THE AMERICAN QUESTION. 
 
 A SPEECH DELIVERED AT A PUBLIC MEETING AT 
 BURNLEY, IN REPLY TO MESSRS. DENNISON AND 
 SINCLAIR. 
 
 We have no ill-feeling towards the Northern States, nor 
 have we any lack of appreciation for what is good in their 
 character and institutions. We rejoice in their schools and 
 colleges, and in their efforts to promote the cause of tem¬ 
 perance and virtue. 
 
 And we have no desire for the extension or perpetuation 
 of chattel slavery. It has been said that any Englishman 
 who can favour American slavery ought to hide his head in 
 shame. But no such Englishman has made his appearance 
 here. On the matter of slavery we are all agreed, and 
 nothing further need be said on the subject. 
 
 Nor need much be said about Mr. Lincoln’s honesty. 
 Mr. Lincoln may be as honest as Mr. Dennison represents 
 him, and yet be a very dangerous man. George the Third 
 was an honest man, yet he acted very unwisely towards the 
 American colonies. After driving them by his folly to 
 secede, he waged a foolish and cruel war for their subjuga¬ 
 tion. He was a very honest man, yet he wasted a thousand 
 millions of pounds, and sacrificed scores of thousands of 
 lives, to prevent the people of France from remodelling 
 their Government, and managing their own affairs. He 
 was very honest and even very pious, yet he extinguished 
 the liberties of his own people, gagged the press, fprbade 
 political meetings, made it a crime to lend a book or to sell 
 a newspaper, and came near converting the constitutional 
 Government of England into an intolerable despotism. He 
 was very honest, yet his conduct was so very mischievous, 
 that his friends, to save the credit of his honesty, were 
 obliged to pronounce him an idiot or a madman. And so 
 with regard to Abraham Lincoln. He may be very honest, 
 but he has driven a third of his countrymen into secession. 
 He may be very honest, but he has silenced newspapers, 
 
 Price One Penny . 
 
2 
 
 sent innocent men and women to prison, and suspended, if 
 not annihilated, the liberties of his country. He may be 
 very honest, but he has wasted an enormous amount of 
 wealth, and shed a fearful amount of blood, and has thus 
 far accomplished no good object thereby. He has even 
 exceeded George the Third in wastefulness and bloodshed. 
 He has spent as much money, and shed as much blood in 
 two years, as George the Third contrived to do in twenty. 
 If he should carry on his war as long as George the Third 
 carried on his, he will have contracted a national debt ten 
 times as large as George the Third contracted, and made 
 his country the most frightful desolation on the face of the 
 earth. Lincoln may be very honest, but he is no statesman, 
 no philosopher, no general. He may be very honest, but 
 his intellect is of such a cast as to render him a greater 
 curse to his country and the world than the most unprinci¬ 
 pled profligate would be likely to be. 
 
 Mr. Dennison assures us that Mr. Sinclair’s facts may be 
 relied upon. Of course, anybody’s facts may be relied 
 upon; but the question is, Can Mr. Sinclair’s statements be 
 relied on? We shall show that they can not. 
 
 Mr. Dennison says that on his return to America he will 
 be able to inform his countrymen that the cry of the Lan¬ 
 cashire operatives is, “ Give the black men freedom, and 
 we ask no more.” He is much mistaken. The operatives 
 of Lancashire do ask for more. They ask that freedom 
 shall be given to the blacks in the best and safest way. 
 There are remedies that are worse than the diseases they 
 are meant to cure; and we have a right to demand, and we 
 do demand, that remedies of that description shall no longer 
 be persisted in. We have a right to ask that, when slavery 
 is abolished, it shall be abolished in such a way as to render 
 its abolition as much of a blessing, and as little of a curse 
 as possible, both to the slaves and to others. To abolish it 
 in violation of law, and by hostile forces, and especially to 
 abolish it by a servile insurrection, would be to cause a 
 hundredfold more misery even to the negroes themselves, 
 than slavery itself has ever caused, besides entailing un¬ 
 speakable miseries on others. 
 
 Mr. Dennison says that Mr. Lincoln wishes to restore 
 the Union for the purpose of abolishing slavery. But 
 under the Union the Constitution gives him no power to 
 abolish slavery. 
 
