Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

states; for only thus can they hope to hold their own against the overwhelming population of the north. This is the great reason why Cuba has been coveted so long. Hence, also, for the purpose of increasing the number of slave states, the Missouri compromise was repealed. Hence, too, the national larceny of Texas, while the United States government was controlled by the slave power. Hence, the disgraceful and bloody scenes in Kansas. Hence, the infamous Lecompton measure; and hence, when Senator Douglas opposed the Lecompton Bill, the South never forgave what forms the most honourable part of his life. Though by far the ablest debater of his party, the Sonth strenuously resisted his nomination to the presidency. Slavery, in one way or other, has been the chief disturbing element in the United States ever since it was a nation. To set forth its attractions and its excellencies, and defend it against all comers, has been the aim of a great majority of southern members of Congress. Their tenderness on this point has always been excessive. Whoever touches slavery, touches the apple of their eye. For attacks on it, men have been challenged, duels have been fought. For an exposure of it, Sumner was brutally beaten; and Brooks - member of Congress-for perpetrating such a dastardly deed, was fêted, and presented with gold-headed canes, by southern ladies. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that in nearly every election of late, when slavery seemed endangered, secession has been threatened. It was so in the spirited contest between Fremont and Buchanan, in which the South proved victorious. “Fremont and freedom was then the watchword of the republican party. The same threat was used last year, when the extension or exclusion of slavery from the territories was the great theme on which every stump orator expatiated. It had lost its power, however; and at the polls the South was vanquished; and hence, the slave states have seceded. This is the true cause of the present war. Protection or free trade has little more to do with it than the man in the moon. The South is now fighting for independence, because, defeated at the polls, it lost the power of controlling the government, and could not endure the restriction and possible extinction of slavery.

We do not feel called upon to deny the right of the South to secede. Many will judge of that by their success. It has, indeed, been urged, that, as it takes two to make a bargain, it requires the consent of two to break it. Certainly, but a breach of the constitution would greatly alter the case. It is true, the South did not wait for any such justifying cause; and it does tell against secession, as it has occurred, that Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, were purchased by the United States, at a vast expense, from foreign powers. It seems rather unlikely that millions were paid away for what might soon be lost again, without any fault of the federal government. Americans are rather too sharp in money matters to be guilty of such folly.

It is often asked, For what is the North fighting? A great many in the north have taken up arms, because they believe the war will prove the destruction of slavery. The abolition party has become wonderfully popular during the last twelve months; but the avowed object of the present administration, headed by President Lincoln, is simply the preservation of the Union. The executive desires merely to retain things as they were. It must not be imagined that President Lincoln is what, in America, is called a rabid abolitionist. Not he. His anti-slavery is of the very mildest character. In his inaugural address, last March, he took especial pains to have it understood that he considered himself bound to enforce the provisions of the constitution, and the laws regarding slavery. He also shewed an indecent haste in encouraging further concessions to the slave power. Mr Lincoln has the reputation of being an honest man. We fear he is not the man for the present emergency; nor do the members of his cabinet inspire us with the highest hopes. Mr Chase is generally believed an able, honourable, and religious man; but we cannot say as much of Mr Cameron. Not a few in his own state think him rather unscrupulous. Mr Blair is from Missouri, a slave state. Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? may pertinently be asked. We had hoped better things of Mr Blair. But there seems no doubt left that to him is chiefly due the credit or discredit of Fremont's removal. Mr Seward is undoubtedly the most accomplished politician of the

cabinet. We wish his honesty were equal to his abilities. Eloquent and clever he unquestionably is, but withal cool, calculating, and selfish. Önce an aspirant to the presidency, he betrayed a willingness to sacrifice principle at the shrine of ambition. The noble utterances of his famous Rochester speech he afterwards reduced to feeble platitudes. It is not capacity the members of the executive lack, but conscience and courage. These are the qualities must save the nation, if saved it be. No hesitant or half-way policy can avail in this hour of peril. "There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune." It is the crime of the executive that they have been timid and irresolute, when they should have been bold and daring. Had they given to Fremont's proclamation the whole weight of their influence, and promptly followed up such a policy, the right arm of slavery would have been broken. The aspect of affairs would not have been to-day so dark and gloomy. It is not simply the possibility of a protracted war that is so alarming, but the fact that civil war, with all its nameless horrors and atrocities, desolates the land-the arts of peace paralysed, the passions of the multitude roused and inflamed to the highest pitch, law and order endangered, servile insurrections probable, nay, inevitable-that such a condition of things should be continued, and the government of the nation, in such a crisis, be in the hands of weak, timid, or selfish men-morally certain, as it is, that the course now pursued will be fruitful of good or evil for long years to come-this truly is a situation and a prospect fearfully terrible to contemplate.

