CHAPTER XI.

THE CAUSES OF SECESSION.

In preceding Chapters of this work, it has been briefly shown, that from

the very hour in which the Republic of the United States was born, there

have not been wanting, among its own citizens, those who hated it, and

when they could not rule, were always ready to do what they could, by

Conspiracy, Sedition, Mutiny, Nullification, Secession, or otherwise, to

weaken and destroy it. This fact, and the processes by which the

Conspirators worked, is very well stated, in his documentary "History of

the Rebellion," by Edward McPherson, when he says: "In the Slaveholding

States, a considerable body of men have always been disaffected to the

Union. They resisted the adoption of the National Constitution, then

sought to refine away the rights and powers of the General Government,

and by artful expedients, in a series of years, using the excitements

growing out of passing questions, finally perverted the sentiments of

large masses of men, and prepared them for Revolution."

Before giving further incontestable proofs establishing this fact, and

before endeavoring to sift out the true cause or causes of Secession,

let us first examine such evidences as are submitted by him in support

of his proposition.

The first piece of testimony, is an extract from an unpublished journal

of U. S. Senator Maclay of Pennsylvania, from March 4, 1789, to March 3,

1791--the period of the First Congress under the Federal Constitution.

It runs thus:

"1789, June 9.--In relation to the Tariff Bill, the affair of confining

the East India Trade to the citizens of America had been negatived, and

a committee had been appointed to report on this business. The report

came in with very high duties, amounting to a prohibition. But a new

phenomenon had made its appearance in the House (meaning the Senate)

since Friday.

"Pierce Butler, from South Carolina, had taken his seat, and flamed like

a meteor. He arraigned the whole Impost law, and then charged

(indirectly) the whole Congress with a design of oppressing South

Carolina. He cried out for encouraging the Danes and Swedes, and

foreigners of every kind, to come and take away our produce. In fact he

was for a Navigation Act reversed.

"June 11.--Attended at the hall as usual.

"Mr. Ralph Izard and Mr. Butler opposed the whole of the drawbacks in

every shape whatever.

"Mr. (William) Grayson, of Virginia, warm on this subject, said we were

not ripe for such a thing. We were a new Nation, and had no business

for any such regulations--a Nation /sui generis/.

"Mr. (Richard Henry) Lee (of Virginia) said drawbacks were right, but

would be so much abused, he could not think of admitting them.

"Mr. (Oliver) Ellsworth (of Connecticut) said New England rum would be

exported, instead of West India, to obtain the drawback.

"I thought it best to say a few words in reply to each. We were a new

Nation, it was true, but we were not a new People. We were composed of

individuals of like manners, habits, and customs with the European

Nations. What, therefore, had been found useful among them, came well

recommended by experience to us. Drawbacks stand as an example in this

point of view to us. If the thing was right in itself, there could be

no just argument drawn against the use of a thing from the abuse of it.

It would be the duty of Government to guard against abuses, by prudent

appointments and watchful attention to officers. That as to changing

the kind of rum, I thought the collection Bill would provide for this,

by limiting the exportation to the original casks and packages. I said

a great deal more, but really did not feel much interest either way.

But the debates were very lengthy.

"Butler flamed away, and THREATENED A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION, with

regard to his State, as sure as God was in the firmament. He scattered

his remarks over the whole Impost bill, calling it partial, oppressive,

etc., and solely calculated to oppress South Carolina, and yet ever and

anon declaring how clear of local views and how candid and dispassionate

he was. He degenerates into mere declamation. His State would live

free, or die glorious."

The next piece of evidence is General Jackson's letter to Rev. A. J.

Crawford, as follows:

["Private."]

"WASHINGTON, May 1, 1833.

"MY DEAR SIR: * * * I have had a laborious task here, but Nullification

is dead; and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the

People to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the

only good Government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we

enjoy over every other portion of the World. Haman's gallows ought to

be the fate of all such ambitious men who would involve their Country in

Civil War, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and

ride on its whirlwinds and direct the storm. The Free People of these

United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to

their proper doom. Take care of your Nullifiers; you have them among

you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his

Country. The Tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext--its burden

was on your coarse woolens. By the law of July, 1832, coarse woolen was

reduced to five per cent., for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay's

Bill takes it up and classes it with woolens at fifty per cent., reduces

it gradually down to twenty per cent., and there it is to remain, and

Mr. Calhoun and all the Nullifiers agree to the principle. The cash

duties and home valuation will be equal to fifteen per cent. more, and

after the year 1842, you pay on coarse woolens thirty-five per cent. If

this is not Protection, I cannot understand; therefore the Tariff was

only the pretext, and Disunion and a Southern Confederacy the real

object. The next pretext will be the Negro or Slavery question.

"My health is not good, but is improving a little. Present me kindly to

your lady and family, and believe me to be your friend. I will always

be happy to hear from you.

"ANDREW JACKSON."

Another evidence is given in the following extract from Benton's "Thirty

Years in the Senate," vol. ii., as follows:

"The regular inauguration of this Slavery agitation dates from the year

1835; but it had commenced two years before, and in this way:

Nullification and Disunion had commenced in 1830, upon complaint against

Protective Tariff. That, being put down in 1833 under President

Jackson's proclamation and energetic measures, was immediately

substituted by the Slavery agitation. Mr. Calhoun, when he went home

from Congress in the spring of that year, told his friends that 'the

South could never be united against the North on the Tariff question

--that the sugar interest of Louisiana would keep her out--and that the

basis of Southern Union must be shifted to the Slave question.' Then

all the papers in his interest, and especially the one at Washington,

published by Mr. Duff Green, dropped Tariff agitation, and commenced

upon Slavery, and in two years had the agitation ripe for inauguration,

on the Slavery question. And in tracing this agitation to its present

stage, and to comprehend its rationale, it is not to be forgotten that

it is a mere continuation of old Tariff Disunion, and preferred because

more available."

Again, from p. 490 of his private correspondence, Mr. Clay's words to an

Alabamian, in 1844, are thus given:

"From the developments now being made in South Carolina, it is perfectly

manifest that a Party exists in that State seeking a Dissolution of the

Union, and for that purpose employ the pretext of the rejection of Mr.

Tyler's abominable treaty. South Carolina, being surrounded by Slave

States, would, in the event of a Dissolution of the Union, suffer only

comparative evils; but it is otherwise with Kentucky. She has the

boundary of the Ohio extending four hundred miles on three Free States.

What would our condition be in the event of the greatest calamity that

could befall this Nation?"

Allusion is also made to a letter written by Representative Nathan

Appleton, of Boston, December 15, 1860, in which that gentleman said

that when he was in Congress--in 1832-33--he had "made up his mind that

Messrs. Calhoun, Hayne, McDuffie, etc., were desirous of a separation of

the Slave States into a separate Confederacy, as more favorable to the

security of Slave Property."

After mentioning that "About 1835, some South Carolinians attempted a

Disunion demonstration," our authority says: It is thus described by

ex-Governor Francis Thomas of Maryland, in his speech in Baltimore,

October 29, 1861:

"Full twenty years ago, when occupying my seat in the House of

Representatives, I was surprised one morning, after the assembling of

the House, to observe that all the members from the Slaveholding States

were absent. Whilst reflecting on this strange occurrence, I was asked

why I was not in attendance on the Southern Caucus assembled in the room

of the Committee on Claims. I replied that I had received no

invitation.

"I then proposed to go to the Committee-room to see what was being done.

When I entered, I found that little cock-sparrow, Governor Pickens, of

South Carolina, addressing the meeting, and strutting about like a

rooster around a barn-yard coop, discussing the following resolution:

"' Resolved, That no member of Congress, representing a Southern

constituency, shall again take his seat until a resolution is passed

satisfactory to the South on the subject of Slavery.'

