ON
o~alr  and th  Eltiot,
BY
NATHAN APPLETON,
01O BOSTON, MASS.
B 0 S T 0 (N:
1860.
J. H. EASTBURNIS PRESS.
I
If
lo
i l
i i
I 
I
1 
i I
11i
.' 
l  
L]T'[IR
TO THE
HON. WM. C. RIVES,
OF VIRGINIA,
ON
ilart, aund thc 4non,
BY
NATHAN APPLETON,
OF BOSTON, MASS.
BOSTON:
1860.
J. H. EASTBURN'S PRESS. 
GENIAL IBRARY
/.R- 3
LETTER.
My Dear Sir,
I have read with great satisfaction your
letter published in the Richmond Whig, on " The
Present Crisis and the Value of the Union." Agreeing
with you that it is the duty of every good citizen, so far
as may lay in his power, to allay the existing excite ment, and to endeavor to bring us back to that state of
fraternal feeling under which the North and the South
mutually shed their blood to bring this nation into
existence, and which for so many years harmonized
in its unparalleled prosperity, I address this letter to
you, and through you, to the public.
I have, for many years, been retired from an active
participation in public affairs, but have not been unobservant of the course of events; and, drawing to the
close of a long life, can have no motive but to leave
to my children the blessings of a free and stable
government, which I have myself so long enjoyed.
The present is a period of alarm  and excitement
greater than we have heretofore witnessed. The
North and the South appear in all but hostile array
against each other, and all growing out of the subject.,,.
of Slavery. 
4
A short review of the causes which have led to
this state of things will not be out of place, and will,
I think, show that there have been faults on both sides.
The first aggression was made  by the North, or
rather by a few individuals residing in the North.
About the year 1830, a very few persons, under the
lead of William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips,
formed themselves into an Abolition Society, denouncing and repudiating the Constitution of the United
States, in as much as it recognized the existence of
Slavery.  At home this movement excited little attention: the few individuals comprised in it-were considered unfortunate fanatical monomaniacs-rather the
objects of pity, than of any other feeling. But they
published inflammatory pamphlets, which were sent
into the South evidently with the intention of acting
upon the slaves. This naturally excited the indignation of the South, but it was difficult to p)oint out any
remedy. So absolutely free are we in speech and in
the press, that we leave false opinions to be refuted
by true ones. But this did not meet the evils of the
present case. The South had no course but to take
the remedy into their own hands; they took measures
to prevent the circulationi of their tracts, but not
without much irritation.
In 1840, the slaves in the British West Indies were
made free, with a compensation to the planters, of
twenty millions sterling. This event excited a strong
desire amongst a certain class of philanthropists, that
we should do the same thing; except, indeed, in — the 
compensation, which I believe was never mentioned.
In this movement a number of the clergy took an
active part, especially stimulated to  do  this by a
portion of the clergy in England, mostly amongst
the dissenters, who proclaimed Slavery to be a sin
against God. The more sober.part of the community
were of the opinion that Slavery is a political institution, and not within the province of the clergy in
their character of teachers of religion. As it does
not exist amongst us, it was regretted that instead
of reforming our own lives, they should b9 discussing
the sins of distant communities. Sin is a matter which
rests between the individual and his Maker, and in
doubtful cases like this had better be left there. Who
constituted weak fallible man the judge and avenger
of wrongs done to the infinite Creator?  We  of the
North consider Slavery a social evil; but I think the
regret has been general, that the subject has been so
mingled with religion. Slavery has been denounced
as an evil which must be abated at all events, but
no one has undertaken to show how it can be done.
Nor can he.  Omnipotence  alone  can do it.  Man
cannot. - The example of England, in the emancipation
of her Colonies, has no bearing on the question with us.
There is no resemblance in the two cases which makes
it practicable, or even possible, in most of our Slave
States.
The next important movement took place on the
part of the South, in 1848.  Up to this period it was
held that Slavery was an institution of the individual
5' 
6
States, with which Congress had nothing to do.  But
it was now discovered that the Constitution gives to
the slave a character as property which was never
before dreamed of  The first practical demonstration
took place on the meeting of Congress in December
1849, when six of the Southern Whigs defeated the
election of Mr. Winthrop, as Speaker.  I cannot put
my own view of the matter in a stronger light than
is contained in the following extracts from a letter
which I wrote on the 22d December, 1849, to my
friend, the HIon. Mr. H, of Alabama, one of thesix, in reply to one from him explanatory of his course.
"I regretted Mr. Toombs introducing his Resolutions
into the Whig Caucus, as ill-timed, and to a certain
extent, improper.    *    *    *    I am under deep
apprehension about this Southern excitement, and I
am as much surprised as alarmed at its existence.
