Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

THE WHIGS AND A NATIONAL BANK.

217

clearly, and, moreover, the causes of the new misfortune were more apparent. It was no longer possible to make a scapegoat of the administration. The president, on the other hand, could, not without reason, use the new crisis as an argumentum ad hominem, in defense of his old principle, that if there were a connection of the finances with the banks, the interests of the states would always remain, to a greater or less extent, the plaything of private speculation. Even if it was somewhat strongly expressed, there was much truth in his assertion, that the banks did not now appeal to an actual necessity, but considered the suspension of specie payments sufficiently justified by its alleged expediency.1

It was evident that no reasoning and no experience was able to shake the faith of the whigs in the gospel of a national bank. On a question which is one of the most material differences in the constitution of parties, a whole party can never, from the very nature of the case, be set right. Only when the actual development of events has made it impossible to maintain the question any longer as a party question, can the right understanding of it become entirely general: resignation to the inevitable is in such case the condition precedent of knowledge. But in a democratic rewere lessened in proportion to the general distress. The physical means of making payment for their debts were wanting in some states, for there was no money to be had. The people were amazed at the extent of their own disasters, and afraid to act in any way, lest they should run into new mistakes."

"They are not driven to it by the exhibition of a loss of public confidence, or of a sudden pressure from their depositors or noteholders; but they excuse themselves by alleging that the current of business and exchange with foreign countries, which draws the precious metals from their vaults, would require, in order to meet it, a larger curtailment of their loans to a comparatively small portion of the community than it will be convenient for them to bear, or, perhaps, safe for the banks to exact. The plea has ceased to be one of necessity. Convenience and policy are now deemed sufficient to warrant these institutions in disregarding their solemn obligations." Statesm.'s Man., II, p. 1236.

public, parties generally almost balance each other, so that the weight which turns the scales is the small minority of the undecided, that is, those in whom the formation of their judgment keeps pace with the development of facts. Hence, a change of opinion by a few is frequently sufficient to bring the laws into harmony with the actual development of things, and thus to make both the former and the latter irreversible. Whether this point had been really reached already, only the next years could show. The sequel proved that both parties were at the time wonderfully deceived as to the true situation of affairs. The whigs did not recognize that at the moment that this administration carried the independent treasury through, the old struggle was finally decided: whatever fate future congresses might have in store for the law of the 4th of July, 1840,' the finances and the banks could never again be yoked together after their virtual separation by the crisis of 1837 had, after the crisis of 1839, received the sanction of law. And the democrats did not understand that this question had been taken from the list of party questions proper, by the crisis of 1839, and had acquired a character entirely peculiar to itself. They, indeed,— and above all the president, - had good reason to rejoice and to congratulate themselves that the measure on which the administration had staked its reputation had been carried out; but any inference from this to the prospects of the party, and especially of the president, in the future, were baseless. Van Buren had won a brilliant victory, and placed his country under lasting obligations to him; but, even at the moment of triumph, his and his party's overthrow was beyond doubt when they declared that they would be satisfied in the next presidential election with nothing short of the complete destruction of their opponents.2

[blocks in formation]

"It will not be enough, in the approaching presidential contest, that the

VAN BUREN AND SLAVERY.

CHAPTER IV.

VAN BUREN'S ADMINISTRATION.

(Continued.)

II. THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

Van Buren, in his inaugural address, had not devoted a single word to the impending economic dangers. In broad and general terms, he drew a picture of the wonderful development of the Union during the half century which had elapsed since its origin. With a just pride, the president alluded to the many dangers happily surmounted, as a proof that the faith in a great future for the republic had a firm foundation in the character of the people and in their institutions. Only on one question did he enter more into detail, and the confidence with which he represented it as a problem already solved was qualified by a ponderous if. To abide blindly and inviolably by the compromise of the fathers was, in his opinion, the only possible guaranty that that question would never be able to endanger the Union; and this guaranty he considered entirely sufficient. The proof of this he

democratic party shall merely prevail by an ordinary majority. With such a result, we shall acknowledge ourselves dissatisfied, disappointed. We must teach our opponents such a lesson as they have never yet received. We must administer a rebuke, a punishment, not soon to be forgotten, for this great national insult by which they, as an organized party, have afforded their last and worst illustration of that old and profound contempt for the intelligence of the people which has always been, as it will continue to be, the invariable source of all their faults and all their follies. Our struggle, we repeat, must not be now for mere victory. Of that, indeed, we cannot entertain a single possible doubt." The "Democratio Review," June, 1840, p. 475.