"I listened to his language, and when he had finished, I obtained the

floor, asking to be permitted to take part in the discussion. I

determined at once to kill the Treasonable plot hatched by John C.

Calhoun, the Catiline of America, by asking questions. I said to Mr.

Pickens, 'What next do you propose we shall do? are we to tell the

People that Republicanism is a failure? If you are for that, I am not.

I came here to sustain and uphold American institutions; to defend the

rights of the North as well as the South; to secure harmony and good

fellowship between all Sections of our common Country.' They dared not

answer these questions. The Southern temper had not then been gotten

up. As my questions were not answered, I moved an adjournment of the

Caucus /sine die/. Mr. Craig, of Virginia, seconded the motion, and the

company was broken up. We returned to the House, and Mr. Ingersoll, of

Pennsylvania, a glorious patriot then as now, introduced a resolution

which temporarily calmed the excitement."

The remarks upon this statement, made November 4, 1861, by the National

Intelligencer, were as follows:

"However busy Mr. Pickens may have been in the Caucus after it met, the

most active man in getting it up and pressing the Southern members to go

into it, was Mr. R. B. Rhett, also a member from South Carolina. The

occasion, or alleged cause of this withdrawal from the House into secret

deliberation was an anti-Slavery speech of Mr. Slade, of Vermont, which

Mr. Rhett violently denounced, and proposed to the Southern members to

leave the House and go into Conclave in one of the Committee-rooms,

which they generally did, if not all of them. We are able to state,

however, what may not have been known to Governor Thomas, that at least

three besides himself, of those who did attend it, went there with a

purpose very different from an intention to consent to any Treasonable

measure. These three men were Henry A. Wise, Balie Peyton, and William

Cost Johnson. Neither of them opened his lips in the Caucus; they went

to observe; and we can assure Governor Thomas, that if Mr. Pickens or

Mr. Calhoun, (whom he names) or any one else had presented a distinct

proposition looking to Disunion, or Revolt, or Secession, he would have

witnessed a scene not soon to be forgotten. The three whom we have

mentioned were as brave as they were determined. Fortunately, perhaps,

the man whom they went particularly to watch, remained silent and

passive."

Let us, however, pursue the inquiry a little further. On the 14th of

November, 1860, Alexander H. Stephens addressed the Legislature of

Georgia, and in a portion of that address--replying to a speech made

before the same Body the previous evening by Mr. Toombs, in which the

latter had "recounted the evils of this Government"--said:

"The first [of these evils] was the Fishing Bounties, paid mostly to the

sailors of New England. Our friend stated that forty-eight years of our

Government was under the administration of Southern Presidents. Well,

these Fishing Bounties began under the rule of a Southern President, I

believe. No one of them, during the whole forty-eight years, ever set

his Administration against the principle or policy of them. * * *

"The next evil which my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let

us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing

public matters, this question was agitating the Country almost as

fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college,

South Carolina was ready to Nullify or Secede from the Union on this

account. And what have we seen? The Tariff no longer distracts the

public counsels. Reason has triumphed! The present Tariff was voted

for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down

together--every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South

Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself.

And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend,

that every man in the North that works in iron, and brass and wood, has

his muscle strengthened by the protection of the Government, that

stimulant was given by his vote and I believe (that of) every other

Southern man.

"Mr. TOOMBS--The Tariff lessened the duties.

"Mr. STEPHENS--Yes, and Massachusetts with unanimity voted with the

South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men

asked them to be, and that is the rate they are now at. If reason and

argument, with experience, produced such changes in the sentiments of

Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on the subject of the Tariff, may not

like changes be effected there by the same means--reason and argument,

and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question? And who can

say that by 1875 or 1890, Massachusetts may not vote with South Carolina

and Georgia upon all those questions that now distract the Country and

threaten its peace and existence.

"Another matter of grievance alluded to by my honorable friend was the

Navigation Laws. This policy was also commenced under the

Administration of one of these Southern Presidents who ruled so well,

and has been continued through all of them since. * * * One of the

objects (of these) was to build up a commercial American marine by

giving American bottoms the exclusive Carrying Trade between our own

ports. This is a great arm of national power. This object was

accomplished. We have now an amount of shipping, not only coastwise,

but to foreign countries, which puts us in the front rank of the Nations

of the World. England can no longer be styled the Mistress of the Seas.

What American is not proud of the result? Whether those laws should be

continued is another question. But one thing is certain; no President,

Northern or Southern, has ever yet recommended their repeal. * * *

"These then were the true main grievances or grounds of complaint

against the general system of our Government and its workings--I mean

the administration of the Federal Government. As to the acts of the

federal States I shall speak presently: but these three were the main

ones used against the common head. Now, suppose it be admitted that all

of these are evils in the system; do they overbalance and outweigh the

advantages and great good which this same Government affords in a

thousand innumerable ways that cannot be estimated? Have we not at the

South, as well as the North, grown great, prosperous, and happy under

its operations? Has any part of the World ever shown such rapid

progress in the development of wealth, and all the material resources of

national power and greatness, as the Southern States have under the

General Government, notwithstanding all its defects?

"Mr. TOOMBS--In spite of it.

"Mr. STEPHENS--My honorable friend says we have, in spite of the General

Government; that without it, I suppose he thinks, we might have done as

well, or perhaps better, than we have done in spite of it. * * *

Whether we of the South would have been better off without the

Government, is, to say the least, problematical. On the one side we can

only put the fact, against speculation and conjecture on the other. * *

* The influence of the Government on us is like that of the atmosphere

around us. Its benefits are so silent and unseen that they are seldom

thought of or appreciated.

"We seldom think of the single element of oxygen in the air we breathe,

and yet let this simple, unseen and unfelt agent be withdrawn, this

life-giving element be taken away from this all-pervading fluid around

us, and what instant and appalling changes would take place in all

organic creation.

"It may be that we are all that we are 'in spite of the General

Government,' but it may be that without it we should have been far

different from what we are now. It is true that there is no equal part

of the Earth with natural resources superior perhaps to ours. That

portion of this Country known as the Southern States, stretching from

the Chesapeake to the Rio Grande, is fully equal to the picture drawn by

the honorable and eloquent Senator last night, in all natural

capacities. But how many ages and centuries passed before these

capacities were developed to reach this advanced age of civilization.

There these same hills, rich in ore, same rivers, same valleys and

plains, are as they have been since they came from the hand of the

Creator; uneducated and uncivilized man roamed over them for how long no

history informs us.

"It was only under our institutions that they could be developed. Their

development is the result of the enterprise of our people, under

operations of the Government and institutions under which we have lived.

Even our people, without these, never would have done it. The

organization of society has much to do with the development of the

natural resources of any Country or any Land. The institutions of a

People, political and moral, are the matrix in which the germ of their

organic structure quickens into life--takes root, and develops in form,

nature, and character. Our institutions constitute the basis, the

matrix, from which spring all our characteristics of development and

greatness. Look at Greece. There is the same fertile soil, the same

blue sky, the same inlets and harbors, the same AEgean, the same

Olympus; there is the same land where Homer sung, where Pericles spoke;

it is in nature the same old Greece--but it is living Greece no more.

"Descendants of the same people inhabit the country; yet what is the

reason of this vast difference? In the midst of present degradation we

see the glorious fragments of ancient works of art-temples, with

ornaments and inscriptions that excite wonder and admiration--the

remains of a once high order of civilization, which have outlived the

language they spoke--upon them all, Ichabod is written--their glory has

departed. Why is this so? I answer, their institutions have been

destroyed. These were but the fruits of their forms of government, the

matrix from which their great development sprang; and when once the

institutions of a People have been destroyed, there is no earthly power

that can bring back the Promethean spark to kindle them here again, any

more than in that ancient land of eloquence, poetry and song.

