THE Ij -J ^iiT- I STATE OF THE COUNTRY, 1 If I PI ■J!L HV EEV. J. H. THORNWELL, D. D., THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, aOEUMBEv, S. &. MEW ORLEANS: r. Kn AT Till", "tuuf. witness ANn pentixkl" office, 94 cvmi' st. \Si)]^ m ^"i^^,^-.;^;^ George Washington Flowers Memorial Collection DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ESTABLISHED BY THE FAMILY OF COLONEL FLOWERS THE STATE OF THE COUNTRY, BY Rev. J. H. THORN^VELL, D. D. THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, COLUMBIA, S. C. Declaration of the Immediate Cau.-^es which Induce and Justify the Secess0n of South Carolina from the Federal ii^nibn; and the Odinance of Secession. Printed by order of the Convention. ' Cliarleston: Evans & Cogswell, Printers to the Convention; p. 13. 1860. The Address of the People of South Carolina, Assembled in Convention, to the Peoj^le of the Slaveholding Statets of the United States. Printed by order of the Convention. Charleston : Evans & Cogs.well, Printers to the Convention ; p. 16. 1860. Report on the Address of a pohion of the Members of the General Assembly of Georgia. Printed by order of the Convention. Charleston: Evans & Cogswell, Printers to the Convention; p. (^. 1860. It is now universally known tinit, on the twentieth day of last December, tin? people of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, solemnly annulled the ordin- ance by which they becarfce members of the Federal Union, entitled the /United States of America, and roswriting, the telegraphic wires an- nounce" what the previous elections had jtrepiwed us to expect — that Florida, Ala- bama^.^nd ^lississippi have followed her example. They also have become sepa- rate and indei)endent States. Three other State^lfiave taken tlie incipient steps for ihe consummation giof the same result. AU)i>tHc rest of the slaveholding States arc hiuiging by a single thread to the Union-l^the slender thread of hope — that guarantees may be devised which shall yet s^ure to them their rights. But even they proclaim, that, without sucli guaran1^x\s, their wnmgs are intolerable, and tht'y will not longer endure them. Can any man believe that the secession of four ^tji-ereign States, under the most solcnin eircumstances, the determination gof others to follow as soon as the consti- tuted ajLithorities can be called together, and the universal sentiment of all that the Constitution of the United States has bcen\;rtuall/ repealed, and that every linaf ^^tate has just ground for c;Jfi any man believe that this sla'^i^-ii secessi _ is a fat^itic^il condition of the public mJAid (it '^.iio South, })roduced by brawling p^ticians and disappointed demagogues, ai* not the caln), deliberate, profound ut- terance of 5^pople Avho feel, in their in- most soifls, f^t the}'- have been deeply aftd fiagj-antLj^ wronged? Tiic presump- tion 'clearly Lstthat there is something in the attitudf^ r>f.i^he Tiovermnent Avliich portendt* daiif^^f- and demands resistance. There nkust I/?* a cause for this intense and porjadin* sense of injustice and of injury, i./ r It has been suggested, by those who know as little of the people of the South as they tlo of the Constitution of their country ,*4hat all this ferment is nothing but tlTe r'gsult of a mercenary spirit on the part of the cotton-growing States, fed by Utopian dreams of aggrandizement and wealth, to be realized under the aus- pices of free trade, in a separate Confcdc- racy of tkeir own. It has been gravely insinuated that they are willing to sell their faith for gold — that they have only made a pretext of recent events to accom- plish a foregone scheme of deliberate treachery and fraud. That there is not the slightest ground in anything these States have ever said or done for this ex- traordinary slander, it is, of course, su- perfluous to add. The South has, indeed, complained of the unequal administration of the Government. Her best and purest statesmen have openly avowed the opin- ion, that, in consequence of the partial legislation of Congress, she has borne burdens, and experienced inconveniences, which have retarded her own prospcrit}^, while they have largely contributed to develope the resources of the North. But grievances of this kijid, unless greatly exaggerated, never would have led to tlic dissolution of tlie Union. They would have been resisted within it, or patiently borne until they could be lawfully re- dressed. So far from contending for an arbitrary riglit to dissolve the Union, or the right to dissolve it on merely techni- cal grounds, the South sets so high a value on good faith, that she would never have dissolved it, for slight and tempora- ry wrongs, even though they might in- volve such a violation, on the part of her confederates, of the terms of the compact, as released her from any furtlicr obliga- tion of honor. It is, therefore, preposter- ous to say, that any dreams, however dazzling, of ambition and avarice, could have induced her to disregard her solemn engagements to her sister States, while they were faithfully fulfilling the condi- tions of the contract. Vic know the i)eo- ple of the South; and we can confidently a|lirni, that if they had been assured that all these golden visions could have been completely realized by setting up for themselves, as long as the Constitution of the United States continued to be sin- cerely observed, they would liavc spurned the temptation to purchase national great- ness by perfidy. They would have pre- ferred poverty, with lumor, to the gain of the whole world by the loss of their integ- rity. When it was perceived tliat tlie tend- ency of events was inevitably driving the South to disunion, a condition from which she at first recoiled with horror, then she began to cast about for considerations to reconcile her to her destiny. Then, for the first time, was it maintained, that, in- stead of being a loser, she might be a gainer by the measure which the course of the Government was forcing upon her. It was alleged that good would spring from evil; that the prospect of indepen- dence was brighter and more cheering than her present condition — that she had much to anticipate, and little to dread, from the contemplated change. But these considerations were not invented to justify secession — they were only adduced as motives to reconcile the mind to its ne- cessity. Apart from that necessity, they would have had as little weight in de- termining public opinion, as the small dust of the balance. We do not believe, when the present controversy began, that the advocates of what is called disunion per se, men who preferred a Southern Confederacy upon the grounds of its in- trinsic superiority to the Constitutional Union of the United States, could have mustered a corporal's guard. The people