I read Mr. Berrien's Speech in the Senate in 1848,
advocating the right to hold slaves in the new Terri.tories, under the Constitution of the United States,'
with attention and regret.  He argued the matterwith
great ingenuity and ability, but I could not possibly
adopt his conclusions.  The whole argument appeared
to me a rare example of legal subtlety opposed to
plain common-sense. This claim of legal right is now
further enforced  by the additional discovery, that
Southern honor is involved in the right to establish
Slavery as a personal matter, affecting personal rights
and personal honor in regard to every individual 
residing in the Slave States. Such an appeal excites
the most powerful feelings and passions of our nature,
and under their influence, in an individual or a
community, the most unhappy consequences may be
apprehended.
"As a practical question, there seems to be nothing
of any importance to quarrel about. There seems to
be no part of the new territory suited to the productions on which alone slaves can be profitably employed.
In their present condition, there is no law by which the
master can hold his slave. It would seem'too. hazardous an adventure to carry slaves into a region where
they could walk off without remedy, except by Lynch
law, which would probably take their side. No one
can suppose that Congress will ever pass a law establishing Slavery where it does not exist; and yet, I do
not see but what the claim of the South to the right
to enjoy the new conquests with their slaves, would
make it as imperative on Congress to protect them in
this right, as it is objectionable for Congress to prohibit
Slavery in them.  With every disposition to protect
the rights of the South as secured by the Constitution,
I cannot bring my mind to the - Southern view of the
right or the honor involved in the case.  Suppose
Slavery prohibited in all the new Territories,-the
prohibition extends to all citizens of the United States.
Northern men  go into the South and hold slaves.
Southern men move into the Free States. There
seems nothing in the fact of a man being born or
living in a certain latitude, which makes a slave a
pi 
8
natural or necessary appendage to him, or which gives
him rights not belonging to one born further north,
any further than -the local law extends.  The South
elaims the right to carry slaves into the Territories,
under the general right of every citizen to carry his
property.  The North objects to slaves, because they
are persons, only held as property by a tenure unknown
in respect to all other property, the law of force. All
our institutions and rights, with this exception, rest on
consent-mutual agreement.  Slavery is either an evil
-or a good.  Supposing it to be an evil, the natives of
the South will escape it and be benefited by removing
into Territories where it is prohibited.  Supposing
Slavery to be a good, the citizen of the North is
injured by the prohibition, as well as the citizen of
the South.  Opinions on this matter may vary with
the latitude, but the principle  is the same.   The
Wilmot Proviso appears to me little but an abstraction, a bugbear, a nonentity, wholly unworthy to
excite the North or the South to threats of disunion.
It affects to prevent what without it cannot by any
possibility be done, but which may nevertheless be
done whenever the new States choose, the Proviso
notwithstanding.
"There is one circumstance which seems to make this
claim of the South, for the further extension of Slave
Territory, very unreasonable. The white population
of the Slave States is less than one-half that of the
-Free States: Whilst the territory embraced in the
Slave States is more than double that of the Free 
9
States; that is to say, the proportion of land to each
individual is four times greater in the Slave than in
the Free States. There is no ground, therefore, for
saying, on the part of the South, that they are
cramped and short of room for expansion.
"So far as I can look on the matter, I cannot see in the
Wilmot Proviso the dishonor or oppression to the South
which so much excites them. Neither can I see in it
any such boon or good to the North which should make
them willing for it to disturb the peace of the Union.
"Is this glorious Union to be shaken by mere apprehension of evil? The excitement of the South, showing
itself in concerted action, gives me great alarm. It
looks to me as if there were ruling spirits who look to
disunion as a good; as likely to afford more security
to slave property than exists under the present goverlment. It is, I think, a great mistake. I have little
fear of an actual dismemberment of the Union. There
are difficulties about a peaceable separation which will,
I think, be found insuperable. But collision, and even
bloodshed, are very ready to happen under such excitement, as seems now to be lashing itself up for action.
What might follow such a collision, no mortal can foresee. It is, I think, the duty of every good citizen to
do all in his power to prevent any such catastrophe,
and to adopt for his motto,'The Union must be preserved.'  I have extended this letter further than I had
any idea of doing when I began it. You will agree
with me, I am sure, in attachment to the Union, and I
trust in the sentiment with which I subscribe myself,
very sincerely, your friend."
2 
10
Whether my reasoning was right or wrong, my
apprehensions were but too well founded. The excite
ment on the Slavery question rapidly increased; when,
through the exertions of Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster, in
1850, what was called the Compromise was carried
through Congress, affording additional security for the
return of fugitive slaves, and admitting California as a
Free State. This Compromise seemed to promise an
end to the Slavery agitation. There were discontented
spirits, but the masses in Massachusetts and New
England, and apparently through all the Free States,
were satisfied and content-in a state of perfect repose.