"The same may be said of Italy. Where is Rome, once the mistress of the

World? There are the same seven hills now, the same soil, the same

natural resources; the nature is the same, but what a ruin of human

greatness meets the eye of the traveler throughout the length and

breadth of that most down-trodden land! why have not the People of that

Heaven-favored clime, the spirit that animated their fathers? Why this

sad difference?

"It is the destruction of their institutions that has caused it; and, my

countrymen, if we shall in an evil hour rashly pull down and destroy

those institutions which the patriotic hand of our fathers labored so

long and so hard to build up, and which have done so much for us and the

World, who can venture the prediction that similar results will not

ensue? Let us avoid it if we can. I trust the spirit is among us that

will enable us to do it. Let us not rashly try the experiment, for, if

it fails, as it did in Greece and Italy, and in the South American

Republics, and in every other place wherever liberty is once destroyed,

it may never be restored to us again.

"There are defects in our government, errors in administration, and

short-comings of many kinds; but in spite of these defects and errors,

Georgia has grown to be a great State. Let us pause here a moment.

"When I look around and see our prosperity in everything, agriculture,

commerce, art, science, and every department of education, physical and

mental, as well as moral advancement--and our colleges--I think, in the

face of such an exhibition, if we can, without the loss of power, or any

essential right or interest, remain in the Union, it is our duty to

ourselves and to posterity--let us not too readily yield to this

temptation--to do so. Our first parents, the great progenitors of the

human race, were not without a like temptation, when in the Garden of

Eden. They were led to believe that their condition would be bettered

--that their eyes would be opened--and that they would become as gods.

They in an evil hour yielded--instead of becoming gods they only saw

their own nakedness.

"I look upon this Country, with our institutions, as the Eden of the

World, the Paradise of the Universe. It may be that out of it we may

become greater and more prosperous, but I am candid and sincere in

telling you that I fear if we rashly evince passion, and without

sufficient cause shall take that step, that instead of becoming greater

or more peaceful, prosperous, and happy--instead of becoming gods, we

will become demons, and at no distant day commence cutting one another's

throats. This is my apprehension.

"Let us, therefore, whatever we do, meet those difficulties, great as

they are, like wise and sensible men, and consider them in the light of

all the consequences which may attend our action. Let us see first

clearly where the path of duty leads, and then we may not fear to tread

therein."

Said Senator Wigfall, of Texas, March 4, 1861, in the United States

Senate, only a few hours before Mr. Lincoln's Inauguration:

"I desire to pour oil on the waters, to produce harmony, peace and quiet

here. It is early in the morning, and I hope I shall not say anything

that may be construed as offensive. I rise merely that we may have an

understanding of this question.

"It is not Slavery in the Territories, it is not expansion, which is the

difficulty. If the resolution which the Senator from Wisconsin

introduced here, denying the right of Secession, had been adopted by

two-thirds of each branch of this department of the Government, and had

been ratified by three-fourths of the States, I have no hesitation in

saying that, so far as the State in which I live and to which I owe my

allegiance is concerned, if she had no other cause for a disruption of

the Union taking place, she would undoubtedly have gone out.

[To insert as an additional article of amendment to the

Constitution, the following: "Under this Constitution, as

originally adopted, and as it now exists, no State has power to

withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States: but this

Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated

powers, are the Supreme Law of the Land, anything contained in any

constitution, ordinance, or act of any State, to the contrary

notwithstanding."]

"The moment you deny the right of self-government to the free White men

of the South, they will leave the Government. They believe in the

Declaration of Independence. They believe that:

"'Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from

the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government

becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to

alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its

foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as

to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'

"That principle of the Declaration of Independence is the one upon which

the free White men of the South predicated their devotion to the present

Constitution of the United States; and it was the denial of that, as

much as anything else, that has created the dissatisfaction in that

Section of the Country.

"There is no instrument of writing that has ever been written that has

been more misapprehended and misunderstood and misrepresented than this

same unfortunate Declaration of Independence, and no set of gentlemen

have ever been so slandered as the fathers who drew and signed that

Declaration.

"If there was a thing on earth that they did not intend to assert, it

was that a Negro was a White man. As I said here, a short time ago, one

of the greatest charges they made against the British Government was,

that old King George was attempting to establish the fact practically

that all men were created Free and Equal. They charged him in the

Declaration of Independence with inciting their Slaves to insurrection.

That is one of the grounds upon which they threw off their allegiance to

the British Parliament.

"Another great misapprehension is, that the men who drafted that

Declaration of Independence had any peculiar fancy for one form of

government rather than another. They were not fighting to establish a

Democracy in this country; they were not fighting to establish a

Republican form of government in this Country. Nothing was further from

their intention.

"Alexander Hamilton, after he had fought for seven years, declared that

the British form of government was the best that the ingenuity of man

had ever devised; and when John Adams said to him, 'without its

corruptions;' 'Why,' said he, 'its corruptions are its greatest

excellence; without the corruptions, it would be nothing.'

"In the Declaration of Independence, they speak of George III., after

this fashion. They say:

"'A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define

a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.'

"Now, I ask any plain common-sense man what was the meaning of that?

Was it that they were opposed to a Monarchical form of government? Was

it that they believed a Monarchical form of government was incompatible

with civil liberty? No, sir; they entertained no such absurd idea.

None of them entertained it; but they say that George III, was a prince

whose character was 'marked by every act which may define a tyrant' and

that therefore he was 'unfit to be the ruler of a free People.' Had his

character not been so marked by every quality which would define a

tyrant, he might have been the fit ruler of a free People; ergo, a

monarchical form of Government was not incompatible with civil liberty.

"That was clearly the opinion of those men. I do not advocate it now;

for I have said frequently that we are wiser than our fathers, and our

children will be wiser than we are. One hundred years hence, men will

understand their own affairs much better than we do. We understand our

affairs better than those who preceded us one hundred years. But what I

assert is, that the men of the Revolution did not believe that a

Monarchical form of Government was incompatible with civil liberty.

"What I assert is, that when they spoke of 'all men being created

equal,' they were speaking of the White men who then had unsheathed

their swords--for what purpose? To establish the right of

self-government in themselves; and when they had achieved that, they

established, not Democracies, but Republican forms of Government in

the thirteen sovereign, separate and independent Colonies. Yet the

Declaration of Independence is constantly quoted to prove Negro

equality. It proves no such thing; it was intended to prove no such

thing.

"The 'glittering generalities' which a distinguished former Senator from

Massachusetts (Mr. Choate) spoke of, as contained in the Declaration of

Independence, one of them at least, about all men being created equal

--was not original with Mr. Jefferson. I recollect seeing a pamphlet

called the Principles of the Whigs and Jacobites, published about the

year 1745, when the last of the Stuarts, called 'the Pretender,' was

striking a blow that was fatal to himself, but a blow for his crown, in

which pamphlet the very phraseology is used, word for word and letter

for letter. I have not got it here to-night. I sent the other day to

the Library to try and find it, but could not find it; it was burnt, I

believe, with the pamphlets that were burnt some time ago.

"That Mr. Jefferson copied it or plagiarized it, is not true, I suppose,

any more than the charge that the distinguished Senator from New York

plagiarized from the Federalist in preparing his celebrated compromising

speech which was made here a short time ago. It was the cant phrase of

the day in 1745, which was only about thirty years previous to the

Declaration of Independence. This particular pamphlet, which I have

read, was published; others were published at the same time. That sort

of phraseology was used.

"There was a war of classes in England; there were men who were

contending for legitimacy; who were contending for the right of the

Crown being inherent and depending on the will of God, 'the divine right

of Kings,' for maintaining an hereditary landed-aristocracy; there was

another Party who were contending against this doctrine of legitimacy,

and the right of primogeniture. These were called the Whigs; they

established this general phraseology in denouncing the divine right and

the doctrine of legitimacy, and it became the common phraseology of the

Country; so that in the obscure county of Mecklenburg, in North

Carolina, a declaration containing the same assertions was found as in

this celebrated Declaration of Independence, written by the immortal

Jefferson.

