View Document Frames
"General Harrison and His Views on Slavery,"
Charleston Courier, 11 Jan. 1840.
We give place, this morning, to the communication of “A Whig,” in vindication of
Gen. HARRISON’s views and course, on the subject of slavery, and exercise the privilege
of giving it the company of our own comments. The space thus occupied will not be
unprofitably used, for we deem it of much importance the Gen. HARRISON’s true position
on this momentous question should be fully defined and extensively known. No one
would rejoice more sincerely than we should do to see Gen. HARRISON clear his skirts
of the abolitionists, as boldly and fearlessly as Mr. VAN BUREN has done, and so
far at least put himself on a footing of equal competition with that gentleman for
the high object of their common ambition. We confess, however, that we are not satisfied
with Gen. HARRISON’s present attitude. It is true that, on the Missouri question,
he made a noble stand and suffered a temporary political martyrdom, in the cause
of the South; but still he has subsequently uttered sentiments and avowed doctrines
“justly exceptionable to the South;” and his course during the last canvass for the
Presidency, was, to say the least, suspicious. Gen. HARRISON declared as late
as 1833, after the fiend like spirit of abolitionism had begun to plot mischief against
the South, that he believed in the constitutional power of Congress, with the assent
of the slaveholding States, to appropriate the whole surplus revenue to the accomplishment
of emancipation and colonization, that his heart was deeply interested in
this project, and that its zealous prosecution would at no distant day eradicate
slavery from the land. We cannot think one entertaining such a view of the Constitution,
and animated by such zeal against slavery, a fit person, in these times, to be called
to the Presidency of the Union. But in addition to this, Gen. HARRISON refused or
at least neglected to respond to letters publicly addressed to him, on the
eve of the late election for the Presidency, calling for such a disclosure of his
sentiments on abolition in the District of Colombia and on slavery generally, as
Mr. VAN BUREN had freely given in answer to like applications. Mr. VAN BUREN’s answer
exposed him to the hostility and wrath of the great body of the abolitionists, and
Gen. HARRISON’s policy in declining to answer secured him the preference of the fanatic
crew. This at least justifies the suspicion that Gen. HARRISON forbore to speak out
his honest sentiments, because the expression of them would have given offence either
to the South or to the abolitionists. Take either alternative as the key to his silence,
and his course was “justly exceptionable to the South.” We are prepared, for our
part, to go the whole and say that any candidate for the Presidency, who will not
disclaim all community of doctrine and sentiment with the abolitionists, should never
receive a single Southern vote. Neutrality, in this period of peril to Southern rights
and institutions, will not answer--he that is not openly for us should be deemed
against us, and be dealt with accordingly.
Our correspondent is mistaken, however, in supposing that we ever “pronounced Gen.
H. in unequivocal terms an abolitionist”-on the occasion of his recent nomination
by the Whig party for the Presidency, we merely imputed to him “expressed and unrecanted
opinions, justly exceptionable to the South,” and what those opinions were we subsequently
explained, in our reply to an article in the Richmond Whig, wherein we cited a very
exceptionable extract from Gen. HARRISON’s Cheviot oration as the justification of
our remark.
The parallel attempted by our correspondent between views of Gen. H. and those of
Mr. JEFFERSON, and PATRICK HENRY, is signally unsuccessful. The opinions of those
distinguished men were uttered long before any effort was made, by fanatic interference,
to invade the rights of the South and disturb the harmony of the Union-were they
alive now none would be more zealous and stern than they in standing up for the rights
of the injured and insulted South, without one jot or tittle of abatement. Gen. HARRISON's
opinions belong to another era, and are, therefore to be tried by a different standard.