of the South were loyal to the country, and if the country had been true to them, they would have been as ready to-day to defend its honor with their fortunes and their blood, as when they raised its triumphant flag upon the walls of Mexico. It has also been asserted, as a groimd of dissatisfaction with the present Gov- ernment, and of desire to organize a sep- arate Government of their own, that the cotton-growing States are intent upon re- opening, as a means of fulfilling their magnificent visions of wealth, tlie Afri- can slave-trade. The agitation of this subject at the South has been grievously misunderstood. One extreme generates another. The violence of the Northern abolitionists gave rise to a small party among ourselves, who were determined not to be outdone in extravagance. They wished to show that they could give a Rowland for an Oliver. Had abolition- ists never denounced the domestic trade as plunder and robber}', not a whisper would ever have been breathed about dis- turbing the peace of Africa. The men who were loudest in their denunciations of the Government had, with very few ex- ceptions, no more desire to have the trade reopened than the rest of their country- men ; but they delighted in teasing their enemies. They took special satisfaction in providing hard nuts for abolitionists t<:» crack. Tliore -were others, not at all in fa- vor of the trade, who looked npon the law as unconstitutional which declared it to be piracy. Hut the great mass of the Southern people were content with tlie law as it stood. They were and are op- posed to the trade — not because the traf- fic in slaves is immoral — that not a man amoncT us believes — but because the traf- fic with Africa is vol a traflic in slaves. — It is a system of kidnapping and man- stealing, which is as abhorrent to the South as it is to the North ; and we ven- ture ctnifidentlj- to predict, that should a Southern Ct)])fcderac3' be formed, the Af- rican slave-trade is much more likely to be reopened l)y the old Government than the new. The conscience of the North will be less tender when it has no South- ern sins to bewail, and idle ships will natu- rally look to the (Joveniment to help them in finding em])loyment. The real cause of the intense excite- ment of the Scnitb, is not vain dreams of natiitnal glory in a st^parate confederacy, nor the love of the iilthy lucre of tlic Af- rican slave-trade ; it is the profound con- viction that the Constitution, in its rela- tions to slavery, has been virtually repeal- ed ; that the Government has assumed a new and dangerous attitude upon this subject ; that we liave, in short, new terms of union sulnnittcd to our accep- tance or rejection. Here lies the evil. — The election of Lincoln, when properly interpreted, is nothing more nor less than a proposition to tlie South to consent to a (rovernment, fundamentally diifcrent up- on tlie question of slavery, from tliat which our fathers established. If this point can be made out, secession liecomes not only a right, but a bounded duty. — Morally, it is only the abrogation of the forms of a contract, when its essential conditions have been abolished. Polit- ically, it is a measure indispensable to the safety, if not to the very existence, of the South. It is needless to say that, in this issue the personal character of Mr. Lincoln is not at all involved. There are no objections to him as a man, or as a citizen of the North. He is probably en- titled, in the private relations of life, to all the commendations which liis friends have bestowed upon him. We, at least, would be the last to detract from his personal worth. The issue has respect, not to the man, but to the principles upon which he is pledged to administer the (lovernment, and which, we arc significantly inftn-mcd, are to be impressed upon it in all time to come. His election seals the triumph of those principles, and that triumph seals tlie subversion of the Constitution, in re- lation to a matter of paramount interest to the South. This we shall proceed to show, by show- ing, first, the Constitutional attitude of the CJovennnent towards slavery, and then the attitude which, after the inaii- guration of Mr. Lincoln, it is to assume and maintain for ever: I. What, now, is its Constitutional at- titude? We affirm it to be one of ,\iisoiXTE iNniKFEREXCE OR NEUTR.\LrrY, with rcspcct to all questions connected with the moral and political aspects of the subject. In the eye of the Constitution, slavcholding and non-slavcholding stand upon a foot- ing of perfect equality. The slavchold- ing State and the slavcholding citizen are the same to it as the non-.slaveholding. It protects both; it espouses the peculiari- ties of neither. It does not alow the North to say to the South, Your institu- tions are inferior to ours, ajid should be changed; neither does it allow the Soutli to say to the North, You must accommo- date yourselves to us. It says to both, Enjo}' your own opinions upon your own soil, so that you do not interfere with the rights of each other. To me there is no dilference betwixt you. Formed by par- ties whose divisive principle was this very subject of slavery, it stands to rea- son, that the Constitution, Avithout self- condemnation on the part of one or the other, coxild not have been made the pa- tron of either From the very nature of the case, its position must be one of com- plete impartiality. This is what the Soutli means by equality in the Union, that the General Govorninent shall make no dillerenco betwixt its institutions and those of the North ; that slavcholding shall be as good to it as non-slaveholding. In other words, the Government is the organ 'of neither party, but Ihe common agent of both ; and, as their common agent, has no right to pronounce an opin- ion as to the merits of their respective l)eculiarities. This, we contend, is the attitude fixed by the Constitution. The Government is neither pro nor anti slave- ry. It is simpl}^ neutral. Had it assum- ed any other attitude upon this subject, it never would have been accepted by the slaveliolding' States. When Mr. Pinck- ney could rise up in the Convention and declar^, that " if slaver}^ be wrong, it is justified b}' the example of all the world;" when he could boldly appeal to the unani- mous testimou}^ of ancient and modern times — to Greece and Rome, to France, Holland, and Eng-land, in vindication of its rig-htcousness, it is not to be presumed that he never would have joined in the constriTction of a Government wliich was authorized to pronounce and treat it as an evil 1 It is not to be presumed that the slaveholding States, unless they seri- ously aimed at the ultimate extinction of slavery, would have entered into an alli- ance which was confessedly to be turned against