"Which of us, I ask, is there upon this floor who has not read and

re-read whatever was written within the last twenty-five or thirty years

by the distinguished men of this country? But enough of that.

"As I said before, there ought not have been, and there did not

necessarily result from our form of Government, any irrepressible

conflict between the Slaveholding and the non-Slaveholding States.

Nothing of the sort was necessary.

"Strike out a single clause in the Constitution of the United States,

that which secures to each State a Republican form of Government, and

there is no reason why, under precisely such a Constitution as we have,

States that are Monarchical and States that are Republican, could not

live in peace and quiet. They confederate together for common defense

and general welfare, each State regulating its domestic concerns in its

own way; those which preferred a Republican form of Government

maintaining it, and those which preferred a Monarchical form of

Government maintaining it.

"But how long could small States, with different forms of Government,

live together, confederated for common defense and general welfare, if

the people of one Section were to come to the conclusion that their

institutions were better than those of the other, and thereupon

straightway set about subverting the institutions of the other?"

In the reply of the Rebel "Commissioners of the Southern Confederacy"

to Mr. Seward, April 9, 1861, they speak of our Government as being

"persistently wedded to those fatal theories of construction of the

Federal Constitution always rejected by the statesmen of the South, and

adhered to by those of the Administration school, until they have

produced their natural and often-predicted result of the destruction of

the Union, under which we might have continued to live happily and

gloriously together, had the spirit of the ancestry who framed the

common Constitution animated the hearts of all their sons."

In the "Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in

Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United

States," by which the attempt was made to justify the passage of the

South Carolina Secession Ordinance of 1860, it is declared that:

"Discontent and contention have moved in the bosom of the Confederacy,

for the last thirty-five years. During this time South Carolina has

twice called her people together in solemn Convention, to take into

consideration, the aggressions and unconstitutional wrongs, perpetrated

by the people of the North on the people of the South. These wrongs

were submitted to by the people of the South, under the hope and

expectation that they would be final. But such hope and expectation

have proved to be vain. Instead of producing forbearance, our

acquiescence has only instigated to new forms of aggressions and

outrage; and South Carolina, having again assembled her people in

Convention, has this day dissolved her connection with the States

constituting the United States.

"The one great evil from which all other evils have flowed, is the

overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of

the United States, is no longer the Government of Confederated

Republics, but of a consolidated Democracy. It is no longer a free

Government, but a Despotism. It is, in fact, such a Government as Great

Britain attempted to set over our Fathers; and which was resisted and

defeated by a seven years struggle for Independence.

"The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle,

self-government,--and self-taxation, the criterion of self-government.

"The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position towards the

Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The

Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power

of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. 'The General

Welfare' is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the

majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges

of the expediency of the legislation this 'General Welfare' requires.

Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated

Government; and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet

the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.

"The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the Colonies,

was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament

undertook to tax the Colonies to promote British interests. Our fathers

resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation

through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the

British Parliament, and, therefore, could not rightly be taxed by its

legislation. The British Government, however, offered them a

representation in Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them

to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused the offer.

Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a

representation adequate to protection, there was no difference. In

neither case would the Colonies tax themselves. Hence, they refused to

pay the taxes laid by the British Parliament.

"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the

vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their

representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust

taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their

benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in

the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the

taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a

view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South

have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object

inconsistent with revenue--to promote, by prohibitions, Northern

interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

"There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern towards the

Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear towards Great

Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes

collected from them were expended amongst them. Had they submitted to

the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from

them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire.

They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing

the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who

receive the benefit of their expenditure.

"To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which

drove them on to Revolution, yet this British policy has been fully

realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The

people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the

Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of

them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with

the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the

South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of

Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the

basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities

do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. * * *

"No man can for a moment believe, that our ancestors intended to

establish over their posterity, exactly the same sort of Government they

had overthrown. * * * Yet by gradual and steady encroachments on the

part of the people of the North, and acquiescence on the part of the

South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away; and the

Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of

limitless powers in its operations. * * *

"A majority in Congress, according to their interested and perverted

views, is omnipotent. * * * Numbers with them, is the great element of

free Government. A majority is infallible and omnipotent. 'The right

divine to rule in Kings,' is only transferred to their majority. The

very object of all Constitutions, in free popular Government, is to

restrain the majority. Constitutions, therefore, according to their

theory, must be most unrighteous inventions, restricting liberty. None

ought to exist; but the body politic ought simply to have a political

organization, to bring out and enforce the will of the majority. This

theory is a remorseless despotism. In resisting it, as applicable to

ourselves, we are vindicating the great cause of free Government, more

important, perhaps, to the World, than the existence of all the United

States."

In his Special Message to the Confederate Congress at Montgomery, April

29, 1861, Mr. Jefferson Davis said:

"From a period as early as 1798, there had existed in all the States a

Party, almost uninterruptedly in the majority, based upon the creed that

each State was, in the last resort, the sole judge, as well of its

wrongs as of the mode and measure of redress. * * * The Democratic

Party of the United States repeated, in its successful canvas of 1836,

the declaration, made in numerous previous political contests, that it

would faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the

Kentucky and Virginia Legislatures of [1798 and] 1799, and that it

adopts those principles as constituting one of the main foundations of

its political creed."

In a letter addressed by the Rebel Commissioners in London (Yancey, Rost

and Mann), August 14, 1861, to Lord John Russell, Secretary of Foreign

Affairs, it appears that they said: "It was from no fear that the Slaves

would be liberated, that Secession took place. The very Party in power

has proposed to guarantee Slavery forever in the States, if the South

would but remain in the Union." On the 4th of May preceding, Lord John

had received these Commissioners at his house; and in a letter of

May 11, 1861, wrote, from the Foreign Office, to Lord Lyons, the British

Minister at Washington, a letter, in which, alluding to his informal

communication with them, he said: "One of these gentlemen, speaking for

the others, dilated on the causes which had induced the Southern States

to Secede from the Northern. The principal of these causes, he said,

was not Slavery, but the very high price which, for the sake of

Protecting the Northern manufacturers, the South were obliged to pay for

the manufactured goods which they required. One of the first acts of

the Southern Congress was to reduce these duties, and to prove their

sincerity he gave as an instance that Louisiana had given up altogether

that Protection on her sugar which she enjoyed by the legislation of the

United States. As a proof of the riches of the South. He stated that

of $350,000,000 of exports of produce to foreign countries $270,000,000

were furnished by the Southern States." * * * They pointed to the new

Tariff of the United States as a proof that British manufactures would

be nearly excluded from the North, and freely admitted in the South.

This may be as good a place as any other to say a few words touching

another alleged "cause" of Secession. During the exciting period just

prior to the breaking out of the great War of the Rebellion, the

Slave-holding and Secession-nursing States of the South, made a terrible

hubbub over the Personal Liberty Bills of the Northern States. And when

Secession came, many people of the North supposed these Bills to be the

prime, if not the only real cause of it. Not so. They constituted, as

we now know, only a part of the mere pretext. But, none the less, they

constituted a portion of the history of that eventful time, and cannot

be altogether ignored.

In order then, that the reader may quickly grasp, not only the general

nature, but also the most important details of the Personal Liberty

Bills (in force, in 1860, in many of the Free States) so frequently

alluded to in the Debates of Congress, in speeches on the stump, and in

the fulminations of Seceding States and their authorized agents,

commissioners, and representatives, it may be well now, briefly to refer

to them, and to state that no such laws existed in California, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Ohio and Oregon.

Those of Maine provided that no officer of the State should in any way

assist in the arrest or detention of a Fugitive Slave, and made it the

duty of county attorneys to defend the Fugitive Slave against the claim

of his master. A Bill to repeal these laws passed the Maine Senate, but

failed in the House.

