CHAPTER XII.

Hostility to a fundamental Provision of Law led to the War.-Other Causes which concurred.-Mr. Webster's Expression, "A Bargain broken on one Side, is broken on all Sides," in 1851, showing his Opinion of the State of Things at that Period.-The Book, called "The Impending Crisis of the South," recommended by Republican Members of Congress and others.-The "Harper's Ferry Invasion."

THE future impartial historian of the republic will not be likely to fail in the conclusion, that those gradually accumulating causes which at length, according to the ordinary motives which govern the actions of mankind, rendered the war inevitable-though unwise and certainly needless, could the calmer sentiment of the country, on both sides, have found means to exercise its due influence-resulted, by immediate occasion, from hostility to a fact in the domestic life of one section of the country, which was recognized as a matter of fundamental national law, by the spirit and the terms of the original compact between all the States.

Other causes of discord had coöperated with this one, from time to time; but they were either temporary in their nature, or of minor importance, or of a character less capable of attracting and engrossing popular interest. They were able, neither singly nor in combination, to produce such a general sense of incompatibility of temper and interest between the sections, or such deep-seated alienation of feeling, as to impel a civilized and Christian nation to contemplate the dread arbitrament of civil war. But, during the progress of the ten years immediately preceding that event, the sole topic of slavery, in one aspect or another, had mainly engaged the popular mind, in connection with every political

AGGRESSION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

319

movement and demonstration.' In the North, it took, of course, the shape, and bore the character of assault upon that part of the country of which slavery was a domestic feature. In the South, whatever form the question may have taken, either in regard to the protection or the extension of slavery, it was, of course, in the attitude of defence. How far the right and even the necessity of defence may have been appealed to, either beyond or within the bounds of expedi ency, in particular instances, considering the relative situation of the parties, is a totally different question. In general, though not always-as in the case of the refusal to extend the compromise line of 1820 to its natural limit of the Pacific Ocean-or, as many of its people thought, in the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act-the South had been able, after severe struggles, to secure what it deemed necessary for its permanent safety, under the shelter of the Constitution. But, exposed to incessant assaults, directly or indirectly, and which at length grew vehement and aggravated, upon its social, moral, and religious condition, it had long felt a burning sense of wrong, and in this state of mind men are not

'The tariff question afforded the only other serious cause of discussion; but naturally had less influence with the popular masses. In the North, the Whigs in general had favored a tariff for protection to domestic manufactures; the Democrats preferred one for revenue solely, and the incidental protection it would afford; the difference between them being one of terms and degree, therefore, rather than of principle, while the South was, generally, on the free trade side. Yet, during the session of Congress, in the winter of 1860-1861, while the country was on the very verge of war, a new system of high duties, usually known as "the Morrill tariff," from the name of the member from Vermont, by whom it was introduced, was carried through Congress by the Republicans; and that, too, against the earnest remonstrances of some of the more leading Republican journals in New York and elsewhere, on account of the existing condition of public affairs. No doubt this measure had its effect at the South; and there can be as little doubt that an extraordinary resolution of the Convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln, in the preceding summer, hereafter referred to in these pages, which promised protection of this description to the agricultural and commercial, as well as to manufacturing interests of the country, and even to the laboring classes, had a powerful influence in swelling the Republican vote at the election.

often controlled by considerations of policy. The North could only complain of the South for resistance to its political objects, with which it had seen fit to mix up certain moral and religious views. But if the position of the former was one of unadulterated and indisputable virtue, that of the other necessarily implied an opposite relation to the requirements of good conscience; and to be forced into such an attitude, with a deep sense of the injustice of the procedure, could not but tend to weaken any ordinary feelings of attachment to the Union. Although unsuccessful efforts had been made to bring about this unhappy state of things, for several years preceding the period now under consideration, as has been already shown in previous pages of this volume-it was upon the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 that the first issue was directly taken. This movement was also unsuccessful, in its immediate influence, as appeared by the popular vote of the North, at the two succeeding elections of President. The real objection to the law, on the part of its more violent assailants, consisted in their opposition to any law for the delivery of fugitive slaves. But by incessantly working upon the popular mind, through every channel by which it could possibly be reached, a state of feeling was finally produced which led to the enactment of Personal Liberty bills, by one after another of the Northern legislative assemblies. At length, fourteen of the sixteen free States had provided statutes which rendered any attempt to execute the Fugitive Slave Act so difficult as to be practically impossible, and placed each of those States in an attitude of virtual resistance to the laws of the United States.1 It is certain that a state of feeling thus indicated could not be considered especially friendly to the cause of the Union, or calculated to encourage those sentiments of veneration to it, so earnestly enjoined by the admonitions of Washington. Nor could legislative proceedings, thus framed, in order to

