Thoughtfully curated historical journalism
The Act of Emancipation in the District of Columbia has been consummated. President Lincoln has approved the action of Congress, and given his official signature to the measure. To-day there is not a slave in the capital of the Republic. The long desired hour has arrived, when, as a nation, the United States is not the supporter of the institution of human slavery.
We have have heretofore charged the Abolitionists with being opposed to the restoration of the Union, unless it can be made a sort of abolition Union. Their presses and their orators now openly disavow all respect for the old Union and their aversion to its reconstruction. They are afraid that if the old Union is restored the democratic party will again obtain the control of the government, and would rather see the old ship of state forever ruined. As evidence of this we copy the following atrocious extract from Greeley’s New York Tribune, which is generally regarded, we believe, as an orthodox republican paper:—
A Port Royal correspondent of the Times writes:
One of the most remarkable features of the new life in South Carolina is afforded by the negroes. Black servants have been hired by many of the officers as waiters, and washermen and women. Black gangs have worked on the shore, or been used as oarsmen ; blacks have served as scouts and guides in the reconneissances. Crowds of the women and children may be seen in various parts of the camps, but especially near head-quarters, where they inhabit their own huts still. There they receive their rations, there they build fires to cook their food or to do their washing, and cluster into odd-looking groups, picturesque for all their squalor. The men and boys join them at night, and always, after supper, in a dilapidated out-house, is held a, prayer-meeting. I listened outside, last night, and heard ardent ejaculations or thanksgiving for the favorable chance God had given to “my colored bruddren.” The jargon was absurd, but It was earnest; the singing was out of tune and time, but it was fervent. In some quarters the blacks are less religious, and held a ball to celebrate the coming of the Yankees. I have talked with nearly half of those I have seen; have asked them which they preferred, the new or the old order of things, and though some here and there spoke kindly of their masters, there was no mistaking the genuineness of their gratitude for the change.
West Liberty, 9th month, 22d, 1861.
Friend Mahin:—It seems very strange to me, the present condition of this government, and very humiliating its future prospects.—On the one hand we see American slavery arraying a mighty host against this nation to give it battle, for to secure its own enlargement and perpetuation, no other principle whatever at stake, and no other pretence made, its war cry destruction, desolation and ruin, not only to this government, but to every principle of justice, humanity and virtue.
On the other hand, we with amazement be hold a once mighty government giving battle to this monster rebel, calling on “all true sons of freedom” to join the army to put down rebellion, and re-establish a Union (that never existed only on paper) between the north and south; and what for? Just for the sake of having the privilege of paying the expense of and sustaining in this government one of the most abominable systems that ever the sun shone upon. Why not behead the monster while he has his head on the executioner’s block, seeing he has laid it there himself? Why turn our army into slave catchers?
Mr. Stephens, Vice President of the “Confederate States” in his recent speech at Savannah, has a great deal to say about the great principle upon which the new revolutionary government is founded—which truth he slates to be this: “ That the negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery—subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral (normal?) condition.” He does not tell us what he means by equality, and rings the changes on the word, very much as we have heard it done nearer home. From what he says, however, we presume he means some physical inequality, as he speaks of this, “great physical and moral truth.” We presume that he does not mean to state that any man may be rightfully compelled under the lash, to work for any other who is physically his superior. And so also of inferiority in moral- character or Intelligence—he would hardly assert these as justifying enslavement. Either of these principles put in practice would lead to strange changes. Mr. Stephens himself is physically inferior to the average of men of his age. He must refer to difference of race. For, in speaking of the scientific aspect of his principle and the slowness of its recognition in the world, he says: “Many governments have been founded upon the principle of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved were of the same race and (so enslaved) in violation of the laws of nature.”
Indeed! The enslavement of the same race then is “in violation of the laws of nature.” What say Dr. Van Dyke, Dr. Thornwell, and Dr. Raphall to this? What becomes of all their arguments from the Bible in favor of slavery? The slaves held by the Jews were white; and so, according to the Vice President of the “Confederate States,” held as such “in violation of the laws of nature.” Mr. Stephens must be immediately excommunicated from the Southern Church, or the sound doctrine of the D. D.s will be in danger of being corrupted. Perhaps, however, he will hasten to retract so dangerous a statement