them. That they did not aim at the extinction of slcivery, is clear from the pertinacity with which some of them chmg to the continuance of the African slave-trade, until foreign supplies should be no longer demanded. AVhen Georgia and South Carolina made it a sine quanon for entering the Union, that this traffic sliould be kept open for a season, to say that these States meditated the abolition of slavery, is grossly paradoxical. It is remarkable, too, that the time fixed for the prohibition of this traffic, was a time within which the Representatives of those States were pei'suaded that the States themselves, if the question were left to them, would prohibit it. These States conceded to the Govennnent the right to do, as their agent, oidy wliat tliey tliemselvcs would do, as sovereign communities, under the same circumstan- ces. No presumption, thcfore, of an at- titude, on ,the part of the Constitution, liostilc to slavery, can be deduced from tlie clause touching the African slave- trade. On the contrary, the presumption is, that, as the trade was kept open for a while — kept open, in fact, as long as the African supply was needed — the slave- holding States never meant to abolish the institution, and never could have con- sented to set the face of the Government against it. No doubt, the fathers of the Republic were, many of them, not all, opposed to slavery. But they had t^ frame a Government which should repre- sent, not their personal and private opin- ions, but the interests of sovereign States. They had to adjust it to the institutions of South Carolina and Georgia, as well as those of New England. And they had the grace given them to impress upon it the only attitude which could conciliate and harmonize all parties — the attitude of perfect indificreuce. This, at the same time, is the attitude of justice. We of the South have the same right to our opinions as the people of the North. They appear as true to us as theirs appear to them. We are as honest and sincere in forming and maiataining them. We unite to form a goTcrnmcnt. Upon what principle shall it be formed? Is it to be asked of us to renounce doctrines which we believe have come down to us from the earliest ages, and have the sanc- tion of the oracles of God ? Must wc give up what we conscientiously believe to be the truth? The thing is absurd. The Government, in justice, can only say to both parties: I will protect you both, I will be the advocate of neither. In order to exempt slavery from the operation of this plain principle of justice, it has been contended that the right of property in slaves is the creature of posi- tive statute, and, consequently, of force only Avithin the limits of the jurisdiction of the law; that it is a right not recog- nized by the Constitution of the United States, and, therefore, not to be protected where Congress is the local legislature. These two propositions contain every thing that lias any show of reason for the extraordinary revolution which the recent election has consummated in the Govern- ment of the United States. They are both gratuitous : (1.) In the first place, slavery has never, in any country, so far as we know, arisen under the operation of statute law. It is not a municipal institution — it is not the arbitrary creature of the State, it has not si^'ung from the mere force of legis- lation. Law defines, modifies and regu- lates it, as it does ever}^ other species of property, but law never created it. The law found it in existence, and beiug in existence, the law subjects it to fixed rules. On the contrary, what is local and municipal, is the abolition of slavery. The States that are now non-slaveholding, have been made so by positive statute. .Slavery exists, of course, in every nation ill wliich it is not proliibitcd. It arose, in the i)rog'ress of human events, from the operatitin of moral causes ; it has bc.n grounded by philosophers in moral max- ims, it has always been held to be moral by the vast majority of the race. No a^^e has been without it. From the first (lawn ct from others. It is a noble maxim, connnended by high authority — do as you would be done by. The South has neither asked for, nor docs she desire, any exclusive benefits. All she demands is, that as South, as slavcholding, she shall be put upon tlie same footing with the North, as non- slaveliolding — that the Government shall not undertake to sa^'^, one kind (.)f States is better than the other — that it shall have no preference as to the cliaracter, in this resjiect, of any future States to be added to the Union. Non-slaveholding may be sui)erior to slavcholding, but it is not the place of. the Government to say so ; much less to assume the right of saying so ;ipon a principle which, properly applied, re(iuires it to say the very re- verse. There is another sense in which munici- pal is opposed to international, and in this sense, slaver}!" is said to be municipal, because there is no obligation, by the law of nations, on the part of States in which slavery is prohibited, to respect within the limits of tlieir owii territory the rights of the foreign slaveholder. This is the doctrine laid down by Judge Story. No nation is bound to accord to a stranger a right of property which it refuses to its own subjects. AVe can not, therefore, de - mand from the Governments of France or England, or any other foreign power, whose j)olicy and interests are opposed to slavery, the restoration of ourfugitives from bondage. We are Avilling to con- cede, for the sake of argument, that the principle in (jucstion is an admitted prin- ciplo of international law, though we are quite persuaded that it is contrary to the whole current of Continental authorities, and is intensely English. We doubt whether, even in England, it can be traced beyond the famous decision of Lord Mans- field, in the case of Somersett. But let us admit the principle. What then ? The Constitution of the United States has expressly provided that this principle shall not apply within tlie limits of Fed- eral jurisdiction. With reference to tliis country, it has abrogated the law ; every State is bound to respect the right of the Southern master to his slave. The Con- stitution covers the whole territory of the Union, and thruughout that territory has taken slavery, under the protection of law. However foreign nations may treat our fugitive slaves, the States of this Confederacy are bound to treat them as property, and to give them back to their lawful owners. How idle, therefore, to plead a })rinciplc of international laAv, wliich, in reference to the relations of the States of this Union, is formally abolished! Slavery is clearly a part of the municipal law of the United States ; and the whole argument from the local cliaractcr of the