3 
 
 He told you that none were to address the meeting but 
 those who took his side of the question. Yet they call it 
 a public meeting, and wish their resolution to go forth to 
 the public as the decision of the people of Burnley. No 
 one must address the meeting but those who agree with 
 them. So you are to be called together as a jury, but be 
 allowed to hear only one side of the question, lest you should 
 return an unsatisfactory verdict. 
 
 Mr. Sinclair says he never entered the South, because 
 he could not go there without getting hung, unless he put 
 a padlock on his mouth. We did go into the South, and 
 we neither put a padlock on our mouth, nor got hung. We 
 talked as freely with slaveholders and their friends as we 
 do with you, and they listened to us with as much respect. 
 And we discussed with them the question of slavery with 
 all freedom, declaring our conviction that the abolition of 
 slavery was inevitable. If we had gone to their plantations 
 and advised the negroes to revolt or run away, they would 
 have sent us about our business; and they would have done 
 right. Slavery will have to be abolished by the action, 
 not of the slaves, but of the ruling classes. To incite the 
 slaves to insurrection would be a crime against both blacks 
 and whites. Your manufacturers will listen to a man who 
 counsels them to do justice to their workpeople; but if he 
 were to go into their mills and try to seduce their men, or 
 instigate them to mischief, they would show him the way 
 to the door. And they would do right. 
 
 Mr. Sinclair says the people of America have a right to 
 alter their Constitution. No one denies it. The question 
 is whether the Republicans had a right to break it, and 
 rob the States of their independence. 
 
 We are told that he who favours secession is an enemy 
 to liberty. But where is the proof? We were told that 
 Garrison was a great friend of liberty; yet he advocated 
 secession and Southern independence for twenty years. 
 He urged the North to secede from the South. The motto 
 of his Paper was, “No Union with Slaveholders. He 
 argued that the Union was the great support of slavery,— 
 that to dissolve the Union, and leave the South to itselr, 
 would bring slavery to a speedy end. If Garrison an is 
 party could be friends of liberty and yet favour secession, 
 why may not we? Besides, how could the secession o tie 
 South annihilate the liberties of the North? Cannot the 
 
4 
 
 North maintain its liberties without the help of the South? 
 Then what is it worth? Did the secession of the original 
 colonies destroy the liberty of England? You know better. 
 Then how should the secession of the South destroy the 
 liberty of the North? 
 
 Mr. Sinclair had a great deal to say about the difference 
 between “ We, the People,” and “ We, the States.” Yet 
 the difference is purely imaginary. The People and the 
 States are one and the same. The States were free either 
 to accept and ratify, or to reject the Constitution. Some 
 refused to ratify or accept it for a length of time. Rhode 
 Island did so. Others refused to accept the Constitution 
 till certain amendments were made to it. 
 
 Mr. Sinclair says the States have no right of secession. 
 Then why does he speak so highly of Garrison and G. 
 Thompson and their party, who for twenty years declared 
 secession not only to be a right, but a duty? Has one side 
 a right to secede and not the other? But where does the 
 Constitution forbid secession? There is a clause in the 
 Constitution which says that all rights not expressly granted 
 by the States to the Federal Government are reserved to 
 the States; and when did the States give up their right to 
 secede? When did they give the Federal Government 
 the right to prevent secession? And even supposing that 
 the States had no right to secede so long as they were 
 governed, according to the Constitution, they had a right 
 to secede when the Constitution was set aside. And the 
 Republicans annulled the Constitution. The Abolitionists 
 pronounced it a covenant with death and an agreement 
 with hell, and gloried in trampling it under their feet. 
 The Liberty party, headed by Gerrit Smith, declared the 
 clauses in favour of the South to be null and void. And 
 the whole Republican party declared their purpose to vio¬ 
 late the right of the South, both by enacting Protective 
 tariffs, and by monopolising the public lands. Under circum¬ 
 stances like these the South had not ouly a right to secede, 
 but had no alternative but either to secede or leave itself at 
 the mercy of its enemies. 
 
 It is said that if the Southern States had any grievance, 
 they had a remedy in a change of the Constitution. We 
 deny it. They wanted no change in the Constitution. All 
 they wanted was that the Constitution should be respected. 
 
