Four addresses

Front matter

FOUR ADDRESSES

IE h

OF ATHENS GEORGIA

I

A wrong to be righted must be the Causes that led to the War Between the States, for injustice is too often done us by ascribing wrong motives to our secession.

These causes far antedate the firing on Fort Sumter, so unfairly said to have begun the war. To really get at the root of the matter, we must go back to that Constitutional Convention in 1787, after the Treaty of Paris had left the Colonies free, sovereign and independent States.

Two political parties were formed at this Convention — the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, standing for a centralized government, were led by Alexander Hamilton, claiming that all states owed allegiance to the Federal government as the absolute head of the Nation. Now it was perfectly natural for Alexander Hamilton to take this view of the Constitution and think we were a Nation, for he was foreign born — a native of the West Indies. His father and mother before him had served a king, and while he had been sent at an early age to America to be educated, yet this love for and belief in monarchy was an inheritance.

The Anti-Federalists, later called Republicans, but far different from the anti-South party of the same name today, organized in 1854, were led by Thomas Jefferson, standing for local self-government, and the right of any state to withdraw from the Union of States, when a right reserved to it by the Constitution was interfered with. It was perfectly natural for Thomas Jeiferson to have this view of the Constitution. The plantation life in the old South made every planter a law to himself, and it was this that has made Southern men ever so tenacious of their State rights. You may say, Thomas Jefferson was in Paris in 1787 and not at that Constitutional Convention. That is true, but he had well instructed Madison, Henry, Randolph and Pinckney concerning the points to be stressed before any new document was signed by Southern States. The Constitution was not fully adopted, you must remember, unti^ after Jefferson's return.

Climate and heredity made the two sections different from the very first — the Northern colonies standing for trade, manufactures, and commerce; the Southern colonies standing for agricultural pursuits and export — but so long as a balance of power was maintained, when voting time came, all went well

The question of slavery did not enter into the platform ol the two parties at all, for all states owned slaves, the right given by the Constitution, and they saw no harm in slavery. It is tr\ c the slave trade was a source of deep concern on the part of th& majority of the states, and the Southern States seemed really more concerned about this than the Northern. Georgia was the first state to legislate against the slave trade; the Carolinas legislated against it as early as 1760; Virginia, in 1778, and in all "the old mother state" legislated against it 32 times. Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence had a protest against the slave trade, and John Adams of Massachusetts, advised that it be stricken out. Massachusetts was the first state to legislate in favor of the slave trade. New Jersey was the last state to legislate against it, and New York never did legislate against it, so really Massachusetts and New York were carrying on the slave trade in violation of the United States law as late as 1860.

At a glance one may see how unjust have been the accusations concerning the South in regard to the question of slavery. The trouble really between the two political parties was caused by a different interpretation of the Constitution as to what rights were reserved to the States, and whether the Union of States was a Nation or a Republic.

The invention of the cotton gin undoubtedly led to the war. On account of a cold climate, unfavorable to the negro's physical make-up, as well as because manufacturing interests were unsuited to negro labor, the Northern States sold their slaves, in large part to the Southern planters. This gave free labor in the South, and hired labor in the North. Great prosperity came to the South when cotton could be so easily raised and ginned, and there threatened to be an over-balance of voting power by the slave States. Sectional jealousies were engendered and contentions then began.

In 1803 when a Southern President and a slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson, secured the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, that large extent of acres, more than double the area of the other States at that time, Massachusetts was filled with alarm and threatened to secede and form a Northern Confederacy, and Josiah Quincy advised it on sectional grounds. When Jefferson assured them that he was not a President of a section but the President of the whole country, and that he would not violate the Constitution by giving one section an advantage over another, Massachusetts' fears were quieted.

When in 1811 trouble arose about the United States Bank, the legislature of Pennsylvania agitated nullification as justifiable by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Why later was Calhoun villified for his nullification views? Again, there was trouble in 1812 when the New England States threatened to form a Northern Confederacy if war with England was declared. The South said there would never be freedom from England on sea unless war was declared, and only the great victory at New Orleans prevented the withdrawal of the New England States at that time.