We are aware that until quite recently the North, taken as a whole, cared nothing for the abolition of slavery. It is true that, not long since, fugitive slaves were returned, and the bondage of four millions of human beings regarded with supreme indifference. It is true that freedom of speech was scarcely tolerated in such a city as New York not many months ago. But Mr Lincoln and his cabinet knew that for the last nine months the North was fast drifting towards emancipation. They knew it was a possible thing any time during the last six months. They knew it was "a consummation devoutly to be wished." Men in their position, with their immense influence, in such a crisis, could have accomplished it had they so chosen. They might easily, at such a time, have dragged the public sentiment up to the height of such a generous resolve. They might, ere this, have wiped away the stain of slavery from the national escutcheon. But they have been content to follow where they should lead. And thus to-day we see the ablest and most respectable journals of the North, with a great majority of the best and most sagacious leaders of the people, advocating and urging emancipation with their utmost power, and jealously guarding the country against the imminent danger of another pernicious compromise.

The effects of slavery upon the people of the United States have been bad beyond conception. We honour Americans as being generally a kind, hospitable, intelligent, warm-hearted people. They could not be otherwise, descended as they are. Nevertheless, slavery has had a most debasing and demoralising influence on them as a whole. Many of the slave-holders are not more than half civilised. Of course we do not mean that they cannot conduct themselves properly when they choose. But we do mean that the relation of slavery necessarily develops the worst practices of fallen humanity, and that the looks, language, and tone of slave-holders, when discussing the subject of slavery, can be denominated nothing so fitly as savage. Even the records of Congress reveal a sad want of common decency of speech. It may readily be supposed that the disgraceful scenes that have occurred in Congress are but a faint index to the state of society in the South. Duelling, the bowie-knife, appeals to brute force, are the established order of things. Nay, this is accounted gentlemanly. An appeal to the law for protection from insult or personal injury is held to be dishonourable. course it may thus be expected that, as a governor of Kentucky once stated officially, men slaughter each other with almost perfect impunity. If this be the case in Kentucky, what must it be in South Carolina, Florida, or Mississipi? In the North things were never at such a pass. Yet the influence of slavery on the public mind has long been clearly visible. A European could at once perceive a heartless indifference in the manner with which reference is made to

Of

the unfortunate African. In fact, until lately, the great mass of the people has not had a conscience on the subject of slavery. A small minority there has been hating slavery with a perfect hatred, and battling nobly for the right. But their very labours, so abundant and praiseworthy, have demonstrated that the great majority cared not, to use the words of Senator Douglas, whether slavery were voted up or voted down. Nay, they have established, beyond dispute, that the mercantile men and lower classes of such cities as New York and Boston could scarcely endure to have a word said against "the peculiar institution." Again and again has the right of free speech been trampled on, and respectable assemblies disturbed and broken up by mob violence; while the proper authorities have either interfered reluctantly and inefficiently, or not interfered at all. We know that the cheek of many an American has crimsoned with shame at such things. Nevertheless, many newspapers have covertly defended such conduct, charged anti-slavery orators with disturbing the peace of the community, and boasted more loudly than ever about America being a free country.

