officers of the several State Governments. Those delegated to each, being delegated by the Sovereign power of the people of the several States separately; and divided similarly in each case. There is no alienation of any portion of Sovereignty itself in either case. This con tinues to reside with the people of the several States as separate, integral units. I have only further to add in answer to your inquiry, that by ultimate Sovereignty in this argument, I mean that original, inherent, innate and continually existing rightful Power, or Will of the several Bodies Politic, or States of our Union-that source and fountain of all political power-which is unimpaired by voluntarily assumed obligations; and which at any time, within the terms stated, can rightfully resume all its delegated powers-those to the Federal Government as well as those to the several State Governments. These great and essential truths of our history, therefore, being thus forever established beyond question or doubt, we will now, if agreeable to you, proceed to consider the immediate and exciting question, which brought the organic principles of the Government into such terrible physical conflict in the inauguration of the war. was, as stated in the outset, the question of negro Slavery, or more properly speaking that political and legal subordination of the black race to the white race, which existed in the Seceding States.* This I thus speak of Slavery as it existed with us, purposely. For, it is to be remembered in all our discussions on this subject, that what was called Slavery with us, was not Slavery in the usual sense of that word, as generally used and understood by the ancients, and as generally used and understood in many countries in the present age. It was with us a political Institution. It was, * Ante, vol. i, p. 29. indeed, nothing but that legal subordination of an Inferior race to a Superior one which was thought to be the best in the organization of society for the welfare politically, socially, morally and intellectually of both races. The slave, so-called, was not in law regarded entirely as a chattel, as has been erroneously represented. He was by no means subject to the absolute dominion of his master. He had important personal rights, secured by law. His service due according to law, it is true, was considered property, and so in all countries is considered the service of all persons, who according to law are bound to another or others for a term, however long or short. So is the legal right of parents to the service of their minor children in all the States now considered as property. A right or property that may be assigned, transferred or sold, Hamilton expressed the idea of this peculiar Institution, as it existed with us, clearly, when he said: "The Federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live."* They were so viewed and regarded by the Constitutions and laws of all the States. The relation of master and slave under the Institution, as before said, was but one of "reciprocal service and mutual bonds." The view of them as property related to their services due according to law. But not to digress. This matter of negro subordination, I repeat, was the exciting question in 1860. There were, it is true, many other questions involving the same principles of the Government, which had agitated the * The Federalist, No. 53, Dawson's Edition, p. 379. public mind almost from the time it went into operation, still exciting the public mind to a greater or less degree: but this question of the status of the Black race in the Southern States, was by far the most exciting and allabsorbing one, at that time, on both sides, and was the main proximate cause which brought those principles of the Government into active play, resulting in the conflict of arms. This relation of political and legal subordination of the Inferior to the Superior race, as it existed in 1860, in all the Seceding States, had at one time, be it constantly kept in mind, existed in all the States of the Union, and did so exist in all, save one, in 1787, when the present Articles of Union were entered into. By these Articles this relation was fully recognized, as appears from the solemn covenant therein made, that fugitives from service, under this system, as it then thus existed, escaping from one State into another, should, upon claim, be delivered up to the party to whom the service was due. This was one of the stipulations of the Compact upon which the Union was formed, as we have seen, and of which Judge Story said, on an important occasion, in delivering an opinion from the Bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, "it cannot be doubted that it constituted a fundamental article, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed."* These are all great facts never to be lost sight of in this investigation of the rightfulness of this most terrible war, and in determining correctly and justly upon which side the huge responsibility of its inauguration, and of the enormous wrongs, and most disastrous consequences attending its subsequent conduct, must, in the judgment of mankind, forever rest. It is not at all germane to our purpose in this investigation, at this time, to inquire into the Right, or Wrong * Prigg v. Pa., 16 Peters's Reports, p. 611. of the Institution of Slavery itself, as it thus existed in what were then known as the Slave States. Neither is it in the line of my argument now, to treat of the defects, or abuses of the system. Nor is it at all necessary, or pertinent to my present object, to trace from its inception to its culmination, the history or progress of that movement against it, which was organized for the purpose of bringing the questions it involved into the arena of Federal Councils, and within the range of Federal action. Suffice it here barely to say, and assume as a fact what is known to us all so well, that, in 1860, a majority of the Northern States, having long previously of their own accord abolished this Institution, within their own limits respectively, had, also, by the action of their Legislatures, openly and avowedly violated that clause in the Constitution of the United States, which provided for the rendition of fugitives of this class from service. To give a history of that movement to which I allude, to trace its progress from its origin, would require a volume of itself. A volume both interesting and instructive, might be devoted to it. This is what is known as the Abolition movement in this country, and this is what Mr. Greeley is pleased to style the "American Conflict." But from entering into an investigation of that sort, I now forbear. It is in no way pertinent or essential to my purpose. Whoever feels an interest in the subject, will see it treated fully, truthfully, and ably by the master hand of Mr. George Lunt, of Boston, in his history of the "Origin of the War." Suffice it, therefore, for me, at present, on this subject, only to say, generally, that such a movement was started, such a conflict was begun at an early day after our present system of Government went into operation. As early as the 12th day of February, 1790, within twelve months after Washington was inaugurated as President, a petition invoking the Federal authorities to take jurisdiction of this subject, with a view to the ultimate abolition of this Institution in the States respectively, was sent to Congress, headed by Dr. Franklin.* This movement, in its first step thus taken so early, was partially checked by the Resolution to which the House of Representatives came, after the most mature consideration of the petition and its objects. That Resolution declared: "That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may require." This clear exposition of the nature of the Federal Government, and its utter want of power to take any action upon the subject, as sought for by the petitioners, checked, I say, for a time, this movement, or conflict so started and commenced. The conflict, however, was only partially checked; it went on until in 1860, when those who so entered into this movement standing forth as the Abolition or Anti-Slavery Party under the name of Republican, but which in truth was the party of Centralism and Consolidation, organized upon the principle of bringing the Federal Powers to bear upon this Institution in a way to secure its ultimate Abolition in all the States, succeeded in the election of the two highest officers of the Government, pledged to carry out their principles, and to carry them out in open disregard of the decision of the Supreme Court, which highest Judicial Tribunal under the Constitution, had by solemn adjudication denied the power of the Federal Government to take such action as this Party and its two highest officers * Annals of Congress, vol. ii, p. 1239. |