 W e were told that in America they do not grant the 
 
5 
 
 elective franchise to a class, but give it to all, of every 
 class and colour. This is untrue. Neither negroes nor 
 Indians have the elective franchise in America. In some 
 States negroes may be allowed to vote on local questions, 
 but in no State are they placed on a level with the 
 whites with regard to the franchise. Nor are Indians. 
 Nor are new-comers from Europe. And the Know-nothings, 
 who form a very large portion of the Republican or Liu- 
 colnite party, proposed to disfranchise all foreign-born 
 citizens, and all Catholics, whether foreign-born or not; 
 while others of them propose to disfranchise all but mem¬ 
 bers of orthodox churches. 
 
 It is said no party to a contract has a right to withdraw 
 from it without the consent of the other party. But that 
 is not the question. The question is whether, when one 
 party to a contract has broken it, and declared his determina¬ 
 tion to persist in breaking it, the other party is not ab¬ 
 solved. 
 
 We are next told that the Southerners are seeking to 
 destroy the best Government on the face of the earth. 
 The statement is not true. Supposing the Washington 
 Government to be the best in the world, which we are very 
 far from believing, the Southerners have no desire to de¬ 
 stroy it. All they want is, to be allowed to form a Govern¬ 
 ment for themselves, leaving the Government of the North 
 untouched. Just as it is with Poland. The Poles have 
 no desire to destroy the Government of Russia, but simply 
 to withdraw from under its yoke, and form a Government 
 of their own. 
 
 We are next told that the South seceded solely on the 
 ground of slavery: that they said not a word about tariffs. 
 We answer, if the Southerners did not complain about tariffs, 
 it was not because they had no reason to complain; but be¬ 
 cause they were disposed to make great concessions for the 
 sake of peace. But when their euemies declared their 
 determination to trample on every right they had, they 
 could endure no longer. And this was what they did when 
 they undertook to shut them out of the territories, and en¬ 
 couraged men to invade their soil for the purpose of causing 
 a servile insurrection. . 
 
 It is said the Northerners treat the negroes as their 
 equals. This is another great untruth. They do not treat 
 them as their equals in any respect. They do not admit 
 
6 
 
 them into their common schools or colleges. They do not 
 treat them as their equals in railway carriages, omnibuses, 
 or steamboats. They do not treat them as their equals in 
 the army or the navy, in the church or in the theatre, in the 
 streets or in the courts. The Republicans themselves do 
 not treat them as their equals. Mr. Lincoln does not. The 
 State from which he comes does not. It refuses them a home 
 or an asylum on its soil. Mr. Lincoln himself advises them 
 to leave the country. The whole Republican party declared 
 they had neither the intention nor the wish to give them 
 liberty. 
 
 The Southerners are said to have commenced the war; 
 but this too is contrary to the truth. The war was begun 
 when the Republicans declared their determination to 
 trample on the rights of the South. It was begun in a 
 more glaring form when John Brown invaded Virginia, and 
 was applauded by the Abolitionists and Republicans. Even 
 at Fort Sumpter the North were the first to break the peace, 
 though not the first to fire a shot. It was their attempt to 
 re-enforce the Fort that compelled the Southerners to take 
 it. But the parties chargeable with the guilt of a war are 
 not those who strike the first blow, but those who render 
 the first blow necessary. If a man were to rob us, and 
 declare his attempt to rob us again the moment he got us 
 in his power, we should strike a dozen blows rather than 
 allow ourselves to fall into his hands. When you are met 
 on the highway and ordered to deliver, you have a right 
 either to strike or secede; and if you should allow the rob¬ 
 ber to strike first, you would be much to blame. 
 
 The Southerners stole the property of the North, it is 
 said. We ask for proof? The property of the country 
 was common property. One-third of it at least belonged to 
 the South. Did the South get more than one-third? We 
 question whether they got one-sixth. The Southerners 
 proposed negotiations with a view to a peaceful and an 
 equitable settlement; but the Republicans refused to treat. 
 If therefore the property was not fairly divided, the blame 
 must fail on the Republicans. 
 
 It was said the Fugitive Slave Law originated with Mr. 
 Mason. It is a mistake. The United States had a Fugitive 
 Slave Law from the first. The Constitution itself required 
 the surrender of fugitives. Mr. Mason only proposed and 
 carried a modification of the law. 
 