institution, falls to the ground. Slave- holding and non-slaveholding are both equally sectional, and both equally na- tional. (2.) As to tlie allegation that the Con- stitution no where recognizes the right of pr(jperty in slaves, that is ecjually un- founded. We shall say nothing here of the decision of the Supreme Court, though that, one would think, is entitled to some consideration. We shall appeal to the Constitution itself, and if there is force in logic, we shall be able to make it appear that the right is not only recognized, but recognized with a philosophical accurac}- and precision that seize only on the es- smitial, and omit the variable and acci- dental. The subject, in the language of the Constitution, is transferred from the technicalities of law to the higher sphere of abstract and speculative morality. Morally considered, to what class does the slave belong ? To the class of per- sons held to service. The two ideas that he is a person, and as a person, held to service, .constitute the generic conception of slavery. How is his obligation to service fundamentally dilicrenced from that of other laborers ? By this, as one essential circumstance, that it is inde- pendent of the formalities of contract. Add the circumstance that it is for life, and yon have a complete conception of the thing. You have the very definition, almost in his own words, Avhich a cele- brated English philosopher gives of slave- ry : " I define slavery," saj-s Dr. Paley, "to be an obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant." Xow, is such an obligation recognized in the Constitution of the United States ? Are there persons spoken of in it, who are held to service b}^ a claim so sacred that the Government allows them, however anxious they may be to do so, to dissolve it neither by stratagem nor force ? If they run away, they must be remanded to those who are entitled to their labor, even if they escape to a territory whose local laws would otherwise protect them. If they appeal to force, the whole power of the Union may be brought to caish them. Can any man say. that the Co istitution does not here recognize a right to the labor and service of men, of persons which springs from no stipulations of their own, is entirely independent of their own consent, and which can never be an- nulled by any cfibrts, Avhether clandestine or open, on their part ? 27a'.s is slavenj — it is the very essence and core of the in- stitution. That upon which the right of property terminates in the slave, is his service or labor. It is not his soul, nor his person, not his moral and intellectual nature — it is his labor. This is the thing which is bought and sold in the market, and it is in consequence of the right to regulate, control and direct this, that the person comes under an obligation to obey. The ideas of a right on one side, and duty on the other, show that the slave, in this relation, is truly a person as his master. The Constitution, therefore, does recog- nize and protect slavery, in every moral and ethical feature of it. The thing which, imder that name, has commanded the approbation of mankind, is the very thing, among others analogous to it, in- cluded in the third clause of the second section of the fourth chapter of the Con- stitution. We see no way of getting round this argument. It is idle to say that slaves are not referred to — it is equal- ly idle to say that the right to their labor is not respected and guarded. Let this right be acknowledged in the territories, and we are not disposed to wring changes upon wi^rds. Let the Government per- mit the South to carry her persons held to service, witlmut tlicir cousjent, into the territories, and let tlie right to tlieir labor be protected, and there would be no quar- rel about slavery. It is unworthy of statesmen, in a matter of this sort, to quibble about legal technicalities. That tlic law of slaveholding States classes slaves among chattels, and speaks of them as marketable commodities, does not im- ply that, morally and etliically, they are not persons, nor that the property is in them, rather than in their toil. Tliese same laws treat them in other respects as persons, and s])eak of their' service as obedience or duty. Tiie meaning of chat- tel is relative, and is to be restricted to the relation wliich it implies. We are happy to find that the Supreme Court of the United States has fully con- firmed thd interpretation which we liave given to this clause of. the Constitution. lu the case of Prigg t>'. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it was asserted by eve- ry Judge upon the Bench, that the design of the provision was " to secure to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete right and title of ownership in their slaves, as propeity, in every State in the Union into which they might escape from the State where they were held in servitude." These are the very words of Mr. Justice Story, in delivering the opin- ion of the Court. He went on to add : "The full recognition of this right and title was indispensable to the security oi' this species of property in all the slave- holding States ; and, indeed, was so vital to tiie preservation of the domestic inter-, csts and institutions tliat it cannot be doubted tiiat it C(jnstituted a fundamental article, without the adoption of wliich the Union could not have been formed." Again : " We have said that the clause contains a positive and unqualified recog- nition of the right of the owner in the slave." Chief Justice Tanej' held : that, " by the national com})act, this right of property is recognized as an existing right in every State of the Union." Judge Thompson said : the Constitution "af- firms, in tlie most unequivocal manner, the right of the master to the service of his slave, according to the laws of the State under which he is so held." Judge AVayne affirmed that all the Judges con- curred " in tlie declaration that the pro- vision in the Constitution was a comi)ro- mise between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States, to secure to the former fugitive slaves as property." "The paramount authority of this clause iu the Constitution,"' says Judge Daniel, " to guarantee to the owner the right of pro- perty in his slave, and the absolute nullity of any State power, directly or indirectly, openly or covertly, aimed to impair that right, or to obstruct its enjoyment, I ad- mit, nay, insist upon, to the fullest ex- tent." If now, the Constitution reci>gnizes slaves as property, that is, as persons to whose labor and service the master has a right, then, iqjon what principle shall Congress undertake to abolish this right upon a territ(ny, of which it is the local Legislature ? It will not permit the slave to cancel it, because the service is