The South also appeared content, with the exception
of South Carolina.
In an evil hour this happy state of things was
disturbed by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise,
and the introduction of the Kansas Nebraska Bill
into Congress, in support of which a majority of
the Southern Whigs were induced to join. It was
a fatal measure. It roused and alarmed the whole
North. It annihilated the great conservative Whig
Party, whilst it weakened and crippled the Democratic Party of the North. The Free Soil Party,
under the new name of Republican, was recruited and
improved by conservative men of both parties, but not
in sufficient numbers to control their measures. On
the contrary, it enabled the Abolitionists proper to
renew their denunciations of Slavery in the abstract,
and to call together listening crowds of ultra philanthropists. It is not surprising that in this state of
excitement, some legislative measures were adopted 
11
which cannot be justified under the Constitution, but
will yield to a sober second thought, because they are
not the result of any disloyalty to the Union and the
Constitution, but the natural reaction of what was
considered a Southern aggression.
As the last incident, a man of some character, but
of a disordered intellect, John Brown, attempts to
excite a slave insurrection in Virginia. He was guilty
of treason and murder, for which he justly suffered
the penalty of the law. Some rabid Abolitionists and
fanatical philanthropists undertook, even in,Boston, to
glorify him as a martyr. Sober men witnessed this
exhibition of folly with silent contempt and disgust,
until they found that this silence was, in the South,
construed into approval. They then called the meeting in Faneuil Hall, which showed the real feeling of
the community, sound, and strong for the Union and
the Constitution.
In the meantime, the cry of disunion and secession is
raised in certain States of the South. South Carolina
sends a distinguished ambassador to your State of
Virginia, in order to induce her to send delegates to a
Southern Convention, probably thinking the excitement growing out of the attempt at Harper's Ferry
presented an opportunity favorable to the adoption
of her favorite measure.
The first idea of secession from the Union was started
by South Carolina, in 1831. The pretext was the
Tariff of 1828. This was called the bill of abomintions, and was in some sense rightly named, inasmuch
as its opponents adopted the dangerous expedient of 
12
making it as bad as possible, in the hopes of thereby
defeating it. In 1832, a new tariff was to be made
in order to reduce the revenue, after the payment of
the national debt. After a long and full discussion,
the Tariff of 1832 was passed by an unprecedented
majority-132 to 65 in the House of Representatives;
about one-half of the majority consisting of the Democratic Party, including the names of James K. Polk,
Cave Johnson, G. C. Verplank, C. C. Cambreling, &c.
This bill was framed on the principle of raising the
necessary revenue, by adjusting the duties on imports,
with a view to afford protection to our domestic industry. But this did not suit South Carolina. She had
already put herself in the attitude of armed resistance
to the revenue laws of the United States. Mr. McDuffie
had persuaded her to adopt the theory of which he
claimed to be the discoverer, that a duty laid nominally
on imports was in fact really a tax upon the exports
of a country; and inasmuch as the South furnished
most of the exports of the United States, the great
burden of the tax fell upon them. He was allowed to
embody this theory in an elaborate report of the
Committee of Ways and Means, accompanied by a
bill reducing all duties to a horizontal level of 12Y.
per cent. He rested his claim for the South solely on
the truth of his new theory, admitting expressly that
if the tax fell upon the consumers of the commodities
imported, the South had no ground of complaint. It
was under these circumstances that South Carolina
was prepared to leave the Union by force, in 1832, 
13
when General Jackson, in November, issued his famous
proclamation, preparing to meet force by force.  This
was a staggerer.  However, on the meeting of the 22d
Congress, at their second session, General Jackson, in
his Message, took ground against the Tariff of 1832
and the protective system. The ground assigned was
that it would produce too much revenue, more than
was proposed in a bill prepared by Mr. McLane,
Secretary of the Treasury. This, in fact, was not
true, as was proved in a Document, (47, 2d sess. 22d
Congress). But the mere dictum of General Jackson
was sufficient to induce the whole of the Democratic
Party to eat their own words of the previous session,
and sustain Mr. Yerplank's anti-protective bill; but
without success. After a violent struggle, that bill was
abandoned, and Mr. Clay's Compromise accepted and
adopted. This was postponing the evil day until
1841-42. South Carolina claimed it as a victory,
and justly, and also postponed her military preparations. I was a member of this 22d Congress, and
came to the deliberate conclusion, that whilst South
Carolina put forward her view of the Tariff as the
ground of complaint, her real object was separation,
for separation sake, and the formation of a Southern
Confederacy, of which Charleston would be the metropolitan city. This opinion I still entertain, and find it
has been adopted and held by those best qualified to
form a correct opinion in the matter. The leading
motive no doubt was the belief that slave property
would be safer from aggression-not unmingled with 
14
something of personal ambition. This desire for seces.
sion and separation has evidently continued her leading
object to the present day. This is the key to her
various demonstrations, especially to Virginia, to which
you allude. Without Virginia she can do nothing.
