« PreviousContinue »
The relations to the southern people with the negro are close and cordial. We remember with what fidelity for four years he guarded our defenceless women and children, whose husbands and fathers were fighting against his freedom. To his eternal credit be it said that whenever he struck a blow for his own liberty he fought in open battle, and when at last he raised his black and humble hands that the shackles might be struck off, those hands were innocent of wrong against his helpless charges, and worthy to be taken in loving grasp by every man who honors loyalty end devotion.
Ruffians have maltreated him, rascals have misled him, philanthropists established a bank for him, but the South, with the North, protests against injustice to this simple and sincere people. To liberty and enfranchisement is as far as law can carry the negro. The rest must be left to conscience and common sense. It must be left to those among whom his lot is cast, with whom he is indissolubly connected, and whose prosperity depends upon their possessing his intelligent sympathy and confidence. Faith has been kept with him, in spite of calumnious assertions to the contrary by those who assume to speak for us or by frank opponents. Faith will be kept with him in the future, if the South holds her reason and integrity.
But have we kept faith with you? In the fullest sense, yes.
When Lee surrendered—I don't say when Johnston surrendered, because I understand he still alludes to the time when he met General Sherman last as the time when he determined to abandon any further prosecution of the struggle—when Lee surrendered, I say, and Johnston quit, the South became, and has since been, loyal to this Union.
We fought hard enough to know that we were whipped, and in perfect frankness accept as final the arbitrament of the
sword to which we had appealed. The South found her jewel in the toad's head of defeat. The shackles that had held her in narrow limitations fell forever when the shackles of the negro slave were broken. Under the old régime the negroes were slaves to the South; the South was a slave to the system. The old plantation, with its simple police regulations and feudal habit, was the only type possible under slavery. Thus was gathered in the hands of a splendid and chivalric oligarchy the substance that should have been diffused among the people, as the rich blood, under certain artificial conditions, is gathered at the heart, filling that with affluent rapture, but leaving the body chill and colorless.
The old South rested everything on slavery and agriculture, unconscious that these could neither give nor maintain healthy growth. The new South presents a perfect democracy, the oligarchs leading in the popular movement-a social system compact and closely knitted, less splendid on the surface, but stronger at the core a hundred farms for every plantation, fifty homes for every palace and a diversified industry that meets the complex need of this complex age.
The new South is enamored of her new work. Her soul is stirred with the breath of a new life. The light of a grander day is falling fair on her face. She is thrilling with the consciousness of growing power and prosperity. As she stands upright, full statured and equal among the people of the earth, breathing the keen air and looking out upon the expanded horizon, she understands that her emancipation came because through the inscrutable wisdom of God her honest purpose was crossed, and her brave armies were beaten.
This is said in no spirit of time-serving or apology. The South has nothing for which to apologize. She believes that
the late struggle between the States was war and not rebellion; revolution and not conspiracy, and that her convictions were as honest as yours. I should be unjust to the dauntless spirit of the South and to my own convictions if I did not make this plain in this presence. The South has nothing to take back. In my native town of Athens is a monument that crowns its central hill-a plain, white shaft. Deep cut into its shining side is a name dear to me above the names of men—that of a brave and simple man who died in a brave and simple faith. Not for all the glories of New England, from Plymouth Rock all the way, would I exchange the heritage he left me in his soldier's death. To the foot of that I shall send my children's children to reverence him who ennobled their name with his heroic blood. But, sir, speaking from the shadow of that memory which I honor as I do nothing else on earth, I say that the cause in which he suffered and for which he gave his life was adjudged by higher and fuller wisdom than his or mine, and I am glad that the omniscient God held the balance of battle in his Almighty hand and that human slavery was swept forever from American soil, the American Union was saved from the wreck of war.
This message, Mr. President, comes to you from consecrated ground. Every foot of soil about the city in which I live is as sacred as a battle-ground of the republic. Every hill that invests it is hallowed to you by the blood of your brothers who died for your victory, and doubly hallowed to us by the blood of those who died hopeless, but undaunted in defeat-sacred soil to all of us-rich with memories that make us purer and stronger and better-silent but staunch witnesses, in its red desolation, of the matchless valor of American hearts and the deathless glory of American arms— speaking an eloquent witness in its white peace and prosperity .
to the indissoluble union of American States and the imperishable brotherhood of the American people.
Now, what answer has New England to this message ? Will she permit the prejudice of war to remain in the hearts of the conquerors when it has died in the hearts of the conquered? Will she transmit this prejudice to the next generation, that in their hearts which never felt the generous ardor of conflict it may perpetuate itself? Will she withhold, save in strained courtesy, the hand which, straight from his soldier's heart, Grant offered to Lee at Appomattox? Will she make the vision of a restored and happy people, which gathered above the couch of your dying captain, filling his heart with grace; touching his lips with praise, and glorifying his path to the grave-will she make this vision on which the last sigh of his expiring soul breathed a benediction, a cheat and delusion? If she does, the South, never abject in asking for comradeship, must accept with dignity its refusal; but if she does not refuse to accept in frankness and sincerity this message of good will and friendship, then will the prophecy of Webster, delivered in this very Society forty years ago amid tremendous applause, become true, be verified in its fullest sense, when he said: “Standing hand to hand and clasping hands, we should remain united as we have been for sixty years, citizens of the same country, members of the same government, united, all united now and united forever.” There have been difficulties, contentions, and controversies, but I tell you that in my judgment
.“ those opened eyes,
AMUEL WALKER MCCALL, an American Congressman, was born at
East Providence, Pennsylvania, February 28, 1851, and was educated at Dartmouth College. He studied law at Worcester, Massachusetts, and, after being admitted to the bar, began practice in Boston. For some months of 1888 he was editor of the Boston “ Daily Advertiser,” and for the session of 1888-89 was a member of the Massachusetts legislature. In 1892 he was elected a Republican Representative to Congress and was reelected at each subsequent election. During the spring of 1900 he was conspicuous in his minority opposition to the Porto Rico Tariff Bill.
THE PORTO RICO TARIFF
DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY,
FEBRUARY 22, 1900
R. CHAIRMAN,—The distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means, who is the able
leader of this House, and brings to all economic questions a sound judgment and a wide range of information, has, in my opinion, clearly shown that the pending bill will produce a sufficient revenue. But the question of revenue is, I believe, of slight importance compared with another question involved, upon which I regret to say that I am compelled to dissent from the views entertained by my Republican colleagues on the committee, many of whom I have so often followed in the past with pleasure.
The main question put in issue by the substitute bill reported by the chairman of the committee involves nothing less than the proposition that Congress, in dealing with the Territories of the United States, has absolute power, unfettered by any of the limitations of the constitution. That it is, in short, a power acting outside of the constitution with