That of Massachusetts provided for commissioners in each county to

defend alleged Fugitives from Service or Labor; for payment by the

Commonwealth of all expenses of defense; prohibited the issue or service

of process by State officers for arrest of alleged Fugitives, or the use

of any prisons in the State for their detention, or that of any person

aiding their escape; prohibited the kidnapping or removal of alleged

Fugitive Slaves by any person; prohibited all officers within the State,

down to Town officers, from arresting, imprisoning, detaining or

returning to Service "any Person for the reason that he is claimed or

adjudged to be a Fugitive from Service or Labor"--all such prohibitions

being enforced by heavy fines and imprisonment. The Act of March 25,

1861, materially modified and softened the above provisions.

New Hampshire's law, provided that all Slaves entering the State with

consent of the master shall be Free, and made the attempt to hold any

person as a Slave within the State a felony.

Vermont's, prescribed that no process under the Fugitive Slave Law

should be recognized by any of her Courts, officers, or citizens; nor

any aid given in arresting or removing from the State any Person claimed

as a Fugitive Slave; provided counsel for alleged Fugitives; for the

issue of habeas corpus and trial by jury of issues of fact between the

parties; ordained Freedom to all within the State who may have been held

as Slaves before coming into it, and prescribed heavy penalties for any

attempt to return any such to Slavery. A bill to repeal these laws,

proposed November, 1860, in the Vermont House of Representatives, was

beaten by two to one.

Connecticut's, provided that there must be two witnesses to prove that a

Person is a Slave; that depositions are not evidence; that false

testifying in Fugitive Slave cases shall be punishable by fine of $5,000

and five years in State prison.

In New Jersey, the only laws touching the subject, permitted persons

temporarily sojourning in the State to bring and hold their Slaves, and

made it the duty of all State officers to aid in the recovery of

Fugitives from Service.

In Pennsylvania, barring an old dead-letter Statute, they simply

prohibited any interference by any of the Courts, Aldermen, or Justices

of the Peace, of the Commonwealth, with the functions of the

Commissioner appointed under the United States Statute in Fugitive Slave

cases.

In Michigan, the law required States' attorneys to defend Fugitive

Slaves; prescribed the privileges of habeas corpus and jury trial for

all such arrested; prohibited the use of prisons of the State for their

detention; required evidence of two credible witnesses as to identity;

and provided heavy penalties of fine and imprisonment for the seizure of

any Free Person, with intent to have such Person held in Slavery. A

Bill to repeal the Michigan law was defeated in the House by about two

to one.

Wisconsin's Personal Liberty law was similar to that of Michigan, but

with this addition, that no judgment recovered against any person in

that State for violating the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 should be

enforced by sale or execution of any real or personal property in that

State.

That of Rhode Island, forbade the carrying away of any Person by force

out of the State; forbade the official aiding in the arrest or detention

of a Fugitive Slave; and denied her jails to the United States for any

such detention.

Apropos of this subject, and before leaving it, it may be well to quote

remarks of Mr. Simons of Rhode Island, in the United States Senate.

Said he: "Complaint has been made of Personal Liberty Bills. Now, the

Massachusetts Personal Liberty Bill was passed by a Democratic House, a

Democratic Senate, and signed by a Democratic Governor, a man who was

afterwards nominated by Mr. Polk for the very best office in New

England, and was unanimously confirmed by a Democratic United States

Senate. Further than this, the very first time the attention of the

Massachusetts Legislature was called to the propriety of a repeal of

this law was by a Republican Governor. Now, on the other hand, South

Carolina had repealed a law imprisoning British colored sailors, but

retained the one imprisoning those coming from States inhabited by her

own brethren!"

These Personal Liberty Bills were undoubtedly largely responsible for

some of the irritation on the Slavery question preceding open

hostilities between the Sections. But President Lincoln sounded the

real depths of the Rebellion when he declared it to be a War upon the

rights of the People. In his First Annual Message, December 3, 1861, he

said:

"It continues to develop that the insurrection is largely, if not

exclusively, a War upon the first principle of popular government--the

rights of the People. Conclusive evidence of this is found in the most

grave and maturely considered public documents, as well as in the

general tone of the insurgents. In those documents we find the

abridgment of the existing right of suffrage, and the denial to the

People of all right to participate in the selection of public officers,

except the legislative, boldly advocated, with labored arguments to

prove that large control of the People in government is the source of

all political evil. Monarchy itself is sometimes hinted at as a

possible refuge from the power of the People.

"In my present position, I could scarcely be justified were I to omit

raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.

"It is not needed, nor fitting here, that a general argument should be

made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its

connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask brief

attention. It is the effort to place Capital on an equal footing with,

if not above Labor, in the structure of the Government.

"It is assumed that Labor is available only in connection with Capital;

that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning Capital, somehow by the

use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered

whether it is best that Capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce

them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it

without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally

concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers, or what we call

Slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer

is fixed in that condition for life.

"Now, there is no such relation between Capital and Labor as assumed;

nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life, in the

condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all

inferences from them are groundless.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of Capital. Capital is only the

fruit of Labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first

existed. Labor is the superior of Capital, and deserves much the higher

consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of

protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and

probably always will be, a relation between Labor and Capital, producing

mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole Labor of the

community exists within that relation.

"A few men own Capital, and that few, avoid labor themselves, and with

their Capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large

majority belong to neither class--neither work for others, nor have

others working for them.

"In most of the Southern States, a majority of the whole people of all

colors are neither Slaves nor masters; while in the Northern, a large

majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men with their families--wives,

sons, and daughters--work for themselves, on their farms, in their

houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and

asking no favors of Capital on the one hand, nor of hired laborers or

Slaves on the other.

"It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their

own Labor with Capital--that is they labor with their own hands, and

also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed, and

not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence

of this mixed class.

"Again, as has already been said, there is not, of necessity, any such

thing as the free hired-laborer being fixed to that condition for life.

Many independent men everywhere in these States, a few years back in

their lives, were hired laborers.

"The prudent, penniless beginner in the World, labors for wages awhile,

saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors

on his own account another while, and at length hires another new

beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous

system, which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent

energy and progress, and improvement of condition to all.

"No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from

poverty--none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not

honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power

which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be

used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix

new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of Liberty shall be

lost. * * * The struggle of to-day is not altogether for to-day-it is

a vast future also. * * * "

So too, Andrew Johnson, in his speech before the Senate, January 31,

1862, spake well and truly when he said that "there has been a

deliberate design for years to change the nature and character and

genius of this Government." And he added: "Do we not know that these

schemers have been deliberately at work, and that there is a Party in

the South, with some associates in the North, and even in the West, that

have become tired of Free Government, in which they have lost

confidence."

Said he: "They raise an outcry against 'Coercion,' that they may

paralyze the Government, cripple the exercise of the great powers with

which it was invested, finally to change its form and subject us to a

Southern despotism. Do we not know it to be so? Why disguise this

great truth? Do we not know that they have been anxious for a change of

Government for years? Since this Rebellion commenced it has manifested

itself in many quarters.

"How long is it since the organ of the Government at Richmond, the

Richmond Whig, declared that rather than live under the Government of

the United States, they preferred to take the Constitutional Queen of

Great Britain as their protector; that they would make an alliance with

Great Britain for the purpose of preventing the enforcement of the Laws

of the United States. Do we not know this?"

Stephen A. Douglas also, in his great Union speech at Chicago, May 1,

1861--only a few days before his lamented death-said:

"The election of Mr. Lincoln is a mere pretext. The present Secession

movement is the result of an enormous Conspiracy formed more than a year

since formed by leaders in the Southern Confederacy more than twelve

months ago. They use the Slavery question as a means to aid the

accomplishment of their ends. They desired the election of a Northern

candidate by a Sectional vote, in order to show that the two Sections

cannot live together.