due. Upon Avhat ground can itself interpose be- tween a man and his dues ? Congress is as much the ageut of the slaveholding as it is of tlie non-slaveholding States ; and, as equally bound to protect both, and to hold the scales of justice even between them, it must guard the property of the one with the same care with which it guards the property of the other. We have now refuted the postulates up- on which the recent revolution in the Government is attempted to be justified. We have shown that slavery is not the creature of local and municipal law, and tliat the Constitution distinctly recognizes the right of the master to the labor or service of the slave ; that is, the right of property in slaves. There is no conceiva- ble pretext, then, for saying that the Government should resist the circulation of this kind of property, more than any other. That question it must leave to the providence of God, and to the natural and moral laws by which its solution is con- ditioned. All that the Govennneut can do, is to give fair play to both parties, the slaveholding and non-slavelu)]ding States ; protect the rights of both on their com- mon soil, and as soon as a sovereign State emerges, to which the soil is henceforward to belong, remit tlu; matter to its absolute 9 discretion. This is justice — this is the impartiality which becomes the agent of a great people, divided by two such great interests. That the rights of the South, as slave- holding — for it is in that relation only that she is politically a different section from the North — and the rights of the North, as non-slaveholding, are absolutely equal, is so plain a proposition, that one wonders at the pertinacity with which it has been denied. Here let us expose a sophism whose only force consists in a play upon words. It is alleged that the equality of tlie sections is not disturbed by the exclusion of slavery from the territories, because the Southern man may take with him all that the Northern man can take. The plain English of which is this : if the Soutliern man will consent to become as a Northern man, and renounce what distinguishes him as a /Southern man, he may go into the terri- tories. But if he insists upon remaining a Southern man, he must stay at home. The geography is only an accident in this matter. The Southern man, politically, is the slaveholder ; the Northern man, politically, is the non-slaveholder. The rights of the South arc the rights of the South as slaveholdiiig ; the rights of the North are the rights of the North as non- slaveholding. This is what makes the real difference betwixt the two sections. To exclude slaveholding is, therefore, to exclude the South. By the free-soil doc- trine, therefore, she, as South, is utterly debarred from every foot of the soil, which belongs, of right, as mxich to her as to her Northern confederates. The Constitution is made to treat her institu- tions as if they were a scandal and re- proach. It becomes the patron of the North, and an enemy, instead of a pro- tector, to her. That this is the attitude which the Gov- ernment is henceforward to assume, we shall now proceed to show : (1.) In the first place, let it be dis- tinctly understood, that we do not charge the great body of the Northern people, who have accomplished the recent revolu- tion, with being abolitionists, in the strict and technical sense. We are willing to concede that they have no design, for the present, to interfere directly with slavery in the slaveholding States. We shall give them credit for an honest purpose, under Mr. Lincoln's administration, to execute, as far as the hostility of the States will let them, the provisions of the fugitive slave law. All this may be ad- mitted, but it does not affect the real issue, nor mitigate the real danger. We know that there are various types of opinion at the North with reference to the moral aspects of slavery, and we have never apprehended that, under the Con- stitution as it stands, there was any like- lihood of an attempt to interfere, by legislation, with our property on our own soil. (2.) But, in the second place, it must likewise be conceded that the general, almost the universal, attitude of the North- ern mind is one of hostility to slavery. Those who are not prepared to condemn it as a sin, nor to meddle with it where it is legally maintained, are yet opposed to it, as a natural and political evil, which every good man should desire to see ex- tinguished. Thoy all regard it as a calamity, an affliction, a misfortune. They regard it as an element of weakness, and as a draw-back upon the prosperity and glory of the country. They pity the South, as caught in the folds of a serpent, which is gradually squeezing out her life. And, even when they defend us from the reproach of sin in sustaining the relation, they make so many distinctions between the abstract notion of slavery and the sj'^stcm of our own laws, that their de- fense would hardly avail to save us, if there were any power competent to hang and quarter us. We are sure that we do not misrepresent the general tone of Northern sentiment. It is one of hostility to slavery — it is one which, while it might not be willing to break faith, under the present administration, with respect to the express injunctions of the Constitu- tion, is utterly and absolutely opposed to any further extension of the system. (3.) In the third place, let it be dis- tinctly understood that we have no com- plaint to make of the opinions of the North, considered simply as their opinions. They have a right, so far as human authority is concerned, to think as they please. The South has never asked them to approve of slavery, or to change their own institutions and to introduce it among themselves. The South has been willing 10 to accord to them the most perfect and unrestricted right of private judgment. (4.) But, in the fourth place, what we do complain of, and what we have a right to complain of, is that they should not be content with thinking their own thoughts themselves, but should undertake tu make the Government think them lifcrewise. We of the South have, also, cert;i:;i thoughts concerning sla%'ery, and w(? can-pot un- derstand upon what principle tli'etbink- ing of the South is totally excluded, and the thinking of the North made supreme. The Government is as much ours as theirs, and we can not see why, in a matter that vitally concerns ourselves, we shall be allowed to do no effective thinking at all. This is the grievance. The Government is made to take the type of Northern sentiment — it is animated, in its relations to slavery, by the Northern mind, and the South, henceforward, is no longer of the Government, but only under the Govern- ment. Tiie extension of slavery, in obedience to Northern prejudice, is