Would that this were the worst! "But it is not. Like people, like priest," said the son of Beeri, and so it has proved, in a sense sadly to be deplored. Slavery has demoralised and corrupted the Church in the United States. Of course some denominations are to be excepted, of which the most notable and noble is the Reformed Presbyterian Church, together with the Society of Friends. There are also individual exceptions, such as Dr Cheever, Dr Tyng, and men of a kindred spirit. But these exceptions, as before, only make more clear and undeniable the fact that the Church, as a whole, has supported slavery. Had she united in excluding slave-holders from her membership-had she declared that those guilty of holding their fellow-men in bondage should not sit at the communion table-had she treated man-stealing as a crime not inferior to money-stealing, slavery could not long have boasted of a tithe of its present victims. But the Church has made slavery respectable. Her ministers have apologised for it, excused, and palliated it-nay, not a few have defended and upheld it as an institution of divine origin, established for the good of the slave, which it is their duty to maintain and perpetuate. The teachings of the Church have approximated to this doctrine, according to the preacher's longitude and latitude. There is a pro-slavery scent about Dr Hodge's Commentaries. Farther south his brother doctors hold up Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as orthodox examples of slave-holding which ought to be imitated. This may sound strange to some, but it is the truth nevertheless. Nor will it be wondered at when it is known that the ministers and members of the Methodist Church hold 219,000 slaves; those of the Presbyterian Church, old and new school, 77,000; Baptists, 125,000; Reformed Baptists, 101,000; Episcopalians, 88,000, and a number of other denominations, 55,000. Thus we have a sum total of 665,000 human beings held as chattels by ministers and members of professedly Christian Churches. This number amounts to about onesixth of all the slaves in the United States. The Church has thus made slaveholding respectable, and kept it in countenance. In the light of such astounding facts we can understand why these denominations speak so bitterly of men who oppose slavery. We can comprehend why they have been so unsparing in their invective. It becomes them truly to denounce anti-slavery men as "fanatics," as “ rabid Abolitionists,” and “infidels." It becomes them, in this their day of trouble, to make haste with resolutions on the wickedness of rebellion and the guilt of perjury. It becomes them to proclaim their loyalty to a constitution and a government which sanctions and protects the system of human bondage which they practise. Out upon such halting, truckling, slave-holding Christianity! Have they yet to learn they owe allegiance to a higher power, who commands them" to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavey burdens, and let the oppressed go free."

It is mortifying to see Christian Churches come lagging in the rear, when they should always have been uncompromising opponents of oppression. Nevertheless, we rejoice that a better day has dawned on the North. The people begin to breathe a purer moral atmosphere. We hear less now of the sacredness of the constitution, and more of the supremacy of the divine law. Less is said of the "dire necessity" of emancipation, and more of its propriety, justice, and in

B

herent righteousness. We trust this spirit will continue and increase until Mr Lincoln is constrained to adopt an abolition policy. How the war may end we will not attempt to prophecy. Hitherto the South has had the best of it. Her former possession of the Federal Government gave her a vast advantage. She was thus enabled to arm at the expense of the North, while the latter did not even believe secession possible. The South may now have a more difficult contest to maintain. The North has more than half a million of men and arms. Her superiority in population and resources must eventually tell. The free states have a population of almost nineteen millions. In the South there is a free population of nearly eight and a half millions, and four millions of slaves. Such a contest is manifestly unequal. But if Mr Lincoln can be induced to adopt an abolition policy, the slaves might all be counted on the side of the North. There would thus be twenty-three millions against eight and a half millions. Such a war could scarcely be very protracted. Emancipation commends itself by every consideration of reason, prudence, or humanity. Without it the war on the part of the North is a piece of stupendous folly. The Union is not worth a war. The constitution is not worth the blood and treasure lavished to preserve it. If the North desires success, let her emancipate. If she would make good her boasted love of liberty, she must emancipate. Justice, alike to the slaves and her own soldiers, demand emancipation. Our sympathy she cught not to have in any great degree, unless she proclaims liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof. We do not and cannot sympathise with the Southern Confederation, which declares slavery its foundation-stone. But neither ought it to be expected that, until the North declares officially for emancipation, we will be very enthusiastic in our praise. They complain of unfriendly and unjust criticism on this side the Atlantic, and perhaps with reason. It is not to be supposed that every editor in Britain is both impartial and infallible. And they should remember that, in looking at them from such a distance, we discover and regard chiefly the avowed policy and the actions of their government. It must of necessity be so. It is thus also they judge of us. We gladly acknowledge them as better than their government at Washington. We honour their efforts to induce their executive to adopt a more decided and Christian policy. At the same time, we cannot but think that Americans are quite too sensitive to every breath of criticism. Beyond a certain degree such a feeling is childish aud unmanly. Supposing they are unjustly criticised, what does it signify A man so extremly sensitive and concerned about what people say of him is weak-minded and foolish. For a nation thus to act is unworthy of its dignity and position. Let them "go ahead," and do what is right, bravely and like men, regardless of what is said by their neighbours. So doing, they will deserve both our sympathy and our respect.