Then in 1820 when Missouri asked to come in as a slave State, and because Missouri was cut out of the Louisiana Territory, Massachusetts feared too much power to slave States and again threatened to withdraw. Thomas, of Illinois, offered a compromise measure to forbid any State above 36° 30" latitude holding slaves. This bill was finally amended to except Missouri. In Northern histories, and Southern histories have followed their lead, it has been over and over again stated, and I have myself often made the same mistake, that Henry Clay was responsible for this amendment. It worried me greatly, for it was a direct violation of the U. S. Constitution, and a flagrant interference of State's rights. I hated to think a Southern man was responsible for it. You may imagine my delight when upon reading the "Life of Henry Clay" I found that he denied having anything to do with it. He was the Speaker of the House at the time and took no part in the debates on the floor. Eminent statesmen of the South felt the injustice of this compromise and did not hesitate to say so. John C. Calhoun never was reconciled to it. But it was finally accepted, just for the sake of peace.

In 1828 and again in 1832 and 1833 Tariff Acts were passed which were unjust to the South and a direct violation of the Constitution, because they favored one section over another. These Acts were such an interference with our States' rights that Calhoun stood for nullifying them — hence he was called "The Nullifier." I have never been able to understand why Calhoun should have been so villified when he proposed a Southern Confederacy at this time and nothing was said when Massachusetts and the New England States proposed a Northern Confederacy.

John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, was one of the real prophets of the age, for everything he warned us against has actually come true, and had we heeded him many valuable lives might have been saved. The "child of secession" was really born in that contest between Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, over the Foot Resolutions.

The unequal disbursement of the funds in the U. S. Treasury was also felt to be unjust to the South. The South was paying into the treasry two-thirds of all the money there; yet the veterans of the Revolutionary War were paid three times the amount in pensions in the North that they were in the South; the appropriations for roads, harbors and rivers amounted to five times as much for the North as the South and the money expended for internal improvements ten times as much; twenty-three lighthouses were in the North to ten in the South, and eighteen custom houses in the North to one in the South. The sea coast of the South was 3,000 miles in extent, and that of the North only 900 miles, yet five harbors were in the North to one in the South. Under these circumstances what could the South expect in just legislation?

In 1854 when Texas asked to come into the Union as a slave State, Massachusetts said then she must withdraw, for that would give too much slave territory. When war was declared with Mexico the North had few men comparatively to volunteer and when the cause was won by Southern arms the North, by legislation, tried to manage it so that the South should have no part of the acquired territory as slave territory. In 1847 the Wilmot Proviso was proposed, but fortunately did not become a law, but it showed the tendency of the Northern mind. In 1849 gold was discovered in California and the North wanted it to be a free State. By the Missouri Compromise it should have been half slave territory as half of the State was below the degree of latitude prescribed by the Compromise. Trouble was brewing when "The Peacemaker," Henry Clay, proposed his Omnibus Bill in 1850. This included the "Five Bleeding Wounds," namely:

Let California come in as a free State.

Let Utah and New Mexico come in free or slave as they desire.

Let the slave trade be excluded from the District of Columbia.

Let Texas be paid for the territory claimed by New Mexico.

Let the Fugitive Slave Law be enforced.

Now this virtually repealed the Missouri Compromise, but still it was violating States' rights. However, it was passed in the interest of peace.

While the South knew that some of these measures were unjust, yet to get back her slaves, for at this time 30,000 had been hidden from their owners, she was willing to adopt the compromise measures that grew out of this bill. Many Southern statesmen protested against it, and it only postponed the war ten years.

In 1852 "Uncle Tom's Cabin" appeared. This was such a misrepresentation of the institution of slavery in the South that it brought just indignation to Southern people. It was so subtly written that it made the abolition sentiment stronger at the North, and really had much to do in bringing on the war, and much to do in keeping England, France and other European countries from recognizing the Southern Confederacy. The South felt this injustice keenly.

Then in 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Bill proposed by Stephen Douglas passed. This led to Squatter Sovereignty, another violation of the Constitution and an interference with our States' rights. There is no doubt that John Brown's Baid grew out of this bill. The jBrst gun fired in this raid may be said to have been the first gun of the War between the States.

John Brown was "an insurrectionist, an invader of States, an encourager of arson, and a murderer" — and this is quoting entirely from Northern authority. I could never understand how God-fearing men from the pulpits in the North have said that next to the Son of God John Brown was the greatest of martyrs. It has taken all the grace of Christianity for the South to forgive and forget this. However, the Federal Government quickly punished this offender, and also decided in favor of the South when the Dred Scott case came to trial. So we began to take hope that at last the South could fall back upon her reserved rights and be protected.