Virginia stands as the great bulwark of the Unionthe keystone of our national arch. This idea of a
Southern Confederacy has evidently made some converts in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.
I have thus endeavored to give a fair view of the
course of events which have brought about the present
unhappy state of feeling. I now proceed to present
some views of a practical common-sense character,
which appear to me to commend themselves as standing on a basis which cannot be shaken. I say to the
North, to the Free States, why agitate or discuss at all
the question of Slavery? There are four millions of
negro slaves in certain States of the Union, with about
seven millions of whites. Between the two races
there is an impassable gulf which makes amalgamation or absorption impossible. So strong is this antagonism of race, that many of the Free States pass the
most stringent laws, in order to keep free negroes out
of their borders, considering them a public nuisance.
No sane man can possibly believe that these eleven
millions can live together with equal rights, under our
institutions. As to emigration, that is equally out of
the question. It is utterly inadequate, if desirable.
It is not easy to point out where they would be better
off. It is doubtful if it would be in any of the West 
15 
a -
India Islands, under their new system of Coolies.
Certainly not ini Canada, where they are not wanted,
and where they are miserable. Then there is the
question of property, to an amount of thousands of
millions of dollars. This to be sure is nothing to a
thorough-going Abolitionist, who scouts the idea of
making man a chattel. The political economist however, knows that all property is the creature of legislation. Any thing is property which the law makes so.
Slaves are therefore property in the Slave States, and
we of the Free States have nothing to do with the
question. Can any man of common-sense suppose
such an amount of property can be abandoned, or
annihilated? Slavery has died out when slaves cease
to have value, and not before. Where there has been
unity of race, they have been absorbed, but with us
that is impossible. All attempts of the North therefore,
to affect the state of Slavery in the South, are utterly
idle and futile. Doubtless some improvement may be
made in the treatment of slaves; but this had best be
left to the parties interested. All pressure from without is hateful and unjustifiable.
To the South I would say, why continue this useless
agitation upon mere abstractions? you have possession
of all the territory in which slave labor can be profitably employed, and large enough to allow its expansion
for many generations. Why trouble yourselves about
slavery in the territories to which it is not suited?
Why claim or expect an equality of political power
-sectionally, when your white population is less than 
16
half that of the Free States, with the proportion
constantly increasing by foreign emigration? Why
threaten disunion unless you can control the presidential election?  Your true palladium is the Constitution
of the United States. This is your ark of safety. On
full and calm consideration, the united North will feel
as little inclination as they have power to trouble themselves with your Institution. Why talk of disunion?
A peaceable separation is impossible. No sane man
can think it otherwise. A Southern Confederacy must
of necessity be confined to the territory east of the
Mississippi. The great West will never consent to
give up the possession of that river as their highway,
nor New Orleans as their great market. Who will
consent to be the border States, where a new set of
abolitionists may set up the business of enticing runaways or exciting insurrection, without remedy? A
civil war, or a servile war, may be easily brought
about, under excited passions; but a peaceable division
of this glorious Union, a voluntary disruption of a
great nation, appears to me utterly impossible; as
impossible as is the abolition of Slavery. If I am
right in my conclusions, there is in reality nothing
between the North and the South to quarrel about. The
idea that there is an irrepressible conflict between the
Free States and the Slave States, is simply absurd and
untrue. There is no antagonism between slave labor
and free labor, as respects the States. If there is any
such antagonism at all, it can only be in those States
where the two systems prevail together. This can be 
17
no cause for ill blood in the North. If this state of
things exist in the South, it would furnish a good
argument why they should join the North in wishing
for protection to our own industry, in order to bring
their white labor into action. The actual condition
of the North and the South, in their natural productions, is most favorable to a trade and intercourse
mutually advantageous and agreeable. The present
estrangement, on the abstract question, is as unnatural
as it is unchristian. That mutual interest and mutual
good-will may resume their natural fimnctionis throughout the nation, is the sentiment with which I subscribe
myself, vith great regard,
Your friend and very ob't serv't,
NATHAN APPLETON.
'Boston,  12tlb ai ch, 1860.
HON. WM. C. RIVES. 
I