7 
 
 We are told that the men who framed the Constitution 
 excluded slavery from the territory then in possession of 
 the United States. We answer, the facts of the case are 
 these. The Southerners were so generous as both to give 
 their unpeopled lands to the nation at large, and to propose 
 that slavery should be excluded from those lands for ever. 
 And slavery has been excluded from them. The ancient 
 territory has all been appropriated by the North, and made 
 into free States. All this is creditable to the Southerners. 
 The present territories of the United States are new terri¬ 
 tories, bought from France, with the joint money of the 
 North and South. It was slave territory from the first. 
 And France sold the territories to the United States on this 
 condition, that the settlers should never be deprived of their 
 property or their previous rights. The Southerners, how¬ 
 ever, agreed to a compromise, called the Missouri Compro¬ 
 mise, shutting out slavery and slaveholders from the whole 
 of the Territories North of 36 \ degrees; and the unjust 
 Republicans pledged themselves to rob the Southerners of 
 the remainder. 
 
 The claim of the Southerners to carry their slaves into 
 the territory was a new claim, we are told. Whereas the 
 parties who made the new claim were the Republicans, who 
 claimed to shut the Southerners out of their own unoccu¬ 
 pied lands. 
 
 We were asked, Why do we not get cotton? And the 
 answer was, The South will not send it. The answer is 
 ridiculous. The South will be most glad to send it, if 
 permitted to do so on honourable terms. Why should they 
 wish to detain it if they could exchange it either for money 
 or the goods they want? It is the Government of Wash¬ 
 ington that keeps back the cotton. And now the Republi¬ 
 cans are proposing to stop the supply of food from America 
 as well as of cotton. 
 
 The Fathers expected that slavery would die out, said 
 Mr. Dennison. Very true. And it might have died out 
 peaceably if the Republicans had respected the rights of the 
 States. It did die out in several of the States. It was 
 dying out in others. By violating the Constitution t ey 
 have probably lengthened its life. 
 
 We are told that, so far from allowing secession, the Con¬ 
 stitution did not even allow the separate States to coin 
 money, &c. We answer, The Constitution mig 01 1 
 
8 
 
 the States to coin money while in the Union, and yet not 
 forbid the States to secede. 
 
 The Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the territo¬ 
 ries, we are told. Whereas the organised territories, like 
 Nebraska, elect their own Legislatures, and make their own 
 laws: and no power has aright to dispose of the territories 
 contrary to the Constitution. 
 
 The Northern States have always been against slavery, 
 we are told, only they never had a majority in Congress till 
 lately. The truth is, the Northern States have had a 
 majority from the first. When they seceded from England 
 there were nine Northern States, and only four Southern 
 oues, so that the North had a majority of over two to one; 
 a far greater majority than it had when the South seceded. 
 
 The North will give us cotton in eight weeks, said Mr. 
 Dennison. The eight weeks are past, and the cotton has 
 not come. We cannot rely upon Republican prophecies. 
 We have seen too many of them falsified. 
 
 The Republicans have emancipated £00,000 slaves. Mr. 
 Dennison says. But have they improved their condition? 
 Have they made them more useful or more happy? They 
 have done the contrary. And think of the cost at which 
 they have effected the unhappy change. For every negro 
 taken from his master, they have shed the blood of three 
 white men. They have wasted untold millions of money. 
 They have made large tracts of their prosperous country a 
 frightful desolation. They have made the wives of their 
 soldiers widows, and their children fatherless. They have 
 demoralised their armies and dishonoured the nation. They 
 have annihilated the liberties of the people, and established 
 both in North and South a reign of terror. They have 
 injured the nations of Europe, and reduced vast mul¬ 
 titudes of industrious men aud their helpless, unoffending 
 families, to dependence on charity. And every day fresh 
 victims are sacrificed. And every mail brings tales of fresh 
 calamities and horrors. Bad as slavery is, this wicked war 
 has caused more crime, more want, more horrid deaths, more 
 suffering, in two short years, a thousaud times over, than 
 Southern slavery has caused during the whole two centuries 
 of its existence. 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY BARKER AND CO., 4, THANET PLACE, 
 TEMPLE BAR, STRAND, LONDON.