north america-1-第66章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　history　of　the　time　shall　be　written。　　But　instead　of　doing　so　he　consummated　secession。　　Mr。　Buchanan　is　a　Northern　man；　a　Pennsylvanian；　but　he　was　opposed　to　the　party　which　had　brought　in　Mr。　Lincoln；　having　thriven　as　a　politician　by　his　adherence　to　Southern　principles。　　Now；　when　the　struggle　came；　he　could　not　forget　his　party　in　his　duty　as　President。　　General　Jackson's　position　was　much　the　same　when　Mr。　Calhoun；　on　the　question　of　the　tariff；　endeavored　to　produce　secession　in　South　Carolina　thirty　years　ago；　in　1832excepting　in　this；　that　Jackson　was　himself　a　Southern　man。　　But　Jackson　had　a　strong　conception　of　the　position　which　he　held　as　President　of　the　United　States。　　He　put　his　foot　on　secession　and　crushed　it；　forcing　Mr。　Calhoun；　as　Senator　from　South　Carolina；　to　vote　for　that　compromise　as　to　the　tariff　which　the　government　of　the　day　proposed。　　South　Carolina　was　as　eager　in　1832　for　secession　as　she　was　in　1859…60；　but　the　government　was　in　the　hands　of　a　strong　man　and　an　honest　one。　　Mr。　Calhoun　would　have　been　hung　had　he　carried　out　his　threats。　　But　Mr。　Buchanan　had　neither　the　power　nor　the　honesty　of　General　Jackson；　and　thus　secession　was　in　fact　consummated　during　his　Presidency。　But　Mr。　Lincoln's　party；　it　is　saidand　I　believe　truly　said　might　have　prevented　secession　by　making　overtures　to　the　South；　or　accepting　overtures　from　the　South；　before　Mr。　Lincoln　himself　had　been　inaugurated。　　That　is　to　say；　if　Mr。　Lincoln　and　the　band　of　politicians　who　with　him　had　pushed　their　way　to　the　top　of　their　party；　and　were　about　to　fill　the　offices　of　State；　chose　to　throw　overboard　the　political　convictions　which　had　bound　them　together　and　insured　their　successif　they　could　bring　themselves　to　adopt　on　the　subject　of　slavery　the　ideas　of　their　opponentsthen　the　war　might　have　been　avoided；　and　secession　also　avoided。　　I　do　believe　that　had　Mr。　Lincoln　at　that　time　submitted　himself　to　a　compromise　in　favor　of　the　Democrats；　promising　the　support　of　the　government　to　certain　acts　which　would　in　fact　have　been　in　favor　of　slavery；　South　Carolina　would　again　have　been　foiled　for　the　time。　　For　it　must　be　understood；　that　though　South　Carolina　and　the　Gulf　States　might　have　accepted　certain　compromises；　they　would　not　have　been　satisfied　in　so　accepting　them。　　The　desired　secession；　and　nothing　short　of　secession；　would　in　truth　have　been　acceptable　to　them。　　But　in　doing　so　Mr。　Lincoln　would　have　been　the　most　dishonest　politician　even　in　America。　　The　North　would　have　been　in　arms　against　him；　and　any　true　spirit　of　agreement　between　the　cotton…growing　slave　States　and　the　manufacturing　States　of　the　North；　or　the　agricultural　States　of　the　West；　would　have　been　as　far　off　and　as　improbable　as　it　is　now。　　Mr。　Crittenden；　who　proffered　his　compromise　to　the　Senate　in　December；　1860；　was　at　that　time　one　of　the　two　Senators　from　Kentucky；　a　slave　State。　　He　now　sits　in　the　Lower　House　of　Congress　as　a　member　from　the　same　State。　　Kentucky　is　one　of　those　border　States　which　has　found　it　impossible　to　secede；　and　almost　equally　impossible　to　remain　in　the　Union。　　It　is　one　of　the　States　into　which　it　was　most　probable　that　the　war　would　be　carriedVirginia；　Kentucky；　and　Missouri　being　the　three　States　which　have　suffered　the　most　in　this　way。　　Of　Mr。　Crittenden's　own　family；　some　have　gone　with　secession　and　some　with　the　Union。　　His　name　had　been　honorably　connected　with　American　politics　for　nearly　forty　years；　and　it　is　not　surprising　that　he　should　have　desired　a　compromise。　His　terms　were　in　fact　thesea　return　to　the　Missouri　compromise；　under　which　the　Union　pledged　itself　that　no　slavery　should　exist　north　of　36。30　degrees　N。　lat。；　unless　where　it　had　so　existed　prior　to　the　date　of　that　compromise；　a　pledge　that　Congress　would　not　interfere　with　slavery　in　the　individual　Stateswhich　under　the　Constitution　it　cannot　do；　and　a　pledge　that　the　Fugitive　Slave　Law　should　be　carried　out　by　the　Northern　States。　　Such　a　compromise　might　seem　to　make　very　small　demand　on　the　forbearance　of　the　Republican　party；　which　was　now　dominant。　　The　repeal　of　the　Missouri　compromise　had　been　to　them　a　loss；　and　it　might　be　said　that　its　re…enactment　would　be　a　gain。　　But　since　that　compromise　had　been　repealed；　vast　territories　south　of　the　line　in　question　had　been　added　to　the　union；　and　the　re…enactment　of　that　compromise　would　hand　those　vast　regions　over　to　absolute　slavery；　as　had　been　done　with　Texas。　　This　might　be　all　very　well　for　Mr。　Crittenden　in　the　slave　State　of　Kentuckyfor　Mr。　Crittenden；　although　a　slave　owner；　desired　to　perpetuate　the　Union；　but　it　would　not　have　been　well　for　New　England　or　for　the　West。　　As　for　the　second　proposition；　it　is　well　understood　that　under　the　Constitution　Congress　cannot　interfere　in　any　way　in　the　question　of　slavery　in　the　individual　States。　　Congress　has　no　more　constitutional　power　to　abolish　slavery　in　Maryland　than　she　has　to　introduce　it　into　Massachusetts。　　No　such　pledge；　therefore；　was　necessary　on　either　side。　　But　such　a　pledge　given　by　the　North　and　West　would　have　acted　as　an　additional　tie　upon　them；　binding　them　to　the　finality　of　a　constitutional　enactment　to　which；　as　was　of　course　well　known；　they　strongly　object。　　There　was　no　question　of　Congress　interfering　with　slavery；　with　the　purport　of　extending　its　area　by　special　enactment；　and　therefore　by　such　a　pledge　the　North　and　West　could　gain　nothing；　but　the　South　would　in　prestige　have　gained　much。　But　that　third　proposition　as　to　the　Fugitive　Slave　Law　and　the　faithful　execution　of　that　law　by　the　Northern　and　Western　States　would；　if　acceded　to　by　Mr。　Lincoln's　party；　have　amounted　to　an　unconditional　surrender　of　everything。　　What！　　Massachusetts　and　Connecticut　carry　out　the　Fugitive　Slave　Law？　　Ohio　carry　out　the　Fugitive　Slave　Law　after　the　〃Dred　Scott〃　decision　and　all　its　consequences？　　Mr。　Crittenden　might　as　well　have　asked　Connecticut；　Massachusetts；　and　Ohio　to　introduce　slavery　within　their　own　lands。　　The　Fugitive　Slave　Law　was　then；　as　it　is　now；　the　law　of　the　land；　it　was　the　law　of　the　United　States　as　voted　by　Congress；　and　passed　by　the　President；　and　acted　on　by　the　supreme　judge　of　the　United　States　Court。　　But　it　was　a　law　to　which　no　free　State　had　submitted　itself；　or　would　submit　itself。　　〃What！〃　the　English　reader　will　say；　〃sundry　States　in　the　Union　refuse　to　obey　the　laws　of　the　Unionrefuse　to　submit　to　the　constitutional　action　of　their　own　Congress？〃　　Yes。　　Such　has　been　the　position　of　this　country！　　To　such　a　dead　lock　has　it　been　brought　by　the　attempted　but　impossible　amalgamation　of　North　and　South。　　Mr。　Crittenden's　compromise　was　moonshine。　　It　was　utterly　out　of　the　question　that　the　free　States　should　bind　themselves　to　the　rendition　of　escaped　slaves；　or　that　Mr。　Lincoln；　who　had　just　been　brought　in　by　their　voices；　should　agree　to　any　compromise　which　should　attempt　so　to　bind　them。　　Lord　Palmerston　might　as　well　attempt　to　reenact　the　Corn　Laws。　Then　comes　the　question　whether　Mr。　Lincoln　or　his　government　could　have　prevented　the　war　after　he　had　entered　upon　his　office　in　March；　1861？　　I　do　not　suppose　that　any　one　thinks　that　he　could　have　avoided　secession　and　avoided　the　war　also；　that　by　any　ordinary　effort　of　government　he　could　have　secured　the　adhesion　of　the　Gulf　States　to　the　Union　after　the　first　shot　had　been　fired　at　Fort　Sumter。　　