Our correspondent is also in error in saying that we declared Gen. HARRISON's "doctrines"
to be "sound" on the subject of abolition--we merely said that his Cheviot
speech contained much sound doctrine in relation to the constitutional inviolability
of slavery in the several States"-what his present views on abolition
may be, we should like to learn, not from the report of others, but under his own
sign manual. If, as our correspondent asserts, his views on the subject are so sound
as to have called forth the thanks of as assemblage of Virginia slave holders, whom
he addressed, in 1836, let him make them palpable to the vision of the whole country,
and give absolute certainty to what is now a subject of controversy. We are fully
aware that the abolitionists, growing fiercer and fiercer in their reckless and impious
fanaticism, are beginning to launch forth denunciations against Gen. H., and desire
to run candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, who are in full fellowship
and communion with themselves. Is it then asking too much of Gen. H. that he shall
come out like a man and a patriot, and put an end to all doubt and question as to
his position on this momentous subject? Let our correspondent himself address the
letter to Gen. H., which is to herald the proclamation of that worthy veteran's sound
constitutional views on the subject of slavery and abolition to our whole republic.
He may rest assured that we shall publish both the letter and the reply, and with
the most hearty gratification if the latter should go the whole for the South.
Our correspondent has not been satisfied with defending his political favorite, but
has carried the war into the enemy's country, and arrayed against the present incumbent
of the Presidency certain state charges, with the fruitless repetition of which he
seems never wearied. What if Mr. VAN BUREN did favor the Missouri restriction, he
has made ample and satisfactory atonement for his error then, by the firmness and
boldness with which he has since planted himself on the platform of the constitution,
and done battle at every hazard in behalf of the cherished rights and interests of
the South. But it is not correct that even on the Missouri question Mr.V.B. "exerted
himself to the utmost" against the South--on the contrary, he refused to sanction
the extreme measures advocated by the restrictionists and soon severed all connection
with them. The allegation that he voted, in 1821, "to give free negroes the
right of suffrage is uncandid--the constitution of New York already conferred that
right, and Mr. Van Buren, while opposed to revoking it, yet voted in favor of annexing
to it a property qualification, which resulted in restricting its exercise to a very
limited number of that class of persons.
Our correspondent alleges that Mr. Van Buren believes in the Constitutionality of
abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, but neglects to add that Mr. Van
Buren also declared that he believed the obligation to resist such a measure to be
as imperative as if written in the constitution and that he would be its inflexible
and uncompromising opponent.
Our correspondent's concluding allusion to Mr. Van Buren's vote in favor of the tariff
of 1828, is rather an unfortunate one for his cause and his favorite candidate, for
there is no point on which the latter is more vulnerable. Mr. Van Buren did vote
for the tariff of 1828 in obedience to instructions from the New York legislature,
although opposed to the measure himself--a practice, however much to be deplored
as inconsistent with Senatorial independence, and at war with the spirit of the Constitution,
yet honored in the observance by many of the most distinguished men of past and present
times. The assertion, often made that Mr. Van Buren proceeded these instructions,
has never been proved and may well be regarded as a party calumny.
But now stands the tariff account between Gen. H. and Mr. Van Buren. The latter is
now at the head of the party which is opposed to a high tariff on imports, the former
at the head of the party which favors that measure, and so great has been the zeal
in its advocacy that he once declared he would adhere to the tariff policy "though
it would cause grass to grow in the streets of Norfolk and Charleston"!!
By way of convincing our correspondent of the fairness of our intention towards Gen.
H., whom we really respect for his long course of honorable and faithful public service,
for his gallant exploits in his Indian Campaigns and during the last war with Great
Britain, and for his sterling integrity, we subjoin our comments on Gen. H.['s] Cheviot
speech, from the Courier of October 1835, in which are included all
of the extracts from that speech which we have it in our power to produce. If our
correspondent will furnish any more, we will endeavor to make room for them.
[From the Courier of Oct. 3, 1835]
Gen. Harrison.-- This gallant officer and estimable citizen, is now much talked
of as a candidate for the Presidency, and it is therefore proper that the people
of the South should be acquainted with his views on the question, which most vitally
affects their interests. The large share of glory, which the General won during the
last war, in defending our Northwestern frontier from the British and Indian incursions,
has always made us regard him with favor and affection; but we are compelled to say
that he entertains sentiments which, unless thoroughly revolutionized, must forever
exclude him from the remotest chance of obtaining Southern votes for the Presidency.