"When the history of the two years from the Lecompton question down to

the Presidential election shall be written, it will be shown that the

scheme was deliberately made to break up this Union.

"They desired a Northern Republican to be elected by a purely Northern

vote, and then assign this fact as a reason why the Sections cannot live

together. If the Disunion candidate--(Breckinridge) in the late

Presidential contest had carried the united South, their scheme was, the

Northern candidate successful, to seize the Capital last Spring, and by

a united South and divided North, hold it.

"Their scheme was defeated, in the defeat of the Disunion candidates in

several of the Southern States.

"But this is no time for a detail of causes. The Conspiracy is now

known; Armies have been raised. War is levied to accomplish it. There

are only two sides to the question.

"Every man must be for the United States, or against it. There can be

no Neutrals in this War; only Patriots or Traitors! [Cheer after

Cheer]."

In a speech made in the United States Senate, January 31, 1862, Senator

McDougall of California--conceded to be intellectually the peer of any

man in that Body--said:

"We are at War. How long have we been at War? We have been engaged in

a war of opinion, according to my historical recollection, since 1838.

There has been a Systematic organized war against the Institutions

established by our fathers, since 1832. This is known of all men who

have read carefully the history of our Country. If I had the leisure,

or had consulted the authorities, I would give it year by year, and date

by date, from that time until the present, how men adversary to our

Republican Institutions have been organizing War against us, because

they did not approve of our Republican Institutions.

"Before the Mexican War, it is well known that General Quitman, then

Governor of Mississippi, was organizing to produce the same condition of

things (and he hoped a better condition of things, for he hoped a

successful Secession), to produce this same revolution that is now

disturbing our whole Land. The War with Mexico, fighting for a Southern

proposition, for which I fought myself, made the Nation a unit until

1849; and then again they undertook an Organization to produce

Revolution. These things are history. This statement is true, and

cannot be denied among intelligent men anywhere, and cannot be denied in

this Senate.

"The great men who sat in Council in this Hall, the great men of the

Nation, men whose equals are not, and I fear will not be for many years,

uniting their judgments, settled the controversy in 1850. They did not

settle it for the Conspirators of the South, for they were not parties

to the compact. Clay and Webster, and the great men who united with

them, had no relation with the extremes of either extreme faction. The

Compromise was made, and immediately after it had been effected, again

commenced the work of organization. I had the honor to come from my

State on the Pacific into the other branch of the Federal Congress, and

there I learned as early as 1853, that the work of Treason was as

industriously pursued as it is being pursued to-day. I saw it; I felt

it; I knew it. I went home to the shores of the Pacific instructed

somewhat on this subject.

"Years passed by. I engaged in my duties as a simple professional man,

not connected with public affairs. The question of the last

Presidential election arose before the Country--one of those great

questions that are not appreciated, I regret from my heart, by the

American Nation, when we elect a President, a man who has more power for

his time than any enthroned Monarch in Europe. We organize a Government

and place him in front as the head and the Chief of the Government.

That question came before the American People.

"At that time I was advised of this state of feeling--and I will state

it in as exact form of words as I can state it, that it may be

understood by Senators: Mr. Douglas is a man acceptable to the South.

Mr. Douglas is a man to whom no one has just cause of exception

throughout the South. Mr. Douglas is more acceptable to Mississippi and

Louisiana than Mr. Breckinridge. Mr. Breckinridge is not acceptable to

the South; or at least, if he is so, he is not in the same degree with

Mr. Douglas. Mr. Douglas is the accepted man of a great National Party,

and if he is brought into the field he will be triumphantly elected.

THAT MUST NOT BE DONE, because THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECESSION IS

MATURED. EVERYTHING IS PREPARED, and the election of Mr. Douglas would

only postpone it for four years; and Now when we are PREPARED to carry

out these things WE MUST INDULGE IN STRATAGEM, and the nomination of Mr.

Breckinridge is a mere strategic movement to divide the great

conservative Party of the Nation into two, so as to elect a Republican

candidate AND CONSOLIDATE THE SOUTH BY THE CRY OF 'ABOLITIONIST!'

"That is a mere simple statement of the truth, and it cannot be

contradicted. Now, in that scheme all the men of counsel of that Party

were engaged. * * * I, on the far shores of the Pacific understood

those things as long ago as a year last September (1860). I was advised

about this policy and well informed of it. * * *

"I was at war, in California, in January (1861) last; in the maintenance

of the opinions that I am now maintaining, I had to go armed to protect

myself from violence. The country, whenever there was controversy, was

agitated to its deepest foundations. That is known, perhaps, not to

gentlemen who live up in Maine or Massachusetts, or where you are

foreign to all this agitation; but known to all people where disturbance

might have been effective in consequences. I felt it, and had to carry

my life in my hand by the month, as did my friends surrounding me.

"I say that all through last winter (that of 1860-61) War had been

inaugurated in all those parts of the Country where disturbed elements

could have efficient result. In January (1861), a year ago, I stood in

the hall of the House of Representatives of my State, and there was War

then, and angry faces and hostile men were gathered; and we knew then

well that the Southern States had determined to withdraw themselves from

the Federal Union.

"I happened to be one of those men who said, 'they shall not do it;' and

it appears to me that the whole argument is between that class of men

and the class of men who said they would let them do it. * * * When

this doctrine was started here of disintegrating the Cotton States from

the rest of the Confederacy, I opposed it at once. I saw immediately

that War was to be invoked. * * *

"I will not say these things were understood by gentlemen of the

Republican Party * * * but I, having been accepted and received as a

Democrat of the old school from the olden time, and HAVING FAST SOUTHERN

SYMPATHIES, I DID KNOW ALL ABOUT THEM. * * * I KNOW THAT SECESSION WAS A

THING DETERMINED UPON. * * * I was advised of and understood the whole

programme, KNEW HOW IT WAS TO BE DONE IN ITS DETAILS; and I being

advised, made war against it. * * *

"War had been, in fact, inaugurated. What is War? Was it the firing on

our flag at Sumter? Was that the first adversary passage? To say so,

is trifling with men's judgments and information. No, sir; when they

organized a Government, and set us at defiance, they commenced War; and

the various steps they took afterwards, by organizing their troops, and

forming their armies, and advancing upon Sumter; all these were merely

acts of War; but War was inaugurated whenever they undertook to say they

would maintain themselves as a separate and independent government; and,

after that time, every man who gave his assistance to them was a

Traitor, according to the highest Law."

The following letter, written by one of the most active of the Southern

conspirators in 1858, during the great Douglas and Lincoln Debate of

that year, to which extended reference has already been made, is of

interest in this connection, not only as corroborative evidence of the

fact that the Rebellion of the Cotton States had been determined on long

before Mr. Lincoln was elected President, but as showing also that the

machinery for "firing the Southern heart" and for making a "solid South"

was being perfected even then. The subsequent split in the Democratic

Party, and nomination of Breckinridge by the Southern wing of it, was

managed by this same Yancey, simply as parts of the deliberate programme

of Secession and Rebellion long before determined on by the Cotton Lords

of the Cotton States.

"MONTGOMERY, June 15, 1858.

"DEAR SIR:--Your kind favor of the 13th is received.

"I hardly agree with you that a general movement can be made that will

clean out the Augean Stable. If the Democracy were overthrown it would

result in giving place to a greedier and hungrier swarm of flies.

"The remedy of the South is not in such a process. It is in a diligent

organization of her true men for prompt resistance to the next

aggression. It must come in the nature of things. No National Party

can save us. No Sectional Party can ever do it. But if we could do as

our fathers did--organize 'Committees of Safety' all over the Cotton

States (and it is only in them that we can hope for any effective

movement), we shall fire the Southern heart, instruct the Southern mind,

give courage to each other, and at the proper moment, by one organized,

concerted action, we can precipitate the Cotton States into a

revolution.

