Washington's prophecy

Chapter I. Tee Origin Of Disunion Sentiments

All Americans are aware that, in most cases, the public measures proposed by the leading men of one party, are sure to be violently and bitterly opposed by the politicians of the opposite party. Thus, the war of 1812 was bitterly opposed by the Federalists of that period, because Mr. Madison and his party favored it. Many other incidents might be cited to show the perverse disposition generally exhibited by each party in relation to the measrres originated or advocated by their opponents. At different periods the ppliticians of certain sections have become so violently embittered against the stronger and more powerful party of their opponents, that they have even plotted and conspired for the dissolution of the Union, thus showing that they were disposed to destroy the Government, rather than to remain in the Union and enjoy the benefits of a Government which Jthey could not wield mid control to suit the purposes of their party. "If we cannot rule, we will ruin," has been the motto of politicians in more than one of the great parties. The Federalists, during the Administrations of Jefferson and Madison, from 1801 to 1815, were perhaps as violent and bitter as any party that ever existed in our country. 'They opposed every public measure of the Administration without regard to truth, justice, consistency, or the interests of the nation. Because thev could not elect a President of their own party, they seemed determined to oppose even their own interests as citizens and the interests of their o\in States.

In 1808, Mr. Josiah Quincy, a leading Federalist of Massachusetts, and a member of Congress, loudly censured and abused Mr. Jefferson because he submitted to many insults and injuries from England without declaring war against her.

In 1812 we find Mr. Quincy and all his friends loudly abusing and denouncing Mr. Madison and his party because they had at last declared war, rather than submit longer to the insults of the British Government. The Federalists were determined not to be pleased with any measure of the Administration so long as it continued in the hands of their political opponents.

One of the most prominent and important events in the earlt history of our country was the purchase of Louisiana from the Emperor Napoleon by Mr. Jefferson, in the year 1803. It will be recollected by the intelligent reader that the tract of country called Louisiana, as purchased by Mr. Jefferson's Administration, extended from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, including all the region which now forms the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon, besides large Territories not yet formed into States. The purchase of this large country for the trifling sum of sixteen million dollars was most bitterly opposed and denounced by the Federalists. What -was the true reason of their opposition to the measure ? Evidently they had no grounds except the perverse spirit of party. Tf Mr, Jefferson had been elected as a Federalist, and had subsequently made that same treaty of purchase, the Federal party would have sanctioned and supported the measure. But they were angry, discontented, and soured, because Mr. Jefferson, a Democrat and a Virginian, was elected President instead of their revered John Adams of Massachusetts. They seem to have thought that after Washington had left the Presidential chair, it rightfully belonged to Massachusetts to fill that office, and from the day when Jefferson was elected, Massachusetts became a standing, uncompromising opponent of all and every measure of his Administration.

The Federal party from 1796 to 1820 had complete control in

Massachusetts. Some of the other New England States were rather more inclined to support the measures of Jefferson and Madison, but in Massachusetts the Federal party held absolute sway. After Louisiana had been purchased, and after it had begun to exhibit, under American supervision its capacity for becoming a source of benefit to the American Union, the Federal party still continued to manifest its spite on that question, by opposing every measure introduced for the benefit of that country. No matter how completely the old French and Spanish inhabitants submitted to American laws; nor how many Northern citizens emigrated to Louisiana and desired to enjoy the benefits of the laws of the Union, the Federalists practically said to them, "We do not desire your admission into the Union, and we will not admit you if we can prevent it." Yet if Mr. Jefferson had refused to purchase Louisiana when offered to him, or had offered to sell it again at double the original cost, undoubtedly the Federal party would have abused him just as severely as they did for purchasing it.

In process of time a portion of the great territory having became sufficiently populous, was formed into a State and the people asked admission into the Union in 1811. The Federal party in Congress opposed the admission of the new. State. The bill was before the House of Representatives when Mr. Josiah Quincy in an opposition speech said : " I am compelled to declare it as my deliberate opinion, that if this bill passes, the bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved, that the States which compose it are free from their obligations, and as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some to prepare definitely for a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must." When Mr. Quincy had • pronounced these words he was called to order by Mr. Poindexter. Mr. Quincy then repeated and justified the remark he had made, and to prevent all misapprehensions he committed it to writing in the following words : " If this bill passes it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union : that it will free the States from their moral obligations; and as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of the some definitely to prepare for a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must."

