American Eloquence, Volume II | Page 7

in Congress. In the former it showed
too plainly that the divergence of the two sections, indicated in
Calhoun's speech of 1850, had widened to an absolute separation in
thought, feeling, and purpose. In the latter the debates assumed a
virulence which is illustrated by the speeches on the Sumner assault.
The current of events had at least carried the sections far enough apart
to give striking distance; and the excuse for action was supplied by the
Dred Scott decision in 1857.
Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, claiming to be a free man under the
Missouri compromise of 1820, had sued his master, and the case had
reached the Supreme Court. A majority of the justices agreed in
dismissing the suit; but, as nearly every justice filed an opinion, and as

nearly every opinion disagreed with the other opinions on one or more
points, it is not easy to see what else is covered by the decision.
Nevertheless, the opinion of the Chief justice, Roger B. Taney,
attracted general attention by the strength of its argument and the
character of its views. It asserted, in brief, that no slave could become a
citizen of the United States, even by enfranchisement or State law; that
the prohibition of slavery by the Missouri compromise of 1820 was
unconstitutional and void; that the Constitution recognized property in
slaves, and was framed for the protection of property; that Congress
had no rights or duties in the territories but such as were granted or
imposed by the Constitution; and that, therefore, Congress was bound
not merely not to forbid slavery, but to actively protect slavery in the
Territories. This was just the ground which had always been held by
Calhoun, though the South had not supported him in it. Now the South,
rejecting Douglas and his "popular sovereignty," was united in its
devotion to the decision of the Supreme Court, and called upon the
North to yield unhesitating obedience to that body which Webster in
1830 had styled the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions. This, it
was evident, could never be. No respectable authority at the North
pretended to uphold the keystone of Taney's argument, that slaves were
regarded as property by the Constitution. On the contrary, it was agreed
everywhere by those whose opinions were looked to with respect, that
slaves were regarded by the Constitution as "persons held to service or
labor" under the laws of the State alone; and that the laws of the State
could not give such persons a fictitious legal character outside of the
State's jurisdiction. Even the Douglas Democrats, who expressed a
willingness to yield to the Supreme Court's decision, did not profess to
uphold Taney's share in it.
As the Presidential election of 1860 drew near, the evidences of
separation became more manifest. The absorption of northern
Democrats into the Republican party increased until Douglas, in 1858,
narrowly escaped defeat in his contest with Lincoln for a re-election to
the Senate from Illinois. In 1860 the Republicans nominated Lincoln
for the Presidency on a platform demanding prohibition of slavery in
the Territories. The southern delegates seceded from the Democratic
convention, and nominated Breckenridge, on a platform demanding
congressional protection of slavery in the Territories. The remainder of

the Democratic convention nominated Douglas, with a declaration of
its willingness to submit to the decision of the Supreme Court on
questions of constitutional law. The remnants of the former Whig and
American parties, under the name of the Constitutional Union party,
nominated Bell without any declaration of principles. Lincoln received
a majority of the electoral votes, and became President. His popular
vote was a plurality.
Seward's address on the "Irrepressible Conflict," which closes this
volume, is representative of the division between the two sections, as it
stood just before the actual shock of conflict. Labor systems are
delicate things; and that which the South had adopted, of enslaving the
laboring class, was one whose influence could not help being universal
and aggressive. Every form of energy and prosperity which tended to
advance a citizen into the class of representative rulers tended also to
make him a slave owner, and to shackle his official policy and purposes
with considerations inseparable from his heavy personal interests. Men
might divide on other questions at the South; but on this question of
slavery the action of the individual had to follow the decisions of a
majority which, by the influence of ambitious aspirants for the lead,
was continually becoming more aggressive. In constitutional countries,
defections to the minority are a steady check upon an aggressive
majority; but the southern majority was a steam engine without a safety
valve.
In this sense Seward and Lincoln, in 1858, were correct; the labor
system of the South was not only a menace to the whole country, but
one