to be for ever arrested. Congress is to treat it as an evil, an element of political weak- ness, and to restrain its influence within the limits which now circumscribe it. All this because the North thinks so ; while tlie South, an equal party to the Goveruineut, has quite other tliouglits. And when we indignantly conqjlaiu of this absolute su|)i)ression of all right to think in and through our own Govern- ment, upon a subject liiat involv(»s our homes and our firesi(J(;s, we are coolly re- minded, that, as long as Congress does not usurp the rights of our own Legisla- tures, and abolish slavery on our own soil, nor harbor our fugitives when they attempt to escape from us, we have reason to be grateful for the indulgence accorded to us. The right to breathe is as much as we should venture to claim. You may exist, says free-soilism, as States, and manage yoiir slaves at home — we will not abrogate your sovereignty. Your runaways we do not want, and we may occasionally send them back to you. But* if you think you have a right to be heard at Washington upon this great subject, it is time that your presumption should b^ rebuked. .The North is the thinki'-sr power — the soul of the Govern- raen+ i'Tlie life of the Government is Northern — not Southern ; the type to be impr<;ssed upon all future States is North- ern — not Southern. The North becomes the United States, and the South a sub- ject province. Now, we say that this is a state of things not to be borne. A free people can never consent to their own degrada- tion. We say boldly, that the Govern- ment has no more right to adopt North- ern thoughts on the subject of slavery than those of the South. It has no more right to presume that they are true. It has no right to arbitrate between them. It must treat thejn both with eipial re- spect, and give them an equal chance. Upon no other footing can the South, with honor, remain in the Union. It is not to be endured for a moment, that fifteen sovereign States, embodying,, in proportion to their population, as much intelligence, virtue, public spirit and patriotism, as any other people upon the globe, should be quietly reduced to zero, in a Government which they framed for their own protection 1 We put the ques- tion again to the North : If the tables were turned, and it was your thoughts, your life, your institutions, that the Gov- ernment was henceforward to discoun- tenance ; if non-slaveholding was here- after to be prohibited in every territory, and the whole policy of the Government shaped by the principle that slavery is a blessing, would you endure it ? Would not your blood boil, and would you not 11 call upon your hungry millions to come to the rescue ? And yet, this is precisely what you have done to us> and think we ought not to resist. You have made us ciphers, and are utterly amazed that we should claim to be any thing. But, apart from the degradation which it inflicts upon the South; it m be asked, what real injurj^ will result 1; .Jlflttizis: the Government in an attitude of to slavery? The answer is, in the first place, iT^^W: Mnll certainly lead to the extinction of the system. You may destroy the oak as effectually by girdling it as by cutting it down. The North are well assured that if they can circumscribe the area of slavery, if they can surround it with a circle of non-slaveholding States, and prevent it from expanding, nothing more is required to secure its ultimate abolition. " Like the sCorpion girt by fire," it will plunge its fangs into its own body, and perish. If, therefore, the South is not prepared to see her institutions sur- rounded by enemies, and wither and de- caj' und(>r these hostile influences, if she means to cherish and protect them, it is her bounden duty to resist the revolution which threatens them with ruin. The triumph of the principles wliich Mr. Lin- coln is pleged to carry out, is the death- knell of slavery. hi the next place, the state of the Northern mind which has produced this revoluticm can not be expected to remain content with its present victory. It will hasten to other triumphs. The same spirit which has prevaricated with the express provisions of the Constitution, and resorted to expedients to evade the most sacred obligations, will not hesitate for a nioment to change the Constitution when it finds itself in possession of the power. It will only be consistency to harmonize the fundamental law of the Government with its chosen policy, the real workings of its life. The same hostility to slavery which a numerical maj' '^v has impressed upon the Federal Lpg ^, it will not scruple to impress upon the %deral Constitution. If the South could 3 induced to submit to Lin coin, the tirn^ve confidently predict, will come whei^^P grounds of controversy will be r^j^-ed in relation to fugitive slaves, by expunging the provision under ' '\y are claimed. The principle is ^^1 enthroned in power, whose iEicvi<:«,b'ie* tendency is to secure this re- res.ult. Let us crush the serpent in the From these considerations, it is obvious that nothing more nor less is at stake in this controversy than the very life of the South. The real question is, whether she shall be politically annihilated. We are not struggling for fleeting and temporary interests. We are struggling for our very being. And none know better than the Republican party itself, that if we submit to their new type of Government, our fate as slaveholding is for ever sealed. They have already exulted in the prospect of this glorious consummation. They boast that they have laid a mine which must ultimately explode in our utter ruin. They are singing songs of victory in ad- vance, and are confidently anticipating the auspicious hour when they shall have nothing to do but to return to the field and bury the dead. The sum of what we have said is brief- ly this : We have shown that the Con- stitutional attitude of the Government to- wards slaveiy is one of absolute neutral- ity or indifference in relation to the moral and political aspects of the subject. We have shown, in the next place, that it is hereafter to take an attitude of hostility ; that it is to represent the opinions and feel- ings exclusively of the North ; that it is to become .he Government of one section 12 over another ; and that the South, as South, is to sustain no other relation to it but the duty of obedience. This is a thorough and radical revolu- tion. It makes a new Government — it proposes new and extraordinary terms of union. The old Government is as com- pletely abolished as if the people of the United States had met in Convention and repealed the Constitution. It is frivolous to tell us that the change has been made through the forms of the Constitution. This is to add insult to injury. What signify forms, when