S WASHINGTON'S PROPHECY, OR

After some little confusion, Mr. Poindexter required the decision of the Speaker whether it was consistent with the propriety of debate to use such an expression. He said it was radically wrong for any member to use arguments tending to dissolve the <>overnment and tumble this body itself to dust and ashes. He further observed, "It will be found from the gentleman's own statement of his language that he has declared the right of any portion of the people to separate." Mr. Quincy now requested the Speaker to decide, saying, " If the gentleman is permitted to debate the question, I shall lcse one-half of my speech." The Speaker said that "great latitude in debate was generally allowed, and that by way of argument against a bill, the first part of the gentleman's observation was admissaBle, but the latter member of the sentence, viz : 'that it would be the duty of some States to prepare for a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must,' is contrary to the order of debate."

In this instance we see that Mr. Quincy asserted, not only the right of all the States to separate, but that it would be the duty of some — meaning, of course, Massachusetts and the New England States — to separate amicably if they could, but if not then by force of arms. It is evident from the very deliberate manner in which Mr. Quincy spoke that he and his friends had previously consulted together on the subject, and agreed to support one another in some plan of secession. But notwithstanding all opposition, Louisiana was admitted, and Massachusetts did not secede.

Three years afterwards, however, Mr. Quincy and his friends thought that the time had come for a separation. The nation was involved in a war with England; the Federalists had been for a long period engaged in firing the New England heart, and the Secessionists called a Convention of all the New England States to. meet at Hartford, Connecticut. The Convention assembled according to appointment, near the close of 1814. It held its sessions with closed doors, and not a word of its business was ever permitted to reach the public through the press. Its proceedings were kept as strictly concealed as those of a Masonic Lodge. But as the members wero all Federalist:-, all opposed to the Administration, all violently opposed to the war, and as many of them had openly advocated separation from the Union, the subject of their deliberations may be easily guessed. Whatever they concluded to do, their objects were frustrated by the Treaty of Ghent, by which peace was made shortly afterwards. Very probably they might have considered it dangerous to attempt secession when they were not likely to receive aid from England. As soon as peace was made all threats of secession ceased. The question, however, seems an open one, whether Mr. Quincy and his Hartford Convention friends were loyal men or not. We know from history that the Governors of Connecticut and Massachusetts refused to allow their militia to go out of those States when called for by the President, and that they seemed to contend strongly for State Rights ; but whether their conduct amounted to treason or not, seems an unsettled question.

Chapter II. Early History Of The Union

In the year 1819, the American Union experienced a second shock. It was then for the first time that the North was arrayed against the South, and the South against the North. From 1787 to 1819 no very general dissatisfaction had arisen betwixt the two sections. It is true that numerous individuals had been constantly engaged in denouncing the institution of slavery, but the question had never been brought up in such shape as to array the two sections against each other. There seemed no jealousy, animosity or envy between them outside of Massachusetts. The Northern people gladly welcomed into the Union Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, although they were slave States. The people of the South also gladly welcomed Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, although they were free States. Besides in 1786 the State of Virginia had ceded the Northwest Territory to the Union, and on the 13th day of July, 1787, all the Southern as well as Northern members of Congress agreed to prohibit forever the existence of negro slavery in that Territory. The Territory has since been divided into five great States, viz : Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, all rich and populous free States ; and in those States our general Government has sold for cash nearly two hundred million dollars yorth of public lands. All this money was expended in paying the debts of the Union and the expenses of the national Government. Virginia previously claimed the whole of that Territory, and all the other States acknowledged the justice of her claim. As she was in 1786 the greatest, richest, and most populous of all the States, so she proved herself the most generous of them, by giving up

FACTS CONCERNING TUB REBELLION. 11

that immense Territory for the benefit of the Union. She might have retained control of the whole Territory; she might have sold the lands for her own benefit. No other State claimed a better right to it. She might have reserved the right to hold it subject to settlement by slaveholders with their slaves, and subservient to Southern interests, but her statesmen were not so selfish, penurious and bigoted.

Perhaps if some one of the other States had held control over that great Territory, the Union would never have received the two hundred million dollars. But in 1787 all the Southern as well as Northern members of the Congress of the Confederation freely agreed that slavery should be prohibited in the Northwest Territory. Did this look like a desire to rule the North for the benefit of the slave power? Very oppressive and overbearing were those Southern States, were they not? Do you suppose this was done in order to obtain some favor, advantage, or benefit for the South? Not at all. Not one iota of favor, or one dollar of benefit did the South ask or receive as a compensation in any form whatever.