"The idea has been shadowed forth in the South by Mr. Ruffin; has been

taken up and recommended in the Advertiser under the name of 'League of

United Southerners,' who, keeping up their old relations on all other

questions, will hold the Southern issues paramount, and influence

parties, legislatures and statesmen. I have no time to enlarge, but to

suggest merely.

"In haste, yours, etc.

"W. L. YANCEY.

"To JAMES S. SLAUGHTER."

At Jackson, Mississippi, in the fall of the same year (1858) just after

the great Debate between Douglas and Lincoln had closed, Jefferson Davis

had already raised the standard of Revolution, Secession and Disunion,

during the course of a speech, in which he said: "If an Abolitionist be

chosen President of the United States, you will have presented to you

the question of whether you will permit the Government to pass into the

hands of your avowed and implacable enemies? Without pausing for an

answer, I will state my own position to be, that such a result would be

a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be

destroyed, and the observance of its mere forms entitled to no respect.

In that event, in such a manner as should be most expedient, I should

deem it your duty to provide for your safety, outside of the Union with

those who have already shown the will, and would have acquired the power

to deprive you of your birthright, and to reduce you to worse than the

Colonial dependence of your fathers."

The "birthright" thus referred to was of course, the alleged right to

have Slaves; but what was this "worse than Colonial dependence" to

which, in addition to the peril supposed to threaten the Southern

"birthright," the Cotton States of Mississippi were reduced?

"Dependence" upon whom, and with regard to what? Plainly upon the

North; and with regard, not to Slavery alone--for Jefferson Davis held,

down to the very close of the War, that the South fought "not for

Slavery"--but as to Tariff Legislation also. There was the rub! These

Cotton Lords believed, or pretended to believe, that the High Tariff

Legislation, advocated and insisted upon both by the Whigs and

Republicans for the Protection of the American Manufacturer and working

man, built up and made prosperous the North, and elevated Northern

laborers; at the expense of the South, and especially themselves, the

Cotton Lords aforesaid.

We have already seen from the utterances of leading men in the South

Carolina, Secession Convention, "that"--as Governor Hicks, himself a

Southern man, said in his address to the people of Maryland, after

the War broke out "neither the election of Mr. Lincoln, nor the

non-execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, nor both combined, constitute

their grievances. They declare that THE REAL CAUSE of their discontent

DATES AS FAR BACK AS 1833."

And what was the chief cause or pretext for discontent at that time?

Nothing less than the Tariff. They wanted Free Trade, as well as

Slavery. The balance of the Union wanted Protection, as well as

Freedom.

The subsequent War, then, was not a War waged for Slavery alone, but for

Independence with a view to Free Trade, as set forth in the "Confederate

Constitution," as soon as that Independence could be achieved. And the

War on our part, while for the integrity of the Union in all its parts

--for the life of the Nation itself, and for the freedom of man, should

also have brought the triumph of the American idea of a Protective

Tariff, whose chief object is the building up of American manufactures

and the Protection of the Free working-man, in the essential matters of

education, food, clothing, rents, wages, and work.

It is mentioned in McPherson's History of the Rebellion, p. 392, that in

a letter making public his reasons for going to Washington and taking

his seat in Congress, Mr. James L. Pugh, a Representative from Alabama,

November 24, 1860, said: "The sole object of my visit is to promote the

cause of Secession."

From the manner in which they acted after reaching Washington, it is not

unreasonable to suppose that most of those persons representing, in both

branches of Congress, the Southern States which afterwards seceded, came

to the National Capital with a similar object in view--taking their

salaries and mileages for services supposed to be performed for the

benefit of the very Government they were conspiring to injure, and

swearing anew the sacred oath to support and defend the very

Constitution which they were moving heaven and earth to undermine and

destroy!

[As a part of the history of those times, the following letter is

not without interest:

"OXFORD, December 24, 1860.

"MY DEAR SIR:--I regretted having to leave Washington without

having with you a full conference as to the great events whose

shadows are upon us. The result of the election here is what the

most sanguine among us expected; that is, its general result is so.

It is as yet somewhat difficult to determine the distinctive

complexion of the convention to meet on the 7th of January. The

friends of Southern Independence, of firm and bona fide resistance,

won an overwhelming victory; but I doubt whether there is any

precise plan.

"No doubt a large majority of the Convention will be for separate

Secession. But unless intervening events work important changes of

sentiment, not all of those elected as resistance men will be for

immediate and separate Secession. Our friends in Pontotoc, Tippah,

De Soto and Pauola took grounds which fell far short of that idea,

though their resolutions were very firm in regard to Disunion and

an ultimate result.

"In the meantime the Disunion sentiment among the people is growing

every day more intense.

"Upon the whole, you have great cause for gratification in the

action of your State.

"The submissionists are routed, horse, foot, and dragoons, and any

concession by the North will fail to restore that sacred attachment

to the Union which was once so deeply radicated in the hearts of

our people. What they want now, is wise and sober leading. I

think that there might be more of dignity and prudent foresight in

the action of our State than have marked the proceedings of South

Carolina. I have often rejoiced that we have you to rest upon and

confide in. I do not know what we could do without you. That God

may preserve you to us, and that your mind may retain all its vigor

to carry us through these perilous times, is my most fervent

aspiration.

"I am as ever, and forever, your supporter, ally and friend.

"L. Q. C. LAMAR.

"COL. JEFF. DAVIS, Washington, D. C."]

This was but a part of the deliberate, cold-blooded plan mapped out in

detail, early in the session succeeding the election of Mr. Lincoln, in

a secret Caucus of the Chief Plotters of the Treason. It was a secret

conference, but the programme resolved on, soon leaked out.

The following, which appeared in the Washington National Intelligencer

on Friday, January 11, 1861, tells the story of this stage of the Great

Conspiracy pretty clearly:

"The subjoined communication, disclosing the designs of those who have

undertaken to lead the movement now threatening a permanent dissolution

of the Union, comes to us from a distinguished citizen of the South

[understood to be Honorable Lemuel D. Evans, Representative from Texas

in the 34th Congress, from March 4, 1855, to March 3, 1857] who formerly

represented his State with great distinction in the popular branch of

Congress.

"Temporarily sojourning in this city he has become authentically

informed of the facts recited in the subjoined letter, which he

communicates to us under a sense of duty, and for the accuracy of which

he makes himself responsible.

"Nothing but assurances coming from such an intelligent, reliable source

could induce us to accept the authenticity of these startling

statements, which so deeply concern not only the welfare but the honor

of the Southern people.

"To them we submit, without present comment, the programme to which they

are expected to yield their implicit adhesion, without any scruples of

conscience as without any regard for their own safety.

"'WASHINGTON, January 9, 1861.

"'I charge that on last Saturday night (January 5th), a Caucus was held

in this city by the Southern Secession Senators from Florida, Georgia,

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas. It was then and

there resolved in effect to assume to themselves the political power of

the South, and, to control all political and military operations for the

present, they telegraphed to complete the plan of seizing forts,

arsenals, and custom-houses, and advised the Conventions now in session,

and soon to assemble, to pass Ordinances for immediate Secession; but,

in order to thwart any operations of the Government here, the

Conventions of the Seceding States are to retain their representations

in the Senate and the House.

"'They also advised, ordered, or directed the assembling of a Convention

of delegates from the Seceding States at Montgomery on the 13th of

February. This can of course only be done by the revolutionary

Conventions usurping the powers of the people, and sending delegates

over whom they will lose all control in the establishment of a

Provisional Government, which is the plan of the dictators.

"'This Caucus also resolved to take the most effectual means to dragoon

the Legislatures of Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, and

Virginia into following the Seceding States. Maryland is also to be

influenced by such appeals to popular passion as have led to the

revolutionary steps which promise a conflict with the State and Federal

Governments in Texas.

