The South retained the “peculiar institution” of African slavery, fastened on her against her protests, while the North, where it existed in every State at the time of the Declaration of Independence, 1776, liberated herself from it more than half a century ago. The “institution” for many reasons became so incorporated in the social, political and industrial life of the South that its severance, by slow and natural causes, was almost an impossibility. Property interests, pride of opinion, jealousy of alien interference, resistance to aspersions and aggressions, consolidated the South and induced action which under other conditions would have been the very reverse. That is made plain by the unanimity which now exists of satisfaction at abolition, of unwillingness at any cost to have the negroes reënslaved, and of the depth of conviction that slave labor, instead of being a benefit, was the prolific parent of a thousand evils.

The marked civilization which distinguished the South was not altogether due to slavery, but unquestionably it largely contributed to the creation and maintenance of certain social peculiarities which are rapidly disappearing. In proportion to the whole white population the slave-holders were few in number, and of those who owned slaves a very large majority owned only a few, from one to five. When slaves were held in numbers sufficiently large to give character to the plantation, some results were easily discovered. The estates were large and this necessitated overseers or subordinate managers, the concentration of labor on a few crops, and prevented that desirable subdivision of land which improves agriculture and gives to a country an independent yeomanry. Population was sparse, roads were neglected, free schools could not be established, and the estates became a species of baronies, where the lords of the manor exercised an inferior government quite apart from the general civil jurisdiction.

As a rule, the owners of many slaves and of large plantations were men of intelligence, of masterful qualities and often of much culture. Governing a community of dependents in such a way as to temper control with moderation and justice, to exact obedience and steady labor without provoking ill-feeling, rebellion, escape or anarchy, to insist upon order and authority and have, at the same time, cheerful and productive work and great affection, developed a habit of government at home which was ripened into statesmanship on larger fields. The isolation of plantation life and unshared responsibility stimulated individuality, self-reliance, acting on one's own judgment. In most matters of domestic concern there was no public opnion to which they could be referred, no tribunal for arbitration, and the master was, under the general laws of the Commonwealth, the sole and supreme legislative and executive authority. This independence, self-government, and the presence of a subject class made the slaveholder the vigilant, sometimes hasty protector of the honor of himself and family, the stern advocate of limitations upon the powers of the civil government and the valiant defender of the liberties of his race. Hence, Burke's well-known tribute to the unconquerable love of freedom and manly insistence upon their rights, of the Southern colonies in the earliest days of conflict with the mother country.

That slaveholders were the leaders in politics and held many influential positions in the State and the Federal governments is not strange. Where people were segregated and families were sometimes miles apart, the court house, the militia musters, the elections, the public speakings, the rural churches, were the places and the occasions for the discussion of agricultural needs, of prices of products, of taxes, of conduct of representatives and public officers, of neighborhood affairs. The shire-town was generally a small village and offered no inducements for assemblages of the people, except when twice a year the Circuit Courts were held. In nearly every country neighborhood was a store where everything of a miscellaneous character was kept, and at the same place was the post office. Every day persons, not kept at home by necessary work, were at these stores, and everything pertaining to human life was brought under consideration. What more natural and proper than that those who had wealth, were men of affairs, were familiar with markets, read newspapers and traveled, should be consulted and deferred to. When, as often happened, there were present those who had been in the Legislature or in Congress or had visited the seaport cities to buy merchandise or sell produce, they would be called on for information or opinions, and they were listened to with respect and attention. My earliest recollection is associated with spontaneous, somewhat unpremeditated, gatherings of farmers at stores and the conversational discussion of questions far beyond my boyish comprehension.

It is worthy of mention that nearly every person looked forward to the time when family work or cares would be lightened by the ownership of a slave. Still, I have known hundreds of lawyers, doctors, merchants, farmers, preachers, mechanics who did not in their own right possess slaves. The majority of farmers had no slaves, but sometimes hired them by the year. These farmers worked their own fields side by side with the negroes and their children. The widely prevalent notion that the cultivation of cotton and tobacco at the South is, or ever was, dependent upon negro labor is an error, unsupported by fact. Far more than half of the present ten million bales of cotton have been produced by white labor. The stigma of “poor whites,” so often used in derision and contempt, is unwarranted and grossly unjust. Many non-slaveholders and persons of small means have, in peace and in war, signalized their lives by all the virtues which ennoble humanity and advance civilization.

Illiteracy was unfortunately not confined to the negroes, as sparseness of population prevented State systems of free schools. It would be an erroneous inference that these illiterate people were wholly uninformed. The assemblages to which reference has been made were valuable schools and educatory in a high degree. In ante-bellum days political discussions prevailed universally. Candidates for governorship, Congress, for Legislature, often for other offices, engaged in joint discussion before the people. Appointments were made for public speaking, time was divided equally among contestants or between parties, and for hours there was earnest attention to debates upon the most important questions. Let me illustrate. In 1847 and 1853, when a candidate for the Alabama Legislature, education, finances, taxation, State aid to railways, were discussed. In 1855, when the Know-Nothing or American party, was seeking power in the State and Federal governments, the tenets and purposes of that party were presented by the chosen champions on each side. In 1856, as a candidate for Presidential elector, and in 1857 and 1859, when seeking a seat in Congress, making forty or fifty speeches in the district, the issues were internal improvements by the general Government, distribution of the proceeds of public lands, veto power, tariff, expenditures, power of Congress over the Territories, “Squatter Sovereignty,” and in 1860 and 1861 right and expediency of secession and relation of the States to the Federal Union. In those days, while parties

were distinct and party feeling was strong, party machinery hardly had an existence; “bossism” was unknown, voting by sections was unheard of. As a general rule, each man voted as an independent citizen and bribery or corruption in elections, when it occurred, made the place and persons a by-word and a scorn. My contests for the Legislature and for seats in the Federal and Confederate Congress cost me practically nothing. The whole expense was covered by a few hotel bills, announcement of candidacy in the newspapers and the printing of tickets.

In the eight times I sought the suffrage of the electors of county and district and State, I did not pay a dollar for campaign expenses; no such contribution was asked or expected, and I never knew of a dollar being paid for a vote or a nomination.

There was in the ante-bellum days no perceptible social division between slaveholders and non-slaveholders as classes. No sharp lines of separation were drawn between them. In marriage, in visiting, in office holding, in professional or other employment, no question was raised as to the ownership of slaves or interest in this species of property. I recall several members of Congress who held no slaves. Merit, respectability, virtue, was the open sesame to dinners, entertainments, marital relations. Color drew a broad and ineffaceable line of demarcation. The least taint of inferior racial blood operated semper ubique as an exclusion. Piety, church membership, was not the social standard, but integrity and proper treatment of slaves were. I have known wealthy men, according to the estimate of wealth in those days, indicted and convicted for the cruel treatment of their negroes. The counts of the indictment were insufficient food and clothing, over work and harsh and unusual punishment. The marriage relationship was sacred. A person divorced for other cause than the awful sin of adultery was tabooed. Separation of husband and wife was tantamount to social proscription. The family was the unit and relationship of the worthy to a remote degree was recognized, and the bond of fellowship embraced all except those who offended the laws of decency and honesty.