Do you answer that this was a kind of compromise, and that they thus obtained the privilege of establishing slavery in Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama, which were also Territories at the time when the Ordinance of '87 was passed ? You mistake, there was no occasion for compromise at that time on that subject. Kentucky was unanimously acknowledged as the property of Virginia, Tennessee belonged to North Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama to Georgia. Therefore there was no occasion for the South to say, give us the privilege of establishing slavery in these Southern Territories, and we will agree to prohibit slavery in the Northwest Territory. If the slave States had not then had all the Territories in their own hands, it might have been called a compromise; but at that time it was an act of perfect generosity on the part of the Southern States.

We know the South, in 1787, might have stuyed out of the Union and kept possession of the Northwest Territory, as well as all the Territories, of the Southwest, which were acknowledged as their property. But perhaps the Southern people then had no idea that the time would come when the North would set all the slaves free, and compel the white race to accept the negro as their equals.

As every reader may see the Articles of Confederation gave the Congress which existed before the adoption of the Constitution, the power to make treaties and compacts on all subjects between the United States and any other party, provided the delegates in Congress from nine of the thirteen States should vote for such treaty or compact. In the closing article of the Ordinance of 1787, as every reader may see, the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Territory was made an article of perpetual compact between the thirteen original States, and the people who then inhabited, or might at any future time inhabit any part of said Territory. Then when the Constitution was afterwards formed, the following clause was inserted in that document: "All debts contracted, and engagements entered into by the Congress of the Confederation, shall be as binding under the Constitution as they would have been under the Confederation."

As all treaties and compacts made by the Congress of the Confederation were in every sense of the word considered as engagements, so the compact prohibiting slavery in the Northwest Territory was immediately recognized as binding upon all the people of the United States. Therefore, the very first Congress that met under the Constitution in 1789, passed an act confirming the Ordinance of 1787 in all its parts, and of course confirming the article which prohibited slavery, and required all fugitive slaves to be delivered up to their owners.

Mr. Abraham Lincoln, in his speech at the Cooper Institute in New York, in February, 1860, dwells with great emphasis upon the Ordinance of '87, and the act of the first Congress under the Constitution in 1789, as proving the truth of the Free Soil theory that Congress had the right to prohibit slavery in all the Territories. He says, "in that Congress in 1789 were sixteen of the very men who were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution ; and the act confirming the Ordinance of '87, was passed by an unanimous vote, and of course these sixteen men who assisted to form the Constitution must have voted for it, as they did not vote against it." "Therefore," says Mr. Lincoln, "it is proved that Congress had a right to prohibit slavery in the Territories, or else these men would have objected to it. The candid reader who considers for a moment the Articles of perpetual compact made in 1787 by the Congress of the Confederation, and then examines that clause of the Constitution which makes all the engagements entered into by the Congress of the Confederation as binding upon the United States under the Constitution as they would have been under the Confederation, will see at a glance, the fallacy and sophistry of Mr. Lincoln's argument on the subject. The Congress of Avhich he speaks never hinted that they had power to prohibit slavery in Kentucky or Tennessee, or Mississippi or Alabama, neither of which had then become States. And although they had power to legislate for the District of Columbia on all subjeets, yet they received and accepted of the cession of that District from Virginia and Maryland, and never once hinted that slavery ought to be and should be abolished there.

How easy it is to see that they were not Abolitionists, like the Boston Anti-slavery societies, who, for thirty years, made so much noise concerning the existence of slavery in the District of Columbia. The Congress of 1791 admitted Kentucky and Vermont into the Union without even hinting that Congress had power under the Constitution to reject one of them because she tolerated slavery. Washington was then President, and Jefferson Secretary of State ; and under that Administration the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 was enacted, and Tennessee was admitted as a slave State in 179(3. They never said to Vermont, or Kentucky, or Tennessee, you must divest yourselves of the right to hold slaves, or we cannot receive you.

During all the period, from 1789 up to 1832, no party ever urged, or even petitioned Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Q. Adams, and Jackson, had each filled the Presidential chair before any effort was made by any party, in or out of Congress, to abolish slavery in the District.

John Q. Adams, it is true, after his defeat for the Presidency, and his election to Congress, did present petitions from the Anti-

14 wiishington's prophecy, or

Slavery Societies, asking Congress to abolish slavery in the District ; but although Mr. Adams voted for the reception of the petitions, he always denied being in favor of granting their prayers. If any reader doubts the truth of these statements he may be easily satisfied by investigating the records and histories during the period from 1787 to 1860.

