Cincinnati (OH) Daily Commercial Tribune, "Slavery and the War," January 29, 1862

         Slavery and the War.

                       SALEM, O., Jan. 23, 1862.

   EDS. COM:––In reviewing an extract from the Maysville Eagle, yesterday, in relation to Mr. Wadsworth's reply to Mr. Bingham, of our District, you fall into the same error, which, I think, I have observed on various occasions before. Your proposed treatment of slavery is analogous to that of a physician who, in treating his patient for a cancer, should eschew as much as possible the fact that the cancer was the cause of his patient's illness, and aim at the removal of the unpleasant symptoms without removing the cause of the malady. Now, I take you to be too sensible not to know that the institution of slavery is th real cause of all our present troubles, that it always has been a "bone of contention" in this nation, and that, by parity of reason and the nature of things, it always will be, so long as it exists in this country. Living as you do, near the line between free and slaveholding States, you cannot but have observed the difference in the degree of prosperity as relates to educational, moral, and all other kinds of progress. And now that the time and the occasion have been forced upon us, in which our very safety, as a means of combatting an unscrupulous and powerful enemy, of ra journal like yours to undertake to "carry water on both shoulders," and to "blow hot and cold" with the same breath, is to me, to say the least, most mortifying. Suppose we could, by truckling to the slave power, patch up some kind of an arrangement by which the corner sore of slavery should continue in our midst, how long would it be till its demands would be such as the friends of liberty could not tolerate? "Rule or ruin" is the doctrine of the South, and will continue to be so long as that "sum of all villainies" is allowed to exist. I have no doubt but that your numerous readers in Kentucky and Ohio who think the preservation of their darling institution can be better maintained by remaining in the Union, receive special comfort by hearing such men as Stephens, Bingham and Sumner, traduced on all occasions. 

   If you agree with Jeff DAVIS, that the community are divided, or should be, into capitalists and slaves, why not go over to secede at once? If you think liberty a boon worth fighting for, why not plant yourself firmly on her side? If it is right to ensnare all the poor and ignorant, why not advocate that doctrine? You know, as well as I, that slavery is not confined to color. As I understand your policy, the enemy is not to be disturbed in his most vulnerable point. The main support of his army, his means of subsistence, he is not to be deprived of, for fear some aristocrat will have to hire his help, instead of owning it. 

   Now, having said my say in the way of criticism, I wish to give you briefly the opinion of a vast majority of the more intelligent part of the population of our section of the State. All history goes to sustain the idea that no great national sin, especially slavery, can exist for a long time in a nation without being the cause of its ruin. Liberty and vassalage are incompatible, and cannot exist in the same nation without confliction of interests. Slavery is the sole cause of the present war. The remedy that can be relied on, and which common sense would at once suggest, is to remove the cause. It is clearly within the province of the war power at this time to remove our nation's greatest curse, and at the same time cripple the enemy. By removing slavery form the South, emigration from the North would at once set in, cities and villages could spring up, the value of the soil would be quadrupled in a few years, and a degree of peace and prosperity would be produced which this country, nor any other ever witnessed.

   Thank God for Jim Lane; and still better, the President is at last getting his eyes to the real state and requirements of the country. It seems to me it would now be safe for the editors of the Commercial to stand forth for the advocacy of the right. 

        Very respectfully yours,    J. HARRIS. 

                        REPLY.

   This letter presents tersely, and strongly as the case admits, certain errors now somewhat popular. The writer is impertinent, as persons of his way of thinking generally are when addressing those who disagree with them. Embracing a notion, they are [illegible] to all who are not enamored of it. Looking upon the scenes of current history from the stand-point of a single idea, they are bitterly dispensed with all who will not see the end of the rainbow on precisely the same spot where they observe it. They label their doctrines "progressive," and are prepared to prosecute as unworthy inhabitants of the globe, all who hesitate to adopt their ways, which we venture to believe may not always be the best, or accomplishing objects confessedly good. They are the habitual employers of vague phrases about reform and the nineteenth century, and are ready to revile as heretics all who do not see in the inane expressions they celebrate, the crystals of perfect and immortal wisdom. They are always in favor of the Great Bill of the Honorable for Doing Every Thing for Every Body; and they operate upon the presumption that the moment the Great Bill is passed everything will be done. 

   Our Salem friend's cancer illustration on doubt satisfies him perfectly. We have not the slightest objection to offer to the propensity of the gentleman to call slavery a cancer, or to his disposition to eradicate it. The patient is our country. The case is critical. Now will it be our part, as skilled and prudent physicians, to proceed to seize the cancer and peremporitly back it out of the flesh with our swords? If our object is rather to save the patient's life than to rid his body of the outward form of the disease, possibly we should be more cautious in our surgery. We may cut out the cancer––any bungler can do that, provided he has a sharp instrument and sufficient muscular force––but are we entitled to the gratitude of the sufferer, fi we are not prepared to tie up the severed arteries, and leave him bleeding to enjoy our triumph? The treatment that we propose for the cancerous affection of the body politic is one that in our judgement will place it in the course of ultimate extinction, and give the patient strength to go about his daily business, and an unimpaired constitution, affording a substantial basis for a grandeur of growth and perfection of health, not now seen among the nations. 