We are not disposed to quarrel with Americans about their form of government. They have a right to please themselves in that matter. But we do find fault with the frequency of their elections, and the rotation in office so generally practised among them. The agitation and ferment of one election have scarcely subsided until another is at hand. The consequence is, that both press and people are demoralised. Nor can it ever be well for a republic, or any other form of government, that the dregs of the people exercise as much power at the polls as the best of citizens. Universal suffrage thus proves a curse rather than a blessing. In this age no man unable to read or write ought to be allowed to exercise the elective franchise. And every man guilty of flagrant or frequent breach of law should also be deprived of that privilege. With some such restrictions as these, perhaps right and justice, in the great cities of America, might be expected speedily to prevail. As it is, the contest is distressingly long and doubtful.

THE PENTATEUCH.*

WE rejoice in the publication of the valuable work whose title is subjoined. It is by far the most valuable in our literature, on a subject of the utmost moment. Our limits prohibit any general and detailed review of its merits. The Pentateuch has been for a century the subject of extensive and sifting discussion to Germany; and the author before us exemplifies in these volumes the proper use to be made of the materials which German industry has accumulated on the point. Under the influence of a sound judgment and good principle, he neither suffers himself to be overborne by the pretensions of German critics, nor, on the other hand, permits any dogmatic bias to sway him to a concluson on questions of evidence and criticism. The learning of Germany really available for useful purposes in this country, needs transfusion into English modes of thought rather than translation into English forms of speech. Take Baumgarten on the Acts and Stier on the words of Christ. What a service would be rendered if their admirable thinking could be reduced to a reasonable compass, and presented in a shape sufficiently definite and direct for the British mind; for to be verbose is not the only form of prolixity, and there may be redundance of idea as well as of words. The gist of a great theme, as well as the effect of any discussion of it, is often lost by the irrelevancies with which a speaker or writer may environ it. Make a road too broad, and, under the difficulty of keeping it in repair, it is in danger of becoming no road at all.

We can attest, from some knowledge of the ground which Mr M'Donald has had to traverse, that, on the whole, he has given due proportion to the several topics of his subject. Whole controversies have raged in regard to most of them. He has discussed them, after a careful investigation of the chief points at issue, in a spirit at once erudite, calm, and thoughtful. There are occasional slips, and views to which we might have taken exception; but we are called upon here to give a general estimate, rather than a particular review, of his work. When we say that, with all its defects, it is beyond all question the best work on the subject, the fact implies no slight praise, if the importance of the subject, and the difficulty of the questions included in it, be fully understood. The excellencies of the work are great, the errors are but partial and slight. We are not, like the milliner, to judge of a statue by some fold in the robe, rather than by its general effect.

It is a fine remark of an old Puritan divine, that the Old and New Testaments are the two lips with which God utters his voice to us. To understand the divine message to us, therefore, both parts of revelation must be studied. It could be shewn, on a historical review of theology, that much of error and heresy may be traced to the neglect of either the one or the other. When we suffer the externalism of the Mosaic code to occupy our thoughts to the exclusion of that regulating and qualifying influence which the spirit of the New Testament is not only fitted but designed to exercise, we sink into the erroneous notions under which Romish idolatry was at one time liable to the penalty of death. On the other hand, when we mould our views of divine truth entirely by the New Testament, the tendency is to run into a false spiritualism, under which the obligations of common morality-as, for instance, in the claims of the Sabbath-are sacrificed. Nor is error the worst result likely to ensue from this failure to give due heed to any portion of the inspired volume. That error indeed may be of a serious kind. If, for example, such historical books of Scripture as those of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles be ignored, as suggesting no line of action or involving no principles of obligation to us of modern times, the claims of national religion will drop out of view, and weigh but feebly on our minds. The thorough study of these books of Scripture on the part of all who are willing to read them under the bias of no preconceived theory, but to surrender the mind freely to those impressions which a calm and profound appreciation of their spirit is

Introduction to the Pentateuch. An Inquiry, Critical and Doctrinal, into the Genuineness Anthority, and Design of the Mosaic Writings. By the Rev. Donald M'Donald, M.A. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark.

[ocr errors]
« ElőzőTovább »