Viewing page 12 of 16

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

572      DOUGLASS' MONTHLY.      DECEMBER, 1861
[[line]]

[[3 columns]]

[[column 1]]
been organized, and civil administration has been inauguarted [sic] therein under auspices especially gratifying, when it is considered that the leaven of treason was found existing in some of these new countries, when the Federal officers arrived there.  The abundant national resources of these Territories with the security and protection afforded by organized government will doubtless invite to them a large immigration when peace shall restore the business of the country to its accustomed channels.  I submit the resolutions of the Legislature of Colorada, which evince the patriotic spirit of the people of the Territory.  So far the authority of the United States has been upheld in all the Territories as it is hoped it will be in the future.  I commend their interests to the enlightened and generous care of Congress.

I recommend to the favorable consideration of Congress the interests of the District of Columbia.  The insurrection has been the cause of much suffering and sacrifice to the inhabitants, and as they have no representative in Congress, that body should not overlook their just claims upon the Government.

At the late session a joint resolution was adopted authorizing the President to take measures for securing a proper representation of the Industrial interests of the United States, at the exhibition of the industry of all nations, to be holden at London in the year 1862.

I regret to have been unable to give personal attention to this subject——a subject at once so interesting in itself and so extensively and intricately connected with the material prosperity of the world.  Through the Secretary of State and of the Interior, a system has been devised and partially matured which will be laid before you.

Under and by virtue of the act of Congress entitled, An Act to Confiscate Property used for Insurrectionary Purposes, approved August 6th, 1861, the legatee claim of certain persons to the labor and service of certain other persons, have become forfeited, and numbers of the latter thus liberated are already dependent on the United States and must be provided for in some way.  Besides, it is not impossible that some of the States will pass similar enactments for their own benefit respectively, by the operation of which persons of the same class will be thrown upon them for disposal.  In such case I recommend that Congress provide for accepting such persons from such states, according to some mode of valuation in lieu pro tanto of direct taxes, or upon some other plan to be agreed on with such States respectively, that such persons, and such acceptance by the General Government be at once deemed free, and that in any event such be taken for colonizing both classes, or the one first mentioned, if the other shall not be brought into existence at some place or places in a climate congenial to them.  It might be well to consider, too, whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.  To carry out the plan of colonization may involve the acquisition of territories, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended in the territorial acquisition.

Having practiced the acquisition of territory for nearly sixty years, the question of constitutional power to do so is no longer an open one with us.  The power was at first questioned by Mr. Jefferson, who, however, in the purchase of Louisiana yielded his scruples on the plea of great expediency.  If it be said that the only legitimate object of acquiring territory is to furnish homes for white men, this measure effects that object, for the emigration of colored men leaves additional room for white men remaining or coming here.

Mr. Jefferson, however, placed the importance of procuring Louisiana more on political and commercial grounds than on providing room for population.  On this whole proposition including the appropriation of money, with the acquisition of territory, does not the expediency amount to absolute necessity, that without which the government cannot be perpetual?

In the exercise of my best discretion I have adhered to the blockade of the ports held by the insurgents, instead of putting in force my proclamation and the law of Congress enacted at the late session for closing those ports;
[[/column 1]]

[[column 2]]
also availed the dictates of prudence as well as the dictates of law.  Instead of transcending, I have adhered to the act of Congress to confiscate property for insurrectionary purposes.  If a new law on the same subject shall be proposed its propriety shall be considered.  The Union must be preserved and hence all indispensable means must be employed.  We should not be in haste to determine that radical and extreme measures which may reach the loyal as well as the disloyal are indispensable.

The war continues.  In considering the policy to be adopted for suppressing the insurrection, I have been anxious and careful that the inevitable conflict for this purpose shall not degenerate into a violent and remorseless revolutionary struggle.  I have therefore, in every case, thought it proper to keep the integrity of the Union prominent as the primary object of the contest on our part, leaving all questions which are not of actual military importance, till more deliberate action of the Legislature.

The Inaugural address at the beginning of the Administration, and the Message to Congress at the late special session, were both mainly devoted to the domestic controversy out of which the insurrection and consequent war have sprung.  Nothing now occurs to add or subtract to or from the principles or the general purposes stated and expressed in those documents.  The last ray of hope of preserving the Union peaceably expired at the assault upon Fort Sumpter, and a general review of what has occurred since may not be unprofitable.