Another offense then came. The slave trade was being openly violated and no action was taken by the Federal Government to prevent it. It had been decided by law that the slave trade should cease in 1808, and yet as late as 1857 it was known that 75 slave ships had sailed from Massachusetts ports, and between 1859 and '60, it was known that 85 slave ships left New York, sent out by merchants carrying 60,000 slaves to Brazil. As late as 1857 the Chlotilde was sent to Mobile, Ala., with 175 slaves, and the following year the New York Yacht Club sent the Wanderer to Brunswick, Ga., with 750 slaves, and the next year it returned with 600 slaves and sailed up the Satilla and Savannah rivers and sold this cargo in violation of the law. An attempt was made by Georgia to prosecute two Georgians who were accused of encouraging the transaction, but they could not be convicted for complicity in the scheme. If the Federal Government ever punished Massachusetts and New York for violating the law it is not so recorded.

But the act which brought things to a crisis was the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, without even a popular vote of the North, but by the vote of the fifteen States which had stood for these repeated violations of the Constitution and continued interferences with States' rights, and the States which took out the "Personal Liberty Bills," advocating a law higher than the Constitution so that they might still hide our slaves. By this time (1860), 50,000 slaves had been hidden from us. Unfortunately, the Democratic party split, having three candidates in the field — a warning that we must hereafter heed — and allowed Lincoln to be elected on the small vote of 1,831,000. There was nothing for the South to do but secede. She saw nothing but continued violation of the Constitution by the North dominated by the policy of these fifteen States and their candidate. How could she be blamed for seceding?

Did the Southern States secede with any thought of WAR? No, they simply wished to peacefully withdraw and form a government which would respect their rights as reserved by the Constitution. It would have been a stupid thing for seven States to think of fighting all of the other States in the Union. The North had the army; the North had the navy; the North had all of the arms. The South had no arms except the small number of guns that Secreary Floyd had asked for, fearing another John Brown might rise, and those Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War, had asked for to quell the Indian uprisings. Even then the full quota of arms which rightly belonged to the South had never been asked for.

Does it not seem in reason, if the South had had a thought of war at this time she would have demanded her full share of arms and ships? The South had no materials to manufacture munitions of war. That is, she did not know that she had sulphur, saltpetre, nitre and other needful things lying undiscovered beneath her soil, but she knows it now; she then had few manufactories; she only had one Powder Mill, that at Augusta, Ga., she did not own a ship, yet her Southern men in command of ships (there were 43 captains and 62 commanders in all from the South), when the States seceded, surrendered their commissions to the U. S. Government and came home to cast their lot with their States. Had they dreamed of war, they could have brought their ships south as they had a right to do. She did not have a shipyard where a ship could even be repaired. She had only 9,(X)0,000 people from which to draw an army, and 4,000,000 of these were her slaves, while the North had over 31,000,000 and the whole world from which to draw recruits. Think of war? No, she never dreamed of it. Some few of her statesmen feared it, but when suggested, Robert Toombs of Georgia, said he would willingly drink every drop of blood which would be shed by war.

The South only desired to take possession of the things which were rightfully hers. Texas demaded her forts and arsenal; so did Louisiana her custom house and fort; Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Georgia their forts and arsenals; but when South Carolina demanded Fort Sumter, to the surprise of South Carolina, it was refused. Governor Pickens at once sent a request to President Buchanan to allow the fort to be surrendered peaceably. Assurances were given that this would be, and yet the Star of the West was sent with 200 men and arms to hold the fort. The first thing that the Confederate government did was to send a committee of three to Washington to ask the peaceable surrender of Fort Sumter. They waited there three months until President Lincoln had been inaugurated and then made the request. He refused to see the committee, but through Seward, and Seward through Judge Campbell, sent to them assurances that "faith with Fort Sumter would be kept." Now Lincoln and Seward both knew that when this message was sent, seven vessels filled with armed men had already sailed to garrison the fort. When time sufficient had elapsed for the vessels to land, then Lincoln wired Gov. Pickens that he had sent these men to Sumter peacefully if allowed to land, otherwise resistance would be made. Fortunately a storm prevented the vessels reaching the fort as soon as had been expected, so General Beauregard telegraphed for permission to demand the surrender of the fort. This permission was granted by the Confederate government. Anderson said he must wait for orders from headquarters, Beauregard answered that if the fort was not surrendered by a certain time it would be fired upon. It was not surrendered, so was fired upon. The firing of the first shot at Fort Sumter did not bring on the war, but the act which made the firing necessary declared war. The call of President Lincoln for 75,000 troops to coerce the South, without Congress' consent was a violation of the Constitution. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas resented this and quickly seceded. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland wished to secede, but were not allowed to vote on secession. This act of Lincoln calling for troops was in itself a declaration of war.

