, and sweep away the curse of slavery from the continent of North America, from New Mexico to Maine. But a moment's consideration will show that such opinions are wrong, and not only not supported by facts, but directly opposed to them. It is remarkable that at no time for the last fifty years was the domestic institution,' as slavery is mildly termed, placed under such safeguards, and recognised by Congress, and by the political party generally opposed it, so unequivocally as at the period of Mr. Lincoln's accession to office. The proof of this is overwhelming. It is well known that of the two great parties into which, before the outbreak of civil war, the North was, and into which it still is, divided, and which are known as Republicans and Democrats, the Republicans were the party hostile to the South, and the Democrats the party to which the South allied itself to fight its battles in Congress. The Abolitionists are, we believe, to a man Republicans, although the Republicans are not by any means all Abolitionists. They have, however, steadily set their face against the claim of the South to extend slavery into new territories. The Democrats, on the contrary, were inclined, for political purposes, to favour the pretensions of the Southern States, not from any love for slavery, but because without such confederates they could not hope to make head on any question

question in Congress against their Republican opponents. It is also well known, that before the election of a President of the United States it is the custom for each party that brings forward a candidate to issue a manifesto called a 'platform,' in which it declares its political principles. The Republican platform in the last contest was adopted at Chicago in 1860, and the fourth article was as follows:

"The maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions, according to its own judgment, exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends.'

Domestic institutions, of course, mean slavery. Further, an Act was passed by Congress, on the 2nd of March, last year, immediately before Mr. Lincoln formally entered on the office of President, which provides,

'that no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorise, or give Congress power to abolish, or interfere within any State with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labour or servitude by the laws of said State.'

But were the views of Mr. Lincoln himself different? Was he at variance with his own party on this question?—and might he be expected to labour to undermine the principle embodied in the Chicago manifesto? Quite the reverse. He accepted it in the most unreserved and unqualified manner. In his inaugural address he solemnly declared

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with theinstitution of slavery in the States where it exists; I believe I have no lawful right to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with a full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they were placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, in the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read. I now reiterate those sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in anywise endangered by the now incoming administration. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose so far as to say, that holding such a provision as now implied to be constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.'

.

Vol. 111.-No. 221.

R

But

But more than this. The current of legislation and judicial decision upon subjects connected with slavery had been for some past time setting strongly in favour of the slave-owning States. The Fugitive-Slave Law passed, by which the runaway slave might be seized in any part of the Union, as much as if he were a horse or an ox that had strayed or been stolen. The owner in Louisiana might follow his property and claim it in New England or Pennsylvania. In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court at Washington decided that Congress was not competent to make a law prohibiting slavery to exist beyond a certain degree of latitude, as it had done in the case of the Missouri compromise; and when a negro claimed his freedom on the ground that he resided north of that line, it determined that he still remained the property of his master who had brought him from the South. The Court held that the Constitution recognises the right of property in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen.'

We thus see that the Supreme Court, Congress, the Republican party, and the President, had each, in their several spheres, hedged in the interests of the slave-owner, and given him every possible guarantee against any invasion of his rights. Is it then a delusion to suppose that slavery had anything to do with Secession? This we by no means say. It was one of the causes, but not in the manner nor to the extent generally imagined. To understand this, we must consider the political bearings of the question, and this we cannot do without some knowledge of the history of the Union.

That Union consisted originally of thirteen States, of which one only-Massachusetts-was entirely free soil: in all the others slavery existed in a greater or less degree. By the Constitution, each State sends to the Senate two members, whatever may be its extent or population. New York and Rhode Island, Georgia and Vermont, are equally represented in the Upper House. In the House of Representatives it is different. There representation is in the ratio of population. Formerly it was one member for every 33,000 souls; it is now one for every 127,972. At first the South could have no fear that her interests would suffer from the Union. The richness and fertility of the soil, the enormous extent of territory then still unoccupied, seemed to promise for all future time superiority in wealth and power. Virginia took the lead in framing the Articles of Union. Alexander Hamilton, the ablest politician amongst the eminent men employed in the task, was a delegate from Virginia. The capital was within her boundaries, and so prolific was she in statesmen that she acquired the proud title of Mother of Presi

dents.

« AnteriorContinuar »