We received, a few days since, the Harrisburg, (Penn.) Intelligencer, which
flies the Harrison flag, re-publishing from the Richmond Whig of
Aug. 22d, and extract of a 4th of July Oration, delivered by Gen. Harrison, at Cheviot,
Ohio, in 1833, and requesting us to notice it. This speech it is true, is very decided
on the principle; that the U.S. Constitution recognizes the exclusive right
of the slaveholding States to manage the institution and subject of slavery in their
own way; and that it inhibits all interference on the part of other States or
citizens thereof. It also admits that a dissolution of the Union would be the natural
and necessary result of such interference; and condemns the measure of the Abolitionists
as wrong every way, and calculated to involve all classes concerned in the most dire
calamities; and contains sound views on the general question of emancipation. In
the following passage, which we select from a desire to do ample justice to the General,
even the right of discussing the subject in the non-slaveholding States is patriotically
denounced:--
"If I am correct in the principles here advanced I support my assertion, that
the discussion on the subject of emancipation, in the non-slave-holding States, is
equally injurious to the slaves and to their masters, and that it has no sanction
in the principles of the Constitution. I must not be understood to say that there
is any thing in that instrument which prohibits discussion. I know there is not--But
the man who believes that the claims which his fellow citizens have upon him, are
satisfied by adhering to the letter of the political contract that connects
them, must have a very imperfect knowledge of the principles upon which our glorious
Union was formed, and by which alone it can be maintained--I mean those feelings
of regard and affection which were manifested in the first dawn of the Revolution,
which induced every American to think that an injury inflicted upon his fellow citizens,
however distant his location, was an injury to himself--made us, in effect, one people
before we had any paper contract, which induced the venerable Shelby, in the second
war for independence, to leave the comforts which his age required, to encounter
the danger and privations incident to a wilderness war--which drew from the same
quarter the innumerable battalions of volunteers which preceded and followed him;
from the banks of the distant Appomattox, that band of youthful heroes which has
immortalized the appellation by which it was distinguished.
"These worthy sons of immortal sires, did not stop to inquire into the alleged
injustice and immorality of the Indian war; it was sufficient for them to learn that
their fellow citizens were in danger, that the tomahawks and scalping knife were
suspended over the heads of the women and children of Ohio, to induce them to abandon
the ease, and in many instances, the luxury and splendor, by which, from infancy
they had been surrounded, to encounter the fatigues and dangers of a war, amid the
horrors of a Canadian winter."
After the expression of so many correct and salutary views, in a manner, too, calculated
to call from the South a grateful response, it is with unfeigned regret, that we
find the following passage in the General's oration, which although again sound in
the conclusion, contains in its commencement, an assertion of the dangerous right,
and a warm desire of its exercise, on the part of Congress, with the assent of
the Slave-holding States, "to appropriate the whole of the surplus revenue,"
to the cause of emancipation! This is indeed sufficient leaven, although small in
quantity, to leaven the whole lump--and the General must recant, or bid farewell,
a long farewell, to Southern votes. It is evident that Congress must derive all its
rights from the Constitution alone, and can acquire no authority whatever, even from
the assent of the slave-holding States. The principle then of even the species of
interference, which Gen. HARRISON holds so near his heart, obviously
involves the constitutional right of Congress to act on the subject in the
specific way proposed--and if so, nothing but expediency (a sorry dependence)
stands in the way of action without the assent on the slave-holding States.
The doctrine is a most dangerous one; and no one can expect Southern favor, who does
not effectually and for ever wash his hands of it. We now give the extract, repeating
our sorrow, that there should be so unsightly and so foul a blot on so much excellence.
"Should I be asked, if there is no way by which the Gen'l. Government can aid
the cause of emancipation? I answer that it has been an object near my heart, to
see the whole of its surplus revenue appropriated to that object. With the sanction
of the States holding the slaves, there appears to me to be no constitutional objection
to its being thus applied embracing not only the colonization of those that may be
otherwise freed, but the purchase of the freedom of others. By a zealous prosecution
of a plan formed upon that basis, we might look forward to a day not very distant,
when a North American sun would not look down upon a slave. To those who have rejected
the plan of colonization, I would ask, if they have well weighed the consequences
of emancipation without it? How long would the emancipated negroes remain satisfied
with that?--Would any of the Southern States then (the negroes armed and organized)
be able to resist their claims to a participation in all their political rights?