"'They have possessed themselves of all the avenues of information in

the South--the telegraph, the press, and the general control of the

postmasters. They also confidently rely upon defections in the army and

navy.

"'The spectacle here presented is startling to contemplate. Senators

entrusted with the representative sovereignty of the States, and sworn

to support the Constitution of the United States, while yet acting as

the privy councillors of the President, and anxiously looked to by their

constituents to effect some practical plan of adjustment, deliberately

conceive a Conspiracy for the overthrow of the Government through the

military organizations, the dangerous secret order, the 'Knights of the

Golden Circle,' 'Committees of Safety,' Southern leagues, and other

agencies at their command; they have instituted as thorough a military

and civil despotism as ever cursed a maddened Country.

"'It is not difficult to foresee the form of government which a

Convention thus hurriedly thrown together at Montgomery will irrevocably

fasten upon a deluded and unsuspecting people. It must essentially be

'a Monarchy founded upon military principles,' or it cannot endure.

Those who usurp power never fail to forge strong chains.

"'It may be too late to sound the alarm. Nothing may be able to arrest

the action of revolutionary tribunals whose decrees are principally in

'secret sessions.' But I call upon the people to pause and reflect

before they are forced to surrender every principle of liberty, or to

fight those who are becoming their masters rather than their servants.

"'EATON"

"As confirming the intelligence furnished by our informant we may cite

the following extract from the Washington correspondence of yesterday's

Baltimore Sun:

"'The leaders of the Southern movement are consulting as to the best

mode of consolidating their interests into a Confederacy under a

Provisional Government. The plan is to make Senator Hunter, of

Virginia, Provisional President, and Jefferson Davis Commander-in-Chief

of the army of defense. Mr. Hunter possesses in a more eminent degree

the philosophical characteristics of Jefferson than any other statesman

now living. Colonel Davis is a graduate of West Point, was

distinguished for gallantry at Buena Vista, and served as Secretary of

War under President Pierce, and is not second to General Scott in

military science or courage.'

"As further confirmatory of the above, the following telegraphic

dispatch in the Charleston Mercury of January 7, 1861, is given:

"'[From our Own Correspondent.]

"'WASHINGTON, January 6.--The Senators from those of the Southern States

which have called Conventions of their people, met in caucus last night,

and adopted the following resolutions:

"'Resolved, That we recommend to our respective States immediate

Secession.

"'Resolved, That we recommend the holding of a General Convention of the

said States, to be holden in the city of Montgomery, Alabama, at some

period not later than the 15th day of February, 1861.'

"These resolutions were telegraphed this evening to the Conventions of

Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. A third resolution is also known to

have been adopted, but it is of a confidential character, not to be

divulged at present. There was a good deal of discussion in the caucus

on the question of whether the Seceding States ought to continue their

delegations in Congress till the 4th of March, to prevent unfriendly

legislation, or whether the Representatives of the Seceding States

should all resign together, and leave a clear field for the opposition

to pass such bills, looking to Coercion, as they may see fit. It is

believed that the opinion that they should remain prevailed."

Furthermore, upon the capture of Fernandina, Florida, in 1862, the

following letter was found and published. Senator Yulee, the writer,

was present and participated as one of the Florida Senators, in the

traitorous "Consultation" therein referred to--and hence its especial

value:

"WASHINGTON, January 7, 1861.

"My DEAR SIR:--On the other side is a copy of resolutions adopted at a

consultation of the Senators from the Seceding States--in which Georgia,

Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, and Florida were

present.

"The idea of the meeting was that the States should go out at once, and

provide for the early organization of a Confederate Government, not

later than 15th February. This time is allowed to enable Louisiana and

Texas to participate. It seemed to be the opinion that if we left here,

force, loan, and volunteer Bills might be passed, which would put Mr.

Lincoln in immediate condition for hostilities; whereas, by remaining in

our places until the 4th of March, it is thought we can keep the hands

of Mr. Buchanan tied, and disable the Republicans from effecting any

legislation which will strengthen the hands of the incoming

Administration.

"The resolutions will be sent by the delegation to the President of the

Convention. I have not been able to find Mr. Mallory (his Senatorial

colleague) this morning. Hawkins (Representative from Florida) is in

Connecticut. I have therefore thought it best to send you this copy of

the resolutions.

"In haste, yours truly

"D. L. YULEE.

"JOSEPH FINEGAN, Esq.,

"'Sovereignty Convention,' Tallahassee, Fla."

The resolutions "on the other side" of this letter, to which he refers,

are as follows:

"Resolved, 1--That in our opinion each of the Southern States should, as

soon as may be, Secede from the Union.

"Resolved, 2--That provision should be made for a Convention to organize

a Confederacy of the Seceding States, the Convention to meet not later

than the 15th of February, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of

Alabama.

"Resolved, That in view of the hostile legislation that is threatened

against the Seceding States, and which may be consummated before the 4th

of March, we ask instructions whether the delegations are to remain in

Congress until that date for the purpose of defeating such legislation.

"Resolved, That a committee be and are hereby appointed, consisting of

Messrs. Davis, Slidell, and Mallory, to carry out the objects of this

meeting."

In giving this letter to the World--from its correspondent accompanying

the expedition--the New York Times of March 15, 1862, made these

forcible and clear-headed comments:

"The telegraphic columns of the Times of January 7, 1861, contained the

following Washington dispatch: 'The Southern Senators last night

(January 5th) held a conference, and telegraphed to the Conventions of

their respective States to advise immediate Secession.' Now, the

present letter is a report by Mr. Yulee, who was present at this

'consultation' as he calls it, of the resolutions adopted on this

occasion, transmitted to the said Finegan, who by the way, was a member

of the 'Sovereign Convention' of Florida, then sitting in the town of

Tallahassee.

"It will thus be seen that this remarkable letter, which breathes

throughout the spirit of the Conspirator, in reality lets us into one of

the most important of the numerous Secret Conclaves which the Plotters

of Treason then held in the Capital. It was then, as it appears, that

they determined to strike the blow and precipitate their States into

Secession. But at the same time they resolved that it would be

imprudent for them openly to withdraw, as in that case Congress might

pass 'force, loan, and volunteer bills,' which would put Mr. Lincoln in

immediate condition for hostilities. No, no! that would not do. (So

much patriotic virtue they half suspected, half feared, was left in the

Country.) On the contrary, 'by remaining in our places until the 4th of

March it is thought we can keep the hands of Mr. Buchanan tied, and

disable the Republicans from effecting any legislation which will

strengthen the hands of the incoming Administration.' Ah what a tragic

back-ground, full of things unutterable, is there!

"It appears, however, that events were faster than they, and instead of

being able to retain their seats up to the 4th of March, they were able

to remain but a very few weeks. Mr. Davis withdrew on the 21st of

January, just a fortnight after this 'consultation.' But for the rest,

mark how faithfully the programme here drawn up by this knot of Traitors

in secret session was realized. Each of the named States represented by

this Cabal did, 'as soon as may be, Secede from the Union'--the

Mississippi Convention passing its Ordinance on the heels of the receipt

of these resolutions, on the 9th of January; Florida and Alabama on the

11th; Louisiana on the 26th, and Texas on the 1st of February; while the

'organization of the Confederate Government' took place at the very time

appointed, Davis being inaugurated on the 18th of February.

"And here is another Plot of the Traitors brought to light. These very

men, on withdrawing from the Senate, urged that they were doing so in

obedience to the command of their respective States. As Mr. Davis put

it, in his parting speech, 'the Ordinance of Secession having passed the

Convention of his State, he felt obliged to obey the summons, and retire

from all official connection with the Federal Government.' This letter

of Mr. Yulee's clearly reveals that they had themselves pushed their

State Conventions to the adoption of the very measure which they had the

hardihood to put forward as an imperious 'summons' which they could not

disobey. It is thus that Treason did its Work."