Was secession rebellion? The very fact that President Davis and the leaders of the South could not be brought to trial disproves this. Chief Justice Chase said, "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion." Wendell Phillips said, and he was no friend of the South, "Looking back upon the principles of '76 the South had a perfect right to secede." Horace Greely said so, Lincoln himself said so, and Daniel Webster had said so.

I wonder how many present here realize that there have been eight distinct secessions in the United States and very many threatened ones.

1. The thirteen colonies seceded from England and formed a Perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation in 1776.

2. The thirteen States seceded from the Perpetual Union and formed a Republic of Sovereign States in 1787.

3. Texas seceded from Mexico and became a Republic in 1836.

4. The Abolitionists, led by William Lloyd Garrison, seceded from the Constitution at Framingham, Mass., and publicly burned it, calling it a "league with hell and covenant with death," the assembled multitude loudly applauding.

5. Eleven States seceded from the Union in 1861 and formed a Southern Confederacy.

6. The North seceded from the Constitution in 1861 when she attempted to coerce the eleven States back into the Union.

7. Under President McKinley in 1898 the United States forced Cuba to secede from Spain.

8. Under Roosevelt in 1905 the United States forced Panama to secede from Colombia.

Why should all of these secessions be justifiable save the one by the South in 1861 ?

Was the war fought to hold our slaves ? Ah ! how often have we of the South had this cast into our teeth and often by some of our own Southern people. Yes, it is full time this wrong should be righted.

Had the vote been taken in 1860 there would have been more votes against the abolition of slavery in the North than in the South. There were 318,000 slaveholders or sons of slaveholders in the Northern army, men who enlisted from the Border States, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland, besides those from Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

There were only 200,000 slaveholders in the Southern army. Only five men out of every one hundred owned slaves in the South.

There were many men among the leaders of the Northern army who owned slaves themselves or were sons of slaveholders or had married women who owned slaves. Among these m^y be mentioned General Winfield Scott, Commodore Farragut. General George H. Thomas, General Grant; President Lincoln's wife came from a slaveholding family, and Stephen Douglas's wife was a very large slaveholder, while many of the leaders on the Southern side did not own slaves. General Lee had freed his. General Stonewall Jackson never had owned one until husband and wife begged him to buy them to prevent separation. General Albert Sidney Johnston never owned a slave, and General William M. Browne, a member of President Davis's staff never owned a slave. No, the war was not fought to hold slaves, but a few selfish Southern people may have thought so.

General Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." The North had no thought of fighting to abolish slaves, then why should the South be troubled on that score? President Lincoln sent word to General Butler that the war was not to be fought with any idea of freeing the slaves. President Lincoln was only concerned about the extension of slavery in the new territory, and frankly confessed to Horace Greely that if the Union could be preserved with slavery he would not interfere with it. It was the preservation of the Union he so ardently desired. He had no love for the negro in his heart. Don Piatt, who stumped the State of Illinois for him in his presidential campaign in 1860, said in one of his speeches that Lincoln had no love for the negro, "Descended from the poor whites of the South he hated the negro and the negro hated him, and he was no more concerned for that wretched race than he was concerned for the horse he worked or the hog he killed."

II

Was slavery a crime and was the slaveholder a criminal? How little the people living today know of the institution of slavery as it existed in the South before the war. I long for the eloquence of our silver-tongued orator, Benjamin H. Hill, that I might paint the picture as I remember it.

If the roll call were taken of the children in the South today they would in large numbers be found to be abolitionists, intense and fanatical, and in full sympathy with the Northern side. Why? Because from childhood they had been taught by teachers who believe this, and have been fed on such children's books as "The Elsie Books," Louisa Alcott's stories, and kindred ones, besides being allowed to see moving picture shows of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Sheridan's Ride, Contest between Merrimac and Monitor, and the like. Whom can you blame for this, parents, but yourselves?

Slavery was no disgrace to the owner or the owned. From time immemorial all civilized nations have been slaveholders. White, brown and black have been slaves.

Who was responsible for slavery in the United States? Spain and England.

What colony first owned slaves? The Jamestown colony.

Was there any colony or State of all the thirteen which did not own slaves? Not one. In 1776 there were 500,000 slaves in America and 300,000 were in the Northern colonies.