What was painfully uncertain then as much better deferred is more distinct now, and the progress of events is plainly in the right direction.  The insurgents confidently claim a strong support from north of Mason and Dixon's Line, and the friends of the Union were not free from apprehension on the point.

This, however, was soon settled definitely, and on the right side.  South of the line noble little Delaware led off right from the first.  Maryland was made to serve against the Union.  Our soldiers were assaulted, bridges were burned, and railroads were torn up within her limits, and we were many days, at one time, without the ability to bring a single regiment over her soil to the Capital.

Now her bridges are up and repaired and open to the government.  She already gives seven regiments to the cause and none to the enemy, and her people at a regular election have sustained the Union by a large majority, and a larger aggregate vote than they ever before gave to any candidate or any question

Kentucky too, for some time in doubt, is now decidedly, and I think unchangeably, ranged on the side of the Union.  Missouri is comparatively quiet and I believe cannot again be overrun by the insurgents.  These three states, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, neither of which would promise a single soldier at first, have now an aggregate of not less than 40,000 in the field for the Union while of their citizens certainly not more than a third of this number are among the insurgents, and they of doubtful existence, are in arms against it.

After a doubtful and somewhat bloody struggle for months, winter closes on the Union people of Western Virginia, leaving them masters of their own country.  An insurgent force of about 1,500 for months dominating on a narrow peninsula region constituting the counties of Accomoc and Northampton, and known as the Eastern Shore of Virginia, together with some contiguous parts of Maryland, have laid down their arms and the people there have renewed their allegance [sic] to the old flag.

This leaves no avowed insurrection north of the Potomac, or east of the Chasapeake. [sic]  Also, we have a footing at each of the isolated points on the Southern coasts, on Hatteras, Port Royal, Tybee Island, near Savannah, and Ship Island, and we likewise have some general accounts of popular movements in behalf of the Union in North Carolina and Tennessee.

These things demonstrate that the cause of the Union is advancing steadily Southward.  Since your last adjournment Lieutenant Gen. Scott has retired from the head of the army.  During his long life the nation has not been unmindful of his merits, yet on calling to mind how faithfully, ably and brilliantly he
[[/column 2]]

[[column 3]]
has served the country in times far back in our history, when few of the now living had been born, and thenceforward continually, I cannot but think that we are still his debtors.  I submit therefore for your consideraiton [sic] what further mark of recognition is due to him, and ourselves as a grateful people.  With the retirement of Gen. Scott, came the executive duty of appointing in his stead a General in charge of the army.

It is a fortunate circumstance that neither in council nor country was there, so far as I know, any difference of opinion as to the proper person to be selected.  The retiring Chief repeatedly expressed his judgment in favor of Gen. McClellan, for the position, and in this the nation seems to give a unanimous concurrence.

The designation of Gen. McClellan is, in a considerable degree, the selection of the country, as well as the executive, and hence there is better reason to hope there will be given him confidence and cordial support, thus by fair implication promised, and without which we cannot, with so full efficiency, serve the country.

It has been said, that "one bad general is better than two good ones," and the saying is true if taken to mean no more than that an army is better directed by a single mind, though inferior, than by two superior, which are at variance and cross purposes.

And the same is true in all joint operations wherein those engaged can have none but a common end in view, and can differ only as to the choice of means.  In a storm at sea no one can wish the ship to sink, and yet not unfrequently all go down together because too many will direct, and no single mind can be allowed to control.

It continues to develop that the insurrection is largely if not exclusively a war upon the first principles of popular government——the rights of the people.  Conclusive evidence of this is found in the most grave and maturely considered public documents, as well as in the general tone of the insurgents.

In these documents we find the abridgment of the existing right of suffrage and the denial to the people to participate in the solution of public affairs, except the Legislative body, advocated with labored argument to prove that a large control of the government in the people is the source of political evil; monarchy itself is sometimes hinted at as the possible refuge from the power of the people.

In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returing [sic] despotism.  It is not needed nor fitting here, that a general argument should be made to favor popular institutions, but there is one point with its connections not so hackneyed as most others to which I ask a brief attention.

It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above labor in the structure of government.  It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital, that nobody labors unless somebody else owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor.

This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent.

Having proved so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves, and further, it is assumed that whosoever is once a bound laborer is fixed in that condition for life.  Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed; nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer.

Both of these assumptions are false and all inferences from them are groundless.  Labor is prior to and independent of capital.  Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.——Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration.  Capital has its rights which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.

Nor is it deemed that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between capital and labor, producing equal benefits.  The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation.  A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital
[[/column 3]]