But we will now return to the earlier periods, and see what was the action of Congress on the slavery question. In 1802 Congress passed an act enabling the people of the State of Ohio to form a State Constitution. In that act Congress specified that slavery must be forever prohibited in that State. Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, was then President of the United States. The slaveholding States, then, also had a majority in both Houses [of Congress, and they knew that the admission of Ohio as a free State would give the free States two more Senators, and at least one more Representative immediately, yet without any feeling of envy or jealousy they all voted that Ohio must come in as afree State- Ohio was the first State formed in the Northwest Territory. When Indiana was admitted in 1816, the same prohibition of slavery •was made, and Mr. Madison, as President, approved and signed the bill. This was the second State in which slavery was prohibited in consequence of the Ordinance of 1787. Illinois, in 1818, under Mr. Monroe's Administration, formed the third of those States. Michigan, in 1836, was the fourth, and came in under Gen. Jackson's Administration. Wisconsin, in 1842, was the fifth, and came in under Mr. Tyler's Administration. Thus it happened that every one of the five States formed in the Northwest Territory which were positively required to adopt free State Constitutions, thus continually increasing the strength of the free States, as they were then called, were each admitted into the Union under the administrations of Southern Presidents.

And in no case did a Southern Senator or Representative oppose the Anti-slavery restriction in those States. Does this course of conduct show that the Southern people were actuated by a desire to control and govern the North for the benefit of slaveholders? Does it exhibit a determination to hold possession of the Government, when at that very time they knew that each free State would render the South more and more liable to be overpowered? The history of that period must satisfy every candid person, that the Southern people, up to I860, felt confident that their rights would be safe in the Union even if the free State3 had a majority in both Houses of Congress. Perhaps the reader may be of that class who sneer at the mention of State Rights ; but he should recollect that every one of the Presidents under whom those five Northwestern States were admitted, belonged to the State Rights school of politicians. Perhaps the reader may retort, that although they were State Rights men, yet they believed in the Free Soil doctrine of the Republican party. All a mistake. They never allowed their anti-slavery or pro-slavery feelings or interests to govern their official actions as representatives of the nation. Therefore the assertion made in these days that the Government was formerly controlled by slaveholders, for their special interest and benefit, is absolutely false, and no class of men are more perfectly aware of this than Messrs. Seward, Sumner, Wilson, of Massachusetts, and their coadjutors at the present time.

The action of Congress from 1789 up to 1861, was fully as fair and honorable towards the free States of the North as it was towards the slaveliolding States of the South. Thus they required the five Northwestern States to prohibit slavery, at the various periods from 1802 up to 1842, exhibiting the most scrupulous candor and fairness in fulfilling the compact; but when Vermont was admitted in 1791, and Maine in 1821, Congress did not require them to prohibit slavery. And why not? Because there was no compact nor agreement, nor Constitutional obligation requiring Congress to make such a demand upon those two States. Thus it is proved that the official conduct of Southern statesmen on the slavery question during all the aforesaid period, was in every respect liberal and fair towards the North. They showed not the least desire to acquire any advantage over the North in any manner whatever. They fulfilled every Constitutional obligation with the strictest fidelity. The feelings and prejudices of the Northern people were treated with respect and consideration. The North continued to prosper, to gain wealth and population far more rapidly than the South. Can any person be so blinded as to believe that the prosperity and progress of the North would have been any greater if the Government had been administered by Northern Presidents, than it was under Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, of Virginia, and Jackson and Polk, of Tennessee? It can hardly be possible. But it seems that the anti-slavery men of Massachusetts have been too sharp for the open-hearted, confiding Southerners.

The true version of the story makes one think of the fable of the cat and the mouse. The cat coaxed, purred, and appeared very friendly until he could get his claws on the mouse; then the mask was laid aside, and the mouse paid for his credulity with his life-blood.