   Slavery we believe to be the chief cause of the war, but it has no always been to a serious extent "a bone of contention" in the nation, and there is no reason to believe that it must be extirpated before we can have a proper peace. The agitation of the slavery question so much complained of, has been as inevitable as the agitation of the elements, and was not necessarily provocative of civil war. We do not understand the peace of nations to be a profound calm, or that stagnation is the great end of life, individual or national. The existence of slavery in the Southern States, is the principal cause of the differences in character that distinguish the Northern and Southern sections of the Union. Slavery was used by Southern politicians to consolidate States wherein it was found for their aggrandizement. They were ambitious to rule, not only over their own section, but over the whole country. Thus in the South grew up the first section party. Of course, it soon had its opposite in the North. The Southern politicians came to regard themselves and they had cause, as the ruling class of the Republic. They were not long in arriving at the conclusion that they were the born masters of the United States––that their rule was legitimacy––and they looked upon their right tot govern monarchs upon the Divine right of kings. The arrogance of this oligarchy became so aggressive, that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was demanded in its name, that Kansas might be made a slave State. This was not because slaveholders had not enough new land for the purpose of emigration, not that it was supposed Kansas would be a profitable field for slave labor––but that its political power as a future State was wanted on the side of the oligarchy. The defeat of the aggressive, sectional party of the minority section, was, under our Democratic form of government, a mere question of time. It happened in the general election of 1860––and the politicians of the South, who had esteemed themselves the ordained master-class of the whole country, revolted, and attempted to gain by a revolution, that political ascendancy which the election returns and the census tables alike told them they had otherwise lost. They proceeded to war agains the Republicanism and growth of the country, expecting powerful assistance form the North. But they mistook the people of the North, who loved the old Constitution and flag more than party, and feared anarchy more than war. Instead of destroying our Republican form of government, they find it destroying them. Whence came the power that checked the attempted revolution, which is now with the inevitableness of mechanical force and mathematical calculation, crushing the revolutionists? Did it come from a passion urging a crusade against slavery? Not at all, but from the conviction of the people that it was their duty to resist a band of reckless conspirators, who were waging war upon the republican form of our government. 

   The election of President LINCOLN was a popular verdict that the government should no longer be used for the extension of slavery. The very object sought in the extension of slavery was the increase of its political power. The war will confirm the popular verdict of November, 1860. There can be no further extension of slavery, and its political power can never again dominate the councils of the nation. The deprecation in the value of slave property, growing out of the war is much greater than the whole cost of the war to the North. In the whole line of the border slave states, the regular progress of the decay of the institution is greatly accelerated. Even in the cotton states, the discipline of the slaves is slackened, and its old fashioned rigor can hardly hereafter be enforced, without demonstrations of insubordination, that however excited or extinguished, must prove disastrous to the slave owner. The lesson we should learn from this is that the growth of slavery is checked, and that it is placed fairly in the course of ultimate extinction. As to the necessity of the complete abolition of slavery to secure a peaceable future: It must be apparent, by this time, that slavery does not thrive in war––but suffers in a greater degree than any other interest. The war is not the work of slave capitalists, looking to an increase in the value of their investments in slave property––but of demagogues of the ruling party of the slave section, who sought to add to and confirm their peculiar political importance. It was not expected, by the overthrow of the U.S. Government, to promote the material interests of slaveholders, but the political interests of the Southern sectional politicians. The war, having already determined the destruction of the political supremacy of the conspirators, slave-owners have nothing to gain and everything to lose, by continuing hostilities. We have no doubt that the majority of them now wish heartily they were peaceable citizens of the United States, and had never heard of "Southern rights," the phrase by which they were deluded. Let the military power of the rebels be crushed, and the Union restored, and the slave interest that may remain will ever be most anxious for peace, for in war the slaveholders can see only the disturbance of the relation between themselves and slaves, and the destruction of their wealth. The slave power, subordinated to the Government, so far from stirring up dissensions, would be the mainstay of the peace party. The Southerners have been made filibusters by their uneasy ambition to found an immense Tropical Empire. That ambition extinguished, they will be the conservators instead of the breakers of the peace; and will be more and more overshadowed by the superior growth of free institutions, and penetrated by the progress of liberal ideas, until the peculiar institution will lose its peculiarities, and be no more. 

   Our correspondent says, if he understands us, our policy is not to disturb the enemy in his most vulnerable point. There never has been a line in the Commercial that would cause any rational men to come to such an understanding. It is a way our correspondent has of saying that which he believes to be severe thing, and fancying it strong, he passes it without reflection. We have to inform him that we are in favor of disturbing the enemy in his most vulnerable points. We are not in favor of hesitating for an instant out of consideration for slavery, to strike the rebels with our whole power. Let the blows be struck; and we say with JIM LANE, for whom our correspondent thanks God, "Let slavery take care of itself." It is not the business of the Government either to attack or defend slavery. It has been put into the crucible of war, and must abide the consequences. Slavery, says our correspondent, is the "main support" of the rebel army. This is not a new notion of the anti-slavery zealots, and if not born of the Bull Run panic, it is a pretext which they have invented for the purpose of changing the current of the war. It is untrue. Slavery is a weakness to the rebels; and it does not become gentlemen who have been loud in their contempt for the military power of the South, to tell us now that in slavery there is strength. 

