deemed less revolutionary, and might, perhaps, accept improvement in the condition of the slave in "bit-by-bit" reforms.

The earnest and most intense Abolitionists had their stronghold in Massachusetts, and cordial supporters in Pennsylvania and New York. The experience of these zealous and persistent advocates of freedom led them to the conclusion that the Constitution of the Union must be changed to give scope to abolition. They saw three clauses of that document, which seemed not only to acknowledge the existence of slavery, but also required by the oath which was taken, that every one who subscribed it should uphold that Institution in its integrity. The provision introduced to regulate taxation, which reckoned five slaves held by any one as equal to three votes in the election of candidates to Federal offices; the power given to any one holding persons to service to pursue his fugitive servant into other states, to claim his rendition, and permission to continue the slave trade for twenty years from 1787, were adduced in proof that the Constitution could not be worked for the abolition of slavery, while the doctrine of State sovereignty was a bar to any interference by Congress or President in , the slave laws of slaveholding states. The conviction thus cherished constrained a growing number of Abolitionists to abstain from holding office themselves, or giving their suffrage to others. They therefore proceeded to assail the Federal Constitution-an object so dear to myriads that it had become a popular doctrine that there was "no higher law as a rule for political action than the Constitution of the United States." Argument and controversy ran high -multitudes being ready almost to say of their Union, "He that toucheth thee, toucheth the apple of my eye."

The Abolitionists were charged, even by patriotic and discerning men, as holding "not the simple doctrine of abolition-viz., that slavery ought to be abolished, but a

THE GLORY OF SLAVERY.

41

peculiar and distinctive doctrine of their own, the doctrine of immediate abolition; or, in other words, that instead of some process of gradual abolition, which shall guard the slaves, and the masters, and society against the perils incident to so great a change, slavery ought to be abolished instantaneously and without regard to consequences." To this the reply was given, "look at slavery and its barbarism;" look at its cardinal principle, the undoubted law in all the slave states, "that the slave is not to be ranked among sentient beings, but among things-is an article of property, a chattel personal." They singled out the assumptions of United States' senators, sent by the slave states; from Mr. Calhoun, who pronounced "Slavery the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world," and Mr. M'Duffie, who accounted it the corner-stone of the Republican edifice, to Mr. Hammond, who admired its forms of society as the best in the world; Mr. Jefferson Davis had represented it as but a form of civil government for those who are not fit to govern themselves; and his colleague, Mr. Brown, vaunted it as a great moral, social, and political blessing-a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master; Mr. Hunter advanced in his panegyric of what he called the Social System of the slaveholding states, exalting slavery as the normal condition of human society, beneficial to the nonslaveowner as it is to the slaveowner, but for the happiness of both races; and glorified that as the very key-stone of the mighty arch, which, by its concentrated strength, is able to sustain our social superstructure, which consists in the black marble block of African slavery; knock that out, he says, and the mighty fabric, with all that it upholds, topples and tumbles to its fall. M'Duffie crowned the eulogy by exclaiming, "Slavery supersedes the necessity of an order of nobility." In response to these encomiums the Abolitionists hunted their victims as "the Barbary of the Union" from its African home, through its practical results, in its own States, com

paring them with other parts of the Union, on the character of the oppressors, whom the system barbarizes, and on the oppressed, whom it consigns to degradation.

The Abolitionists had disfranchised themselves, and were constrained to accept ostracism by their fellow-citizens. They believed principle was at work in their country; men who then thought their doctrine mischievous in its effects on their own minds and hearts, and mischievous in the re-action it produced, branded them as led by infidels and zealous mistaken fanatics under erroneous pleas of philanthropy, and speaking evil of the Word of God, to denounce the Federal Constitution and Union as fraught with guilt sufficient to provoke the judgments of heaven; that therefore these extremists demanded immediate and unqualified emancipation, or, as an alternative, denounced the Constitution, and sought to hasten the dissolution of the Union by whatever might increase its difficulties. The heat of debate and the use of free speech among such belligerents, for a time opened a wide gulf between these friends of the slave, and occasioned misapprehensions among distant observers. But their own divisions and misconceptions have been gradually subsiding, and their tendency to union and influence is daily augmenting. What argument and the Congress and the Constitution had not previously accomplished, the seceding and rebellious slaveholders have effected under the providence of God for the slave's emancipation. There is some lingering antagonism on constitutional questions between the Democratic and Republican politicians, as to the power of the President and his administration: but the members arrayed under the banner of State sovereignty, as paramount to the Republican Federation are gradually and even rapidly diminishing. Englishmen may be excused if they do not quite comprehend how far the imperium in imperio can be recognized, and the right to secede be denied to the several states whose chosen

PRESIDENTIAL PREROGATIVES REGULATED.

43

representatives may determine to assert their independence. It is, however, asserted that State sovereignty was surrendered after the experiment from 1777 to 1787; and the convention, chosen to act in the latter year, prepared and submitted the present Constitution, whereby the Federal Congress, Senate, and President, became sovereign, which was accepted by eleven of the states on the 17th of September, 1788, when Congress resolved that it should go into operation on the 4th day of March, 1789. The other states afterwards adhered.

The acts of sovereignty as between America and other nations, declaration of war, treaties of amity, or commercial intercourse for all the states, the raising and supreme command of the army and navy, coining money, and the sovereignty of the territories, were all transferred from the several states, and are vested in the President or his subordinate administration in responsibility to the Federal Congress. Traitors, rebels, and their property, in whatever state, are amenable to presidential control.

But the presidential prerogatives have either been exaggerated or misapprehended in Britain, especially by such as have objected to the policy of Mr. Lincoln during the past two years. He has been charged with doing too much, and failing to do what ought to have been done. Why have he and the Congress failed to abolish slavery, since not only did he avow himself opposed to it before his election, but it has manifestly been the cause of all the recent conflict? Why did he proclaim freedom to the slave in the rebel states, where he had no power, and leave it untouched in the loyal states, where his power was dominant? Why did he tell the Chicago deputation that he must maintain slavery, if to do so would strengthen the Union, and would abolish slavery if not doing so would weaken the Union? Why has he not allowed the slave states to retire and form a separate Republic, but has issued

conscriptions, forcing on an unwilling people warfare and bloodshed, involving the United States in irretrievable debt and ruin? Why does he remove generals in the army from commands where they are popular, and sustain generals and others in authority who fail in their duty? Why does he employ coloured slaves to fight against their masters, and refuse to hear their masters' remonstrances from the lips of Mr. H. A. Stephens when sent with a flag of truce? Why does he not accept terms of peace, though they have not been offered, except as they were spoken of by such peace democrats as Mr. Wood and other tools of faction for divisive purposes?

The President is not a lawgiver; but in times of peace and loyalty is simply an administrator of duties prescribed by the Constitution. He may send messages to Congress; but he has not a vote or seat in that assembly, nor any one to represent him in its deliberations. He can veto measures proposed and carried by the two houses of legislature, and whatever has been carried by majorities is not a law till it has received the President's signature. He has no vote, place, or control in, or over the legislature of the several states, and no power to set aside their legislation, or the action of their governors, as far as they relate to the internal economy of their own state. He can interdict their coinage of money, raising of an army for war, or treaties with other states of the Union, or other governments, but he cannot send a message or propose to the legislature of any one state the enactment of a law, or the abrogation of a statute, or interfere with the internal administration of any institution, or inflict a punishment for any violation of any state ordinance. His private opinions, or the platform of his party, could not become the rule of his presidential action, which is regulated by the Constitution. His propositions, whatever they are, must be enacted by the two houses of legislature before he could carry them out; and