the substance is gone ? Of what value is the shell, when the ker- nel is extracted ? Rights are things, and not words ; and when the things are taken from us, it is no time to be nibbling at phrases. If a witness under oath de- signedly gives testimony, which, though literally true, conveys a false impression, is he not guilty of perjury? Is not his truth a lie ? Temurcs kept the letter of his promise to the garrison of Sebastia, that if they would surrender, no blood should be shed, but did that save him from the scandal of treachery in burying them alive ? No man objects to the legality of the process of Mr. Lincoln's election. The objection is to the legality of that to which he is elected. He has been chosen, not to administer, but to revolutionize, the Government. The very moment he goes into office, the Constitution of the United States, as touching the great question be- tween North and South is dead. The oath which makes him President, makes a new Union. The import of secession is simply the refusal, on the part of the South, to be parties to any such Union. She has not renounced, and if it had been permitted to stand, she never would have renounced, the Constitution which our fathers framed. She would liave stood by it for ever. But, as the North have sub- stantially abolished it, and, taking ad- vantage of their numbers, have substitu- ted another in its place, which dooms the South to perdition, surely she has a right to say she will enter into no such conspir- acy. The Government to which she con- sented was a Government under which she might hope to live. The new one presented in its place is one under which she can -only die. Under these circum- stances, ^vc do not see how any man can I question cither the righteousness or the necessity of secession. The South is shut up to the duty of rejecting these new terms of Union. No people on earth, without judicial infatuation, can organize a Government to destroy them. It is too much to ask a man to sign his own death- warrant. II. We wish to say a few words as to the policy of the slaveholding States in the present emergency. We know it to be the fixed determina- tion of them all not to acquiesce in the principles which have brought .Mr. Lin- coln into power. Several of them, how- ever, have hesitated — and it is a sign of the scrupulous integrity of the South in maintaining her faith — whether the mere fact of his election, apart frwm any overt act of the Government, is itself a casus belli, and a sufficient reason for extreme measures of resistance. These States have, also, clung to the hope that there would yet bo a returning sense of justice at the North, which shall give them sat- isfactory guarantees for the preservation of their rights, and restore peace without tlio necessity of schism. We respect the motives which have produced this hesita- tion. We have no sympathy with any taunting reflections upon the courage, magHanimity, public spirit or patriotism of such a Commonwealth as" Virginia, Tlie mother of Washington is not to be insulted, if, like her great hero, she takes counsel of moderation and prudence. We 18 honor too, the sentiment which makes it hard to give up the Union. It was a pain- ful struggle to ourselves ; the most pain- ful struggle of our lives. There were precious memories and hallowed associa- tions, connected with a glorious history, to which the heart cannot bid farewell without a pang. Few men, in all the South, brought themselves to pronounce the word Disunion, without sadness of heart. Some States have not yet been able to pronounce it. But the tendency of events is irresistiable. It is becoming every day clearer, that the people of the North hate slavery more than they love the Union, and they are developing this spirit in a form which must soon bring every slaveholding State within the ranks of secession. The evil day may be put off, but it must come. The counby must be divided into two people, and the point which we wish now to press upon the whole South is, the importance of pre- paring, at once, for this consummation. The slaveholding interests is one, and it seems to us clear that the slaveholding States ought speedily to be organized un- der one general Government. United, they are strong enough to maintain them- selves against the world. They have the territory, the resources, the population, the public spirit, the institutions, which, under a genial and fostering Constitution, would soon enable them to become one of tlie first people upon the globe. And if the North shall have wisdom to see her true policy, two Governments upon this continent may work out the problem 'of human liberty more successfully than one. Let the two people maintain the closest alliance for defence against a foreign foe, or, at least, let them be agreed that no European power shall ever set foot on American soil, and that no type of govern- ment but the republican shall ever be tolerated here, and what is to hinder the fullest and freest development of our no- ble institutions. The separation changes nothing but the external relations of the sections. Such a dismemberment of the Union is not like the revolution of a State, where the internal system of government is subverted, where laws are suspended, and where anarchy reigns. The country might divide into two great nations to- morrow, without a jostle or a jar ; the Government of each State might go on as regularly as before, tlie law be as supreme, and order as perfect, if the passions of the people could be kept from getting the better of their judgments. It is a great advantage in the form of our Con- federacy, that a radical revolution can take place without confusion, and with- out anarchy. Every State has a perfect internal system at work already, and that undergoes no change, except in adjusting it to its altered external relations. Now, given this system of States, with every element of a perfect Government in full and undisturbed operation, what is there in the circumstances of one Confederacy of divided interests, that shall secure a freer and safer development than two Con- federacies, each representing an undivided interest? Are not two homogeneous Unions stronger than one that is hetero- geneous ? Should not the life of a Govern- ment be one ? We do not see, therefore, that anything will be lost to freedom by the union of the South under a separate Government. She will carry into it every institution that she had before — her State Constitutions, her Legislatures, her Courts of Justice, her halls of learning — every thing that she now possesses. She will put these precious interests under a Government embodying every principle which gave value to the old one, and am- ply adequate to protect them. What will bhe lose of real freedom ? We confess