   What well considered practical thing does our correspondent propose to accomplish? He proposes to free the slaves, and use them in the subjugation of the rebels. But how free them? We do not perceive that he's looked further than the literature of a proclamation of universal emancipation. Such a document he would probably make able and eloquent. But, after proclamation comes, or should come, performance, and there our friend would find that he required worldly knowledge, and the assistance of worldly men. It may be a great misfortune––contrary to the spirit of the age and all that sort of thing––but it is a fact that a great many people of the North, whose support is desirable––we think it would be no exaggeration to say essential––are bitterly opposed to the idea of an "Abolition war." The people of the North are substantially united in favor of carrying on the war for the vindication of the Government, and the restoration of the Union. Beyond a doubt they would be divided on the question of a war of emancipation. Our correspondent's theory of assailing the insurgents in their "vulnerable point," would most certainly, if acted upon, expose the vulnerable point of the friends of the war for the Union. His policy, if we can call so vague a thing, would overleap itself and fall on the other side. His representative in Congress, Mr. BINGHAM, tells that if a certain law is passed the rebellion will be put down, and there will follow innumerable blessings. But this is mere incoherence––a matter of dreams and shadows, not of solids to suit the times. An act of universal emancipation would not cause a rebel soldier to leave the ranks, but would consolidate and exasperate the rebellious States, and cause nine tenths of the Union men of the border States to change sides; and it might cause a very serious diminution of the available force of the Federal Government in the field. Would such an act give freedom to a single slave? Certainly it would not until after the military power of the South were destroyed; and the immediate effect would be to weaken our ability to bring about that destruction. That which is demanded by the hard necessities of the times, is not an act of legislation such as Mr. BINGHAM becomes eloquent about, but acts of war, by which the great armies that the rebels have confronting ours, shall be broken. Could there be an illustration of insanity imagined exceeding in madness, a factious, distracting contention among ourselves, as to what shall be done with slavery, when it is behind a long array of steel that is menacing us?

   It is proposed to make the negroes understand that the war is waged for them, that they may be friendly to us––it is not known that the whole slave population now holds, with an earnest [illegible] as the faith of childhood, that the [illegible] wears something for them? This they have learned of their masters. Even if proclamations and acts of Congress could be read to them, their instincts would not be quickened nor their information extended. The slaves in Eastern Virginia know already that when they can get within our lines they are free. How does this affect the military situation? Why does not BEAUREGARD retreat from Manassas when he hears of a stampede of negroes? Why does not MAGRUDER abandon York Peninsula because the slaves run away to Fortress Monroe? If gentlemen would indulge philanthropic proclivities respecting liberated slaves, there is already an opportunity presented; and it might be well to experiment with thousands before undertaking the management of millions. During the war, about three thousand slaves have escaped from Missouri, and agents are already on their way East to solicit contributions for their relief. There are also two thousand contrabands at Fortress Monroe, and at least three thousand within our lines in South Carolina. The task of caring for these, making them comfortable and profitable, might well sober gentlemen who talk with airy indifference to the consequences of changing the relations of millions, from one dependence to another. 

   In our judgement, there will be quite as much abolition of slavery as the people are prepared for. It is no part of the duty of the Government to protect slavery where it exists among the insurgents, and as our armies move throughout the insurrectionary States, it will be necessarily dissolved, just as at Fortress Monroe and Hilton Head. 

   We do not say, as Mr. BINGHAM says, "pass a law,"––we say, push on the armies. Where our columns move on cotton soil, slavery is crushed along with the rebellion. Let the enemy surrender before they proceed too far. If slaveholders would preserve their property, they must return to the allegiance of the United States Government. But the first thing, in order to permit freedom of action by the people of the South, is to break down the military power of the DAVIS despotism. We are much mistaken, if when that is done, there will not be seen a revolution for the Union in the South. If, however, the Southern people should prove as implacable in continuing as their politicians have been mischievous in commencing war, and refuse all terms of accommodation, after our victories, upon which we have a right to calculate as the result of our superior resources, and careful preparation––if they should insist, when their armies are broken and their cities in our hands––upon continuing a remorseless, murderous, exterminating struggle––then, when in their midst, with the power to enforce our decrees, we might find a supreme necessity for the general emancipation and even the military employment of the black population. But we do not apprehend such a contingency, and in the meantime we are for continuing the war with an eye single to the preservation of the Republican form of government which our fathers established, and the restoration of the Union. There is no statesmanship or philanthropy, justice or expediency, safety or honor, in any other course; and neither the dim visions of political dreamers, nor the fierce cant of fanatics, should for a moment be permitted to distract our attention from the accomplishment of the military chastisement of the enemy, which is the cardinal necessity, and we hope will be the glorious conclusion, of the war.