1 At a somewhat later period, the executive officers of Qhio and Iowa refused to surrender to justice persons charged with participation in the "John Brown raid."

STATE OF FEELING, NORTH AND SOUTH.

321

prevent the vindication of a constitutional right, which had been pursued throughout the Northern States for seventy years, in the rare instances which occurred, without any obstruction, and with the ready aid of the local State magistrates, tend materially to the promotion of comfortable feelings in the South. In fact, those laws, in connection with the repeated rescues of slaves by mobs from the custody of officers who had them in charge, together with constant incitements offered to slaves in the Border States to desert their masters, produced the profoundest feeling of indignation in that quarter.

If the South might then have been beginning to think of revolt, it is no less certain that, at that period, the North not only appeared to be in a state of almost continual riot against the laws of the General Government, but that those seditiously disposed were encouraged to evade and resist those laws, by the proceedings of the State legislatures.' But the objects which the fanatics and trading politicians failed to effect, immediately, through factious opposition to a law which the most respected judicial tribunals, in every quarter of the land, pronounced to be in strict conformity with the solemn engagements of the Constitution, the Kansas-Nebraska Act furnished them with a more manageable instrument to accomplish. Flighty denunciations of a law, obviously right in principle, whatever objections might be thought to exist to some of its details, and which was sustained by the best judicial opinions throughout the country, could hardly commend themselves to the convictions of considerate men, however strong their repugnance might be to the institution of slavery. But the act for the organization

' Mr. Webster's opinion upon this special point was given in no doubtful terms, in a speech delivered by him, at Capon Springs, Virginia, in 1851. He remarked: "I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that if the Northern States refuse wilfully or deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, the South would no longer be bound to keep the compact. A bargain broken on one side, is broken on all sides."

of the Territories in question, and the various proceedings under it, afforded unending themes of appeal to popular prejudice and passion. Those fanatics and trading politicians, who had already despaired of their cause, now jumped upon their feet again, and declaimed, with a strength of vociferation hardly to have been expected from their late dispirited condition. "It repeals the sacred engagement of the Missouri Compromise!" was the hypocritical cry of political dissemblers, notoriously engaged, at the moment, and who had been long engaged in resisting, and in striving utterly to nullify the sacred engagement of the Constitution! The engagement to restore fugitive slaves had been ratified by the whole people, in settling the foundations of the Union. The Missouri Compromise was but an act of Congress, sacred only in correspondence with its specific virtue; open to repeal, certainly, like any other act, at any subsequent session of the National Legislature, if a contingency, unforeseen at the time of its enactment, seemed to render such repeal expedient and justifiable. It had been adopted, so far as concerned the admission of Missouri, with slavery, which constituted the only compromise involved in it, against the most strenuous opposition of Northern members of Congress in general, and against a large majority of the votes of Northern Representatives. It was repealed, in fact, by the large majority vote from the North, in Congress, which cut in two the line of compromise, fixed upon by it, and who refused to extend that line to the Pacific Ocean.

In the language of Mr. Webster, quoted above, "A bargain broken on one side, is broken on all sides." In reality, the law of 1854, called the Kansas-Nebraska Act, did but put into words the deed done in 1850, called the Compromise of that year; and that deed was done by the power of the North, against the express claim of the South, that it would be content with the engagement of 1820, called the Missouri Compromise, carried out honestly in its spirit and its terms. This source of dispute continued open, as has been already