What was the condition of the Africans when brought to this country? Savage to the last degree, climbing cocoanut trees to get food, without thought of clothes to cover their bodies, and sometimes cannibals, and all bowing down to fetishes — sticks and stones — as acts of worship.

What laws became necessary when they reached this country? Very rigid and in the light of the present day civilization excessively cruel. A strong argument for the civilizing power of slavery would be to compare these colonial laws with the laws of 1860.

How did the Cavaliers regard slavery? They were very thankful to have a part in such a wonderful missionary and educational enterprise.

How did the Puritans regard slavery? They thanked God for the opportunity of bringing these benighted souls to a knowledge of Jesus Christ.

How did the Quakers regard the institution of slavery? They were always opposed to the holding of any human being as property, although it is stated that William Penn did once own slaves.

Do£s THE Bible condemn slavery?

It certainly does not. God gave to Abraham the most explicit directions what he should do with his slaves bought with his own money, and what he should do with the ones he owned by right of capture. (Gen. xvii.) Then our Lord healed the centurion's servant and said not a word about it being a sin to hold him in bondage. (Matt, viii.) And Paul sent Onesimus, the runaway slave, back to his master with apologies, but said nothing to Philemon about freeing him, but rather offered himself to pay his master for the time Onesimus had stolen from him. (Phil. i:18.) And Titus was the pastor of a slave church. Paul wrote him to exhort those slaves to be obedient to their masters, not to answer back again, and not to steal, but to adorn the doctrine of God their Savior in all things. (Titus ii : 9,10.) See also Eph. vi : 5, 6, 7, 8.

Did the slaveholder in the South take an interest in the religious condition of the negro ?

He certainly did. More negroes were brought to a knowledge of God and their Savior under this institution of slavery in the South than under any other missionary enterprise in the same length of time. Really more were Christianized in the 246 years of slavery than in the more than thousand years before.

In 1861 there were, by actual statistics, in the seceding States 220,000 negro Baptists, 200,000 Methodists, 31,000 Presbyterians, 7,000 Episcopalians, and 30,000 belonging to unclassified Christian churches.

The negro race should give thanks daily that they and their children are not today where their ancestors were before they came into bondage.

Was the negro happy under the institution of slavery? They were the happiest set of people on the face of the globe, — free from care or thought of food, clothes, home, or religious privileges.

The slaveholder felt a personal responsibility in caring for his slaves physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually. By the way, we never called them slaves, they were our people, our negroes, part of our very homes. I do not remember a case of consumption, or I should say now tuberculosis, among the negroes in the South. I do not recall but one crazy negro in those days. Hospitals and asylums cannot now be built fast enough to accommodate them.

I am not here to defend slavery. I would not have it back, if I could, but I do say I rejoice that my father was a slaveholder, and my grandfathers and great-grandfathers were slaveholders, and had a part in the greatest missionary and educational endeavors that the world has ever known. There never have been such cooks, such nurses or mammies, such housemaids, such seamstresses, such spinners, such weavers, such washerwomen. There never have been such carpenters, blacksmiths, butlers, drivers, field hands, such men of all work as could be found on the old plantations. Aunt Nanny's cabin was a veritable kindergarten where the young negroes were trained to sew, to spin, to card, to weave, to wash and iron, and to nurse; where the boys were taught to shell peas, to shuck corn, to churn, to chop wood, to pick up chips, to feed pigs, to feed chickens, to hunt turkey, duck, guinea, goose and hen eggs and to make fires, and to sweep the yards.

Did the negroes hate their owners, and resent bondage? I need only to call to mind what happened when John Brown tried to make them rise and murder their masters and their master's children. I need only call to mind what happened when their masters went to battle, leaving in absolute trust "Ole Miss" and the children to their protection. I need only call to mind what happened after they were free that made Thad Stevens' Exodus Order necessary in order to tear them from their old owners. I need only call to mind the many mammies who stayed to nurse "Ole Marster's" children to the third and fourth generation.

Compare the race morally to what it was then. "Ole Marster" never allowed his negroes to have liquor unless he gave it to them. Crimes now so common were never known then. While the negro under the present system of education may know more Latin and Greek, it does not better fit him for his life work. It is true the negro did not go to school under slavery, but he was allowed to be taught, if he so desired. I have in mind a young aunt who taught three negro women every night because they wanted to read their Bibles. I have in mind my mother on the plantation surrounded every Sunday afternoon teaching to the negro children the same verses of Scripture, the same Sunday school lesson, the same hymns that she taught her own children.