Would it even stop there? Would they not claim admittance to all the social rights
and privileges of a community, in which, in some instances, they would compose the
majority? Let those that take pleasure in the contemplation of such scenes as must
inevitably follow, finish out the picture."
FOR THE COURIER
Messrs. Editors--- As a friend of General HARRISON, I was pleased with your
late remarks in reply to the Richmond Whig. On the receipt of his nomination, If
I mistake not, you pronounced him in unequivocal terms an abolitionist. It now appears
from your own shewing, that instead of being an abolitionist, his “doctrines”
are “sound” on that subject, and that he has even reprobated the utter
recklessness of the fanatics.
Now with all deference, it appears to me, out of fairness to the General, you should
have published in connection with the extract you have quoted, that portion of the
Oration, which you consider “sound doctrine” and which you appear pleased
with. Your readers in that case would have been better able to judge of the fairness
of your intention.
The fact, however, that Gen. H. believes in “the constitutional inviability of
slavery in the States” is all we should care for,--his abstract views
are unimportant.
If, Gen. HARRISON, must be considered an abolitionist for the reason you have assigned,
THOMAS JEFFERSON, and PATRICK HENRY, were abolitionists also. The former in a letter,
on Colonization, said--Having long ago made up my mind on this subject,
I have no hesitation in saying that, I have even thought that the most desirable
measure which could be adopted for gradually drawing off this part of our population
most advantageously for themselves, as well as for us, and then continues--”Indeed,
nothing is more to be wished, than the UNITED STATES would themselves undertake
to make such an establishment” that is procure in Africa an Asylum for them.
PATRICK HENRY said “I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that
every one of my fellow-beings was emancipated” and, yet it is notorious that
he was opposed to abolitionism--as was Mr. JEFFERSON.
I have again and again, (I have no doubt, so have you,) heard as strong declarations
as these, made by men, who repudiate Abolitionism as much as you and I do. In the
abstract they were opposed to slavery--altho’ large slaveholders, and would
lay down their lives in defence of that institution.
Gen. HARRISON in his oration took occasion to combat fanaticism, and show
its evil effects, and, at the same time convince the people of the constitutional
rights of the slave holding States. It is a well known fact, he has done more to
check the progress of Abolitionism in Indiana and Ohio, than any man living. The
writer of this article has heard his denunciations from his own lips, while
on a visit, in 1836, to his native State and District. He addressed a large assemblage
of slave holders, he embraced the opportunity to make known his sentiments
on the subject of slavery, and after he closed his remarks, he received the thanks
of the people for his [?] views on that subject. Upon that public avowal
the Whig central committee put forth an address, wherein, the people of Virginia
were assured “that he is sound to the core on the subject of slavery.”
Mr. PROFFIT, from Indiana, in Congress, the other day, declared the charge of Gen.
H’s being an abolitionist, a base calumny. The Alexandria Gazette, a few days
since, says we are authorized to deny the charge of abolitionism against Gen. HARRISON.
Do you believe Messrs. EDITORS, that Mr. VAN BUREN, is more orthodox in his
views on Slavery than Gen. H? Admit they stand upon the same platform in their
abstract views on that subject, can we place them in the same position, in a
Constitutional point of view o the same subject? How was it in regard to the admission
of Missouri? It was an awful crisis, an important principle was to be decided.
Gen. H. was in Congress from Ohio, a powerful state and one decidedly opposed to
the settling that principle in favor of Southern rights. As her representative,
regardless of her opinion or his own popularity, he stood firmly in favor of what
he deemed right and voted with the South. Mr. VAN BUREN was opposed to the south
and exerted himself to the utmost to thwart her views and wishes. He believes in
the constitutionality of abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia. He voted
in 1822 in favor of restricting the introduction of Slavery into Florida. In 1821
he voted to give free Negroes the right of suffrage.
To balance all of those acts, he has said, if Congress should pass a law
abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia he would veto the bill. When he made
that declaration, he perfectly well knew he would not be called upon to exercise
that prerogative.
A WHIG.
