Republican Landmarks

The attempt now making to revive the Republican party on an extra-constitutional platform which contemplates the erasure of a large number of stars from the National flag, makes this a fitting time for considering how far such an attempt is justified by the antecedents of the Republican party or the principles on which it was brought into power.  We will not measure the new creed by the standard of the Convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln, at Chicago.  The Chicago platform was a compromise, in which “advanced” Republicans, like Mr. Greeley, were willing to soften their more radical views in order to conciliate conservative voters.  A truer exposition of the aims of the Republican party is found in the speeches of the recognized leaders who furnished it with ideas, gave impulse and vitality to its movements, and infused into it the courage by which after ten years’ effort, it won its great national triumph.

Among these leaders Mr. Seward held the foremost rank, both in fact and in estimation of the party.  There was no Republican statesman with half his brains and accomplishments that had hodld of his political intrepidity.  During the long struggle of the party for existence and power, Seward boldly led where but few had the courage to follow.  Nobody can have forgotten the storm of obloquy that was raised by his famous “higher law” speech in the Senate.  The offensive doctrines of that speech were almost the sole stock in trade of the opponents of the Republican party, until they were again startled and shocked by the celebrated “irrepressible conflict” speech, delivered on the stump at Rochester in the autumn of 1858.  We may safely take these memorable speeches, which have made such a great figure in the political history of the last decade, as the most advanced landmarks of the most daring and aggressive Republicanism.

If it has been deemed expedient, during the progress of this war to sink even the Chicago platform out of sight, what shall be said of an attempt to revive the Republican party on principles beside which the “higher law” speech and the “irrepressible conflict” speech “pale their ineffectual fires?”

These were both emancipation speeches; but they were both fundamentally wrong, or else emancipation is possible without any such extra-constitutional resorts as Mr. Sumner and his coadjutors now propose.  Both of those noted speeches, though accepted with applause by radical anti-slavery men, were fundamentally wrong, or else emancipation is not even desirable by the sudden, violent, destructive methods which a few men are now found to advocate. – In the “higher law” speech, Mr. Seward in language of which time is already vindicating the wisdom, and will more fully vindicate it with the progress of events, said:

“It seems to me that all our difficulties, embarrassments, and dangers, arise, not out of perversions of the question of slavery, as some suppose, but from the want of moral courage to meet THIS QUESTION OF EMANCIPATION as we ought.  Consequently, we hear on one side demands – absurd, indeed, but yet unceasing – for an immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery; as if any power except the people of the Slave States could abolish it, and as if they could be moved to abolish it  BY MERELY SOUNDING THE TRUMPET LOUDLY, AND PROCLAMIMING EMANCIPATION, WHILE THE INSTITUTION IS INTERWOVEN WITH ALL THEIR SOCIAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS, CONSTITUTIONS, AND CUSTOMS.”

On the other hand Mr. Seward declared that he equally disapproved of the views of our statesmen who say that slavery has always existed, and only GOD can indicate the way to remove it:

“Here, then,” he said, “is my point of separation from both these parties.  I feel assured that slavery will give way, and must give way TO SALUTARY INSTRUCTIONS OF ECONOMY AND TO THE RIPENING INFLUENCES OF HUMANITY; THAT EMANCIPATION IS INEVITABLE AND THAT IT IS NEAR; that it may be hastened or hindered; and that whether it shall be peaceful or violent depends upon the question whether it be hastened or hindered; that all measures which fortify slavery or extend it, tend to the consummation of violence; all that check its extension or abate its strength tend to its peaceful extirpation.  But I will adopt none but lawful, constitutional, and peaceful measures to accomplish even that end; and none such can I or will I forgo.  Nor do I know any important or responsible political body that proposes to do more than this.  No free state claims to extend its legislation into a slave state.  None claims that Congress shall USURP power to abolish slavery in the slave states.  None claims that any violent, unconstitutional, or unlawful measure shall be embraced.  And, on the other hand, if we offer no scheme or plan for the adoption of the slave states, with the assent and co-operation of Congress, it is only because the slave states are unwilling, as yet, to receive such suggestions, or even to entertain the question of emancipation in any form.”

Mr. Seward’s repudiation of all sudden, violent, or unconstitutional means for effecting emancipation is again asserted in the closing paragraph of this very able and celebrated speech:

“While we leave slavery to the care of the states where it exists, let us inflexibly direct the policy of the government to circumscribe its limits and favor ITS ULTIMATE EXTINGUISHMENT.  Let those who have this misfortune entailed upon them, instead of contriving how to maintain an equilibrium that never had existence, consider carefully how at some time – it may be ten, or twenty, or even fifty years hence – by some means, by all means of their own and WITH OUR AID, WITHOUT SUDDEN CHANGE OR VIOLENT ACTION they may bring about the emancipation of labor, and its restoration to its just dignity and power in the state.”

More than eight years elapsed after the delivery of this speech before Mr. Seward mad his well-abused exposition of the “irrepressible conflict.”  His mind, meanwhile, had undergone no change, except to acquire increased confidence in the universal triumph of freedom throughout our national borders.  A single quotation will sufficiently illustrate his views of the methods by which this triumph will be achieved:

“It remains to say on this point only one word to guard against misapprehension.  If these states are to again become universally slaveholding, I do not pretend to say with what violations of the Constitution that end shall be accomplished.  On the other hand, while I do confidently believe and hope that my country will yet become a land of universal freedom, I DO NOT EXPECT THAT IT WILL BE MADE SO OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH THE ACTION OF THE SEVERAL STATES, CO-OPERATING WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND ALL ACTING IN STRICT CONFORMITY WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONS.”

We submit that we have clearly established to position which we undertook to maintain, namely, that the new scheme for breaking down the state governments of the South for the purpose of bringing slavery within the control of Congress is not Republicanism.  Whatever may be its merits or its disadvantages, it flies in the teeth, not only of the Chicago platform, but of the most advanced views which have ever been accepted by the most radical wing of the Republican party. – {New York World.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1