that we cannot understand the declama- 14 tion, that with the American Union, Ameri- can institutions are gone. Each section of the Union will jireservc them and cher- ish them. Every principle that has ever made us glorious, and made our Govern- ment a wonder, will abide with us. The sections, separately, will ' not be as for- midable to foreign ])0wer8 as before. That is all. But each section will bo strong enough to protect itself, and both together can save this continent for re- publicanism for ever. Indeed, it is likely that both Govern- ments will be purer, in consequence of their mutual rivalry, and the diminution of the extent of tlicir patronage. They will both cherish intensely the American feeling, both maintain the pride of Ameri- can character, and both try to make their Governments at home what they would desire to have them appear to be abroad. Once take away all pretext for med- dling with one another's peculiar inter csts, and we do not see but that the magnificent visions of glory, which our imaginations have delighted to picture as the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race on this North American continent, may yet be fully realized. They can never be, if we continue together, to bite and devour one another. But, whether it be for weal or woe, the South has no election. She is driven to the wall, and the only question is, will she take care of herself in time ? The sooner she can organize a general Gov- ernment, the better. That will be a centre of unity, and, once com) lined, we are safe. We can not close without saying a few words to the people of the North as to the })olicy which it becomes them to pur- sue. The whole question of peace or war is in their hands. The South is simply standing on the defensive, and has no notion of abandoning that attitude. Let the Northern people, then, seriously con- sider, and consider in the fear of God how, under present circumstances, they can best conserve those great interests of freedom, of religion, and of order, which are equally dear to us both, and which they can fearfully jeopard. If their coun- sels incline to peace, the most friendly re- lations can speedily be restored, and the most favorable treaties entered into. We should feel ourselves the joint possessors of the continent, and should be drawn together by ties which unite no other people. We could, indeed, realize all the advantages of the Union, without any of its inconveniences. The cause of human liberty would not even be retarded, if the North can rise to a level with the exigen- ces of the occasion. If, on the other hand, their thoughts incline to war, we solemnly ask them what they expect to gain? What interest will be promoted ? What end, worthy of a great people, will they be able to secure ? They may gratify their bad passions, they may try to reek their resentment upon the seced- ing States, and they may inflict a large amount of injury, disaster and suffering. But what have they gained? Shall a free people be governed b}' their passions ? Suppose they should conquer us, what will they do with us ? How will they hold us in subjection? How many gar- risons, and how many men, and how much treasure, will it take to keep the South in order as a conquered province ? and \\hcre are these resources to come from ? After they have subdued us, the hardest part of their task will remain. They will have the wolf by the ears. But, upon what grounds do they hope to conquer us? They know us well — they know our numbers — they know our spirit, and they know the value which we set upon our homes and firesides. We have fought for the glory of the Union, and the world admired us, but it was not such fighting as we shall do for our 15 wives, our children, and our sacred honor. The very women of the South, like the Spartan matrons, will take hold of shield and buckler, and our boys at school will go to the field in all the de- termination of disciplined valor. Con- quered we can never be. It would be madness to attempt it ; and after years of blood and slaughter, the parties would be just where they began, except that they would have learned to hate one another with an intensity of hatred equaled only in hell. Freedom would suffer, religion would suffer, learning would suffer, every human interest would suffer, from such a war. But upon whose head would fall the responsibility? There can be but one answer. We solemnly believe that the South will be guiltless before the eyes of the Judge of all the earth. She has stood in her lot, and re- sisted aggression. If the North could rise to the dignity of their present calling, this country would present to the world a spectacle of unparalleled grandeur. It would show how deeply the love of liberty and the influence of religion are rooted in our people, when a great empire can be divided without confusion, war, or dis- order. Two great people united under one government differ upon a question of vital importance to one. Neither can conscientiously give way. In the mag- nanimity of their souls, they say, let there be no strife between us, for we are brethren. The landi is broad enough for us both. Let us part in peace, let us divide our common inheritance, adjust our common obligations, and, preserving, as a sacred treasure, our common prin- ciples, let each set up for himself, and let the Lord bless us both. A course like this, heroic, sublime, glorious, would be something altogether imexampled in the history of the world. It would be the wonder and astonishment of the nations. It would do more to command for Ameri- can institutions the homage and respect of mankind, than all the armies and fleets of the Republic. It would be a victory more august and imposing than any which can be achieved by the thunder of cannon and the shock of battle. Peace is the policy of both North and South. Let peace prevail^ and nothing really valuable is lost. To save the Union is impossible. The thing for Christian men and patriots to aim at now, is to save the country from war. That will be a scourge and a curse. But the South will emerge from it free as she was before. She is the invaded party, and her institutions are likely to gain strength from the conflict. Can the North, as the invading party, be assured that she will not fall into the hands of a military despot ? The whole question is with her, and we calmly await her de- cision. We prefer peace — but if war must come, we are prepared to meet it with unshaken confidence in the God of battles. We lament the wide-spread mischief it will do, the arrest it will put upon every holy enterprise of the Church, and upon all the interests of life; but the South can boldly say to the bleeding, distracted country, " Shake not thy gory locks at me ; Thou canst not say I did it." I