found in the fact that it now, for the first time, disturbed the peace of the country.1

The man who, in the struggle for Missouri, had played a certain part, could not write such nonsense in good faith. No matter how small his historical information might be, he had himself helped make the history of his country, and he was too wise to imagine that the whole history of the slavery question could be wiped out by a silly assertion. He might, like so many others, be completely satisfied that the constitutional compromises on the slavery question could be a permanent arbitration of the matter. Hence he, perhaps, saw no serious danger to the country in the slavery question. But he evidently recognized how menacing a rock it was to all politicians, and the fear of striking against it himself dictated to him that absurd exaggeration. Decided as was his declaration that he wished to remain in the path hitherto followed, that is, to guide his bark by the compass of the slavocracy, yet he perceived, with solicitude, that the counter-current grew steadily stronger. It was precisely on this account that he asserted the contrary so emphatically.

“The last, perhaps the greatest, of the prominent sources of discord and disaster supposed to lurk in our political condition, was the institution of domestic slavery. Our forefathers were deeply impressed with the delicacy of this subject, and they treated it with a forbearance so evidently wise, that, in spite of every sinister foreboding, it never, until the present period, disturbed the tranquillity of our common country. Such a result is sufficient evidence of the justice and of the patriotism of their course; it is evidence not to be mistaken, that an adherence to it can prevent all embarrassment from this, as well as every other anticipated cause of difficulty or danger.. If the agitation of this subject was intended to reach the stability of our institutions, enough has occurred to show that it has signally failed, and that in this, as in every other instance, the apprehensions of the timid and the hopes of the wicked for the destruction of our government, are again to be disappointed. . . . It will be ever thus. Such attempts at dangerous agitation may periodically return, but, with each, the object will be better understood." Statesm.'s Man., II, pp. 1157, 1158

[blocks in formation]

If he could cause it to be believed that he was guiding the country under the favorable wind of an almost unanimous public opinion, public opinion which had been shaken might perhaps have been confirmed again; not only the actual but also the imagined cry of whole masses is contagious, and in numberless ears it sounds a great deal louder than it is in reality. But by his exaggeration, Van Buren himself unveiled his untruth. If every new contest had led to a better understanding of the question, and thereby to a diminution of danger, how was it to be explained that the peace of the country was now disturbed for the first time? If only this much was true, that the excitement of minds was now deeper and more general than in former times, the appeal to the tested sufficiency of the compromise was vain. And the arrow recoiled on the archer with all the greater force, since there was no controversy at the time which directly involved the relative power of the two sections, as, for instance, the admission of a state.

The excitement of minds had indeed become deeper and more general, although, as had already been said, the wild absence of restraint in the onset of the south and of the northern populace against the desperate agitators had begun. to subside. The list of horrible excesses was indeed by no means closed. The first martyr blood flowed on the 7th of November, 1837, and this in a free state. Elijah P. Lovejoy paid his life for not ceasing the propagandism of his convictions spite of the destruction of his press.1 On the 17th of May of the following year, Pennsylvania Hall, in Philadelphia, which the abolitionists had built for themselves because they could not but see that no appropriate locality would be allowed them, was burned down. Not satisfied

'Edw. Beecher, Narrative of Riots at Alton; Alton, 1838. The official

report of the mayor is printed in Niles, LIII, pp. 196, 197.

'Niles, LIV, p. 195.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »