New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-07-19


proved failure, the only resource left for the
true friends Of the colored man was to give
them new chance of showing IN Africa what
they had failed to do in America, namely, that
they are capable and worthy Of becoming free
men. But this benevolent scheme has been de-
fea.ed, 30 we are ted, by the interference oil the
Abolisionists, and by the suspicious aud holding
back of the free colored men-who, as our au-
thor represents, have thus conspired with their
worst enemies, the Abolitionists, to erect
new buttress for the unfolding of Slavery, aud
to prevent the employment of the only means
of gradually sappiDg aud undermining it. A
third great contribution, as this author would
have us believe to the triumph Of Slavery has
teen the doctrine started and insisted upon by
these same Abolitionists, that slsyehOlding is
" NAHUM in ss," sin in itself, like the slave
trade robbery and murder, and at the same time
continuing to use the products of the labor OF
1.-THE slave, az though they had been obtained
" from the labors of free men," This incon-
sistency on their part is represented as one
great reason why the Abolitionists " failed to
create such public sentiment "a would pro-
4" cure the emancipation of our slaves" While
the charging those who sustain ed Slavery aud
(" who alone had the power to manumit, with
"crimes Of the blacklist die" caused " all the
arguments on human rights and the sinfulness
" of Slavery TO fall without effect upon the ears
" Of angry men"
But though the free colored people and the
Abolitionists have been thus largely instru-
mentsl--if we are TO accept this authors con-
clusions-in STRENGTHENING the hands of the
Shareholders, it is not to them alone, or even
chiefly, that he ascrbes the present triumphant
authority, and, as he represents it, almost i'm
pregnsble position Of Slavery. The protective
policy, he thinks had it been msintained aud
perseyered in, would have proved great check
10 the extension Of Slavery. lie is certainly
right in representing the triumph of Free trade
as a triumph of the Shareholders over Free la.
Dor. This point he has well illustrated by ex-
tracts from speeches made in Congress on the
question of the Tariff. which constitute indeed
the best part of his book; nor does he fail in
his zeal against the Aboitionists to dwell with
emphasis, and with effect too, upon the re-
msrksble Inconsistency of The National Era and
other prominent organs Of the Anti Slavery
party, in being at the same time opponents OF
Slavery and earnest advocates OF the slayehold-
era policy of Free trade. But it is not Free
traders only whom our author places among the
uplolders of Slavery. Everybody who wears
cotton cloth, and especially the British who
manufacture it--as who does not The brings in
as contributing thereby to strengthen the hands
of the slay shOlders. Bya greatly exaggerated es-
innate such as Southern stump orators and pro-
fessed Northern Union-savers are go accustomed
to indulge in, of the mercantile importance of
cotton, indicated in short in the title ofhis book
he seeks to lead his readers to the conclusion
that the Shareholders, as lords of cotton, are
thereby necessarily lords of creation, aud for
aught that appears, must always remalo so. 10
use his own language, (p. 1921 "Amercan
"Slayery is the great central power, or ever
"eiyirg influence, not only of nearly a the in
"dustrial interests Of our own country. but also
"of those of Great Britain aud much of the
Continent, and if stricken from existence, the
"whole of these interests, with the advancing
civilization of the age, would receive a shock
- that must retard their progress for years to
"come." This impregnable position of Slavery,
this risk of deranging so many complicated III
terests. and Of retarding for years to come the
the progress of civilization, he intends, we sup
pose, to put forward as general excuse for
that inactivity which his side Of the Union has
been accused, in respect TO what he himself ad-
mits TO be {" great civil and social evil, identi-
zeal in principle with despotism," though at
the same time he strenuously denies that il can
properly be called "sin."
In thus attempting to make of Slavery bug
bear which is to alarm or terrify him and us into
helpless and silent acquiescence in, if not into
loud-mouthed apology for, ga great civil and
" social evil, identical in principle with despot-
"ism," our author is guilty, as 1t seems to u.s.
Of niece of trickery, unconscious doubtless,
but still profound piece of trickery upon him.
self and his readers. In the passage above
cited and in many other parts of his book, he
| compounds together American Cotton and Amer
lean Slavery, as if they were absolutely identl-
| cal-as if the one could not exist without the
other. Grant that the striking Of American
cotton out of Istence would be attended with
| all the disastrous results upon which he dweils
with so much JUNCTION. What of thatl Are
Cotton and Slavery absolutely bound up in each
otherl Is Cotton such an extraordinary plant
| that to make it grow it must be- cultivated by
seryile blacks, and watered daily with human
tears and human blood Can't American
Slavery be "struck from existence" and
American Cotton still be left to grow Suppose
Cotton is king-i, that any insuperable obstacle