The　general　opinion　in　England　is；　I　take　it；　this　that　secession　then　was　manifestly　necessary；　and　that　all　the　blood…shed　and　money…shed；　and　all　this　destruction　of　commerce　and　of　agriculture　might　have　been　prevented　by　a　graceful　adhesion　to　an　indisputable　fact。　　But　there　are　some　facts；　even　some　indisputable　facts；　to　which　a　graceful　adherence　is　not　possible。　Could　King　Bomba　have　welcomed　Garibaldi　to　Naples？　　Can　the　Pope　shake　hands　with　Victor　Emmanuel？　　Could　the　English　have　surrendered　to　their　rebel　colonists　peaceable　possession　of　the　colonies？　　The　indisputability　of　a　fact　is　not　very　easily　settled　while　the　circumstances　are　in　course　of　action　by　which　the　fact　is　to　be　decided。　　The　men　of　the　Northern　States　have　not　believed　in　the　necessity　of　secession；　but　have　believed　it　to　be　their　duty　to　enforce　the　adherence　of　these　States　to　the　Union。　　The　American　governments　have　been　much　given　to　compromises；　but　had　Mr。　Lincoln　attempted　any　compromise　by　which　any　one　Southern　State　could　have　been　let　out　of　the　Union；　he　would　have　been　impeached。　　In　all　probability　the　whole　Constitution　would　have　gone　to　ruin；　and　the　Presidency　would　have　been　at　an　end。　　At　any　rate；　his　Presidency　would　have　been　at　an　end。　　When　secession；　or　in　other　words　rebellion；　was　once　commenced；　he　had　no　alternative　but　the　use　of　coercive　measures　for　putting　it　downthat　is；　he　had　no　alternative　but　war。　　It　is　not　to　be　supposed　that　he　or　his　ministry　contemplated　such　a　war　as　has　existedwith　600；000　men　in　arms　on　one　side；　each　man　with　his　whole　belongings　maintained　at　a　cost　of　150l。　per　annum；　or　ninety　millions　sterling　per　annum　for　the　army。　　Nor　did　we　when　we　resolved　to　put　down　the　French　revolution　think　of　such　a　national　debt　as　we　now　owe。　　These　things　grow　by　degrees；　and　the　mind　also　grows　in　becoming　used　to　them；　but　I　cannot　see　that　there　was　any　moment　at　which　Mr。　Lincoln　could　have　stayed　his　hand　and　cried　peace。　It　is　easy　to　say　now　that　acquiescence　in　secession　would　have　been　better　than　war；　but　there　has　been　no　moment　when　he　could　have　said　so　with　any　avail。　　It　was　incumbent　on　him　to　put　down　rebellion；　or　to　be　put　down　by　it。　　So　it　was　with　us　in　America　in　1776。　I　do　not　think　that　we　in　England　have　quite　sufficiently　taken　all　this　into　consideration。　　We　have　been　in　the　habit　of　exclaiming　very　loudly　against　the　war；　execrating　its　cruelty　and　anathematizing　its　results；　as　though　the　cruelty　were　all　superfluous　and　the　results　unnecessary。　　But　I　do　not　remember　to　have　seen　any　statement　as　to　what　the　Northern　States　should　have　donewhat　they　should　have　done；　that　is；　as　regards　the　South；　or　when　they　should　have　done　it。　　It　seems　to　me　that　we　have　decided　as　regards　them　that　civil　war　is　a　very　bad　thing；　and　that　therefore　civil　war　should　be　avoided。　　But　bad　things　cannot　always　be　avoided。　　It　is　this　feeling　on　our　part　that　has　produced　so　much　irritation　in　them　against　usreproducing；　of　course；　irritation　on　our　part　against　them。　　They　cannot　understand　that　we　should　not　wish　them　to　be　successful　in　putting　down　a　rebellion；　nor　can　we　understand　why　they　should　be　outrageous　against　us　for　standing　aloof；　and　keeping　our　hands；　if　it　be　only　possible；　out　of　the　fire。　When　Slidell　and　Mason　were　arrested；　my　opinions　were　not　changed；　but　my　feelings　were　altered。　　I　seemed　to　acknowledge　to　myself　that　the　treatment　to　which　England　had　been　subjected；　and　the　manner　in　which　that　treatment　was　discussed；　made　it　necessary　that　I　should　regard　the　question　as　it　existed　between　England　and　the　States；　rather　than　in　its　reference　to　the　North　and　South。　　I　had　always　felt　that　as　regarded　the　action　of　our　government　we　had　been　sans　reproche；　that　in　arranging　our　conduct　we　had　thought　neither　of　money　nor　political　influence；　but