FACTS CONCERNING THE E2BELLI0N. 17

Chapter III

i

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

The reader will recollect that the State of MissoHri was formed of a part of the province of Louisiana, which was purchased in 1803 from the Emperor Napoleon I. Louisiana had been, since its settlement, a French province, except for a short period during which it belonged to Spain. As African slaves were used for labor in all the French, Spanish, Dutch, and English colonies in America and in the West Indies, as a natural consequence, negro slavery became the established law of Louisiana under the French Government, and continued so to be when it came into the hands of the American Union. When it was purchased the United States Government bound itself by the treaty, to allow the inhabitants every right which they had enjoyed under the French Government. Of course this included the right to hold slaves. There, again, we cross the feelings of the anti-slavery man. He says, "Look there; see how the slave-holders in 1803, were managing the Government for their own benefit." Do not be too hasty, dear reader. There had been serious trouble between Spain and our country on account of the navigation of the Mississippi, and because New Orleans and all the country around the mouth of the river was under Spanish control, so that all our Western and Southwestern States and Territories were compelled to pay tribute to Spanish Governors. The people of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, and other parts of the West, could have no market for the products of their labor, except by submitting to the most ridiculous taxation by the Spanish authorities. The whistle of the steamboat and locomotive had not then been heard nor even dreamed of. Could the Buckeye, the Hoosier, and the Kentuckian haul their produce in wagons, five, six and eight hundred miles to Philadelphia or New York?' Wh.it a question. What were the people of the "Great West to do with their surplus products in future years, when the whole Northwest Territory should become settled? What inducement was there for the Eastern citizen to emigrate to Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois, so long as he could find no market for the products of his labor ? The old Federal party cared nothing for all this. They opposed and denounced the purchase of Louisiana, and their descendants have since insisted that it was a trick of the slave power to keep possession of the Government. So as they had opposed the purchase of Louisiana in 1803, they also opposed the admission of that State into the Union in 1811.

After the election of Mr. Monroe in 1816, by an overwhelming majority over the candidates of the Federal party, the Federalists saw that all their attempts to contend successfully against the victorious Democrats were perfectly futile, and the party grew weaker at each succeeding election. They finally concluded to drop the old name and give up the inglorious contest.

From that time they never nominated any candidates for office, and a few years afterwards it was difficult to find a person who would admit that he had ever been one of the old Federal party. Mr. Monroe was elected in 1820 without any opposition except in Massachusetts. But the old Federal leaders, in giving up their organization, did not abandon their feelings of envy, revenge and animosity. As they had found they could not rule, they determined to ruin if possible. And what course did they take in order to accomplish it? They determined to array the North against the South on the slavery question. So in 1818, when the bill to enable Missouri to form a State Constitution was introduced, they succeeded in forming a Northern party, which stood shoulder to shoulder against the admission of Missouri as a State. As Missouri was a portion of the original province of Louisiana, the inhabitants, as a matter of course, held slaves. The opponents of her admission introduced in the House of Representatives the following proviso, amongst others of the kind : "All children of slaves born within the said State of Missouri after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free, but may he held

PACTS CONCERNING THE REBELLION. • 19

to service until the age of twenty-five years, and the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude is prohibited except for the punishment of crime." What act could have exhibited more clearly the cloven-foot of Disunionisra. The very introduction of such a condition at that time showed a cool and calculating determination to break up and dissolve the (Jovernment which they could not control for the benefit of the Federal party.

Illinois was admitted at the same session, and she was positively required to submit to the prohibitory clause of the Ordinance of 1787, and the Southern members made no opposition to her admission; therefore, it seemed doubly unfair and insulting towards the South when the Northern members attempted to compel Missouri to emancipate her slaves, as there was no reasonable ground for such a demand.

The reader should recollect that at the time we are speaking of. in 1818, the population of the North and South was not far from an equality. Virginia was still about equal to New York, and was stronger than any one of the other States. The great Northwest Territory, including Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, then contained only about a half a million of white inhabitants, and probably also, half a million of discontented, unruly Jndians. Now it contains ten millions of white inhabitants, with no Indians to disturb them. At that time there were no railroads, no telegraph wires, and very few steamboats. If the Northern people then had continued to insist on the emancipation of the slaves in Missouri, •nd had thus prevented its admission into the Union, there is no doubt that the angry contention of that period would have caused a separation of the Union into two great parts. This was the aim of the old Disunion leaders of the Federal party. Mr. Quincy and his associates had found that they could never hope to elect one of their party as President; could never hope to obtain control of the Government, and could not create a party sufficiently strong to accomplish secession in the North, so they changed their strategy. They gave up the name of Federalists, and went to work upon the anti-slavery feeling of the Northern people, hoping thus to drive the South out of the Union. Why did they want to get rid of the South ? It was because the old Federal leaders

20 • WASUINGTON'6 PROPHECY, OR

hoped that they would then be able to control the Government for their own benefit. They did not wish to be troubled with any more Jeffersons, Madisons, or Monroes. They knew very weU that if the South should then secede or separate from the North, it would be absolutely impossible to conquer it by force, and useless to attempt it; therefore they calculated to let it go.