For
the last ten years we have had numerous
and serious causes of complaint against
our non-slave-holding confederate States
with reference to the subject of African
slavery. They have endeavored to weaken
our security, to disturb our domestic
peace and tranquility, and persistently
refused to comply with their express
constitutional obligations to us in
reference to that property, and by the
use of their power in the Federal
Government have striven to deprive us of
an equal enjoyment of the common
Territories of the Republic. This hostile
policy of our confederates has been
pursued with every circumstance of
aggravation which could arouse the
passions and excite the hatred of our
people, and has placed the two sections
of the Union for many years past in the
condition of virtual civil war.
Our people, still
attached to the Union from habit and
national traditions, and averse to
change, hoped that time, reason, and
argument would bring, if not redress, at
least exemption from further insults,
injuries, and dangers. Recent events have
fully dissipated all such hopes and
demonstrated the necessity of separation.
Our Northern confederates, after a full
and calm hearing of all the facts, after
a fair warning of our purpose not to
submit to the rule of the authors of all
these wrongs and injuries, have by a
large majority committed the Government
of the United States into their hands.
The people of Georgia, after an equally
full and fair and deliberate hearing of
the case, have declared with equal
firmness that they shall not rule over
them. A brief history of the rise,
progress, and policy of anti-slavery and
the political organization into whose
hands the administration of the Federal
Government has been committed will fully
justify the pronounced verdict of the
people of Georgia.
The party of
Lincoln, called the Republican party,
under its present name and organization,
is of recent origin. It is admitted to be
an anti-slavery party. While it attracts
to itself by its creed the scattered
advocates of exploded political heresies,
of condemned theories in political
economy, the advocates of commercial
restrictions, of protection, of special
privileges, of waste and corruption in
the administration of Government,
anti-slavery is its mission and its
purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a
power in the state. The question of
slavery was the great difficulty in the
way of the formation of the Constitution.
While the subordination and the political
and social inequality of the African race
was fully conceded by all, it was plainly
apparent that slavery would soon
disappear from what are now the
non-slave-holding States of the original
thirteen. The opposition to slavery was
then, as now, general in those States and
the Constitution was made with direct
reference to that fact. But a distinct
abolition party was not formed in the
United States for more than half a
century after the Government went into
operation.
The main reason
was that the North, even if united, could
not control both branches of the
Legislature during any portion of that
time. Therefore such an organization must
have resulted either in utter failure or
in the total overthrow of the Government.
The material prosperity of the North was
greatly dependent on the Federal
Government; that of the the South not at
all. In the first years of the Republic
the navigating, commercial, and
manufacturing interests of the North
began to seek profit and aggrandizement
at the expense of the agricultural
interests. Even the owners of fishing
smacks sought and obtained bounties for
pursuing their own business (which yet
continue), and $500,000 is now paid them
annually out of the Treasury. The
navigating interests begged for
protection against foreign shipbuilders
and against competition in the coasting
trade. Congress granted both requests,
and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute
monopoly of this business to each of
their interests, which they enjoy without
diminution to this day. Not content with
these great and unjust advantages, they
have sought to throw the legitimate
burden of their business as much as
possible upon the public; they have
succeeded in throwing the cost of
light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance
of their seamen upon the Treasury, and
the Government now pays above $2,000,000
annually for the support of these
objects.
Theses interests,
in connection with the commercial and
manufacturing classes, have also
succeeded, by means of subventions to
mail steamers and the reduction in
postage, in relieving their business from
the payment of about $7,000,000 annually,
throwing it upon the public Treasury
under the name of postal deficiency. The
manufacturing interests entered into the
same struggle early, and has clamored
steadily for Government bounties and
special favors. This interest was
confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle
non-slave-holding States. Wielding these
great States it held great power and
influence, and its demands were in full
proportion to its power. The
manufacturers and miners wisely based
their demands upon special facts and
reasons rather than upon general
principles, and thereby mollified much of
the opposition of the opposing interest.
They pleaded in their favor the infancy
of their business in this country, the
scarcity of labor and capital, the
hostile legislation of other countries
toward them, the great necessity of their
fabrics in the time of war, and the
necessity of high duties to pay the debt
incurred in our war for independence.
These reasons prevailed, and they
received for many years enormous bounties
by the general acquiescence of the whole
country.
But when these
reasons ceased they were no less
clamorous for Government protection, but
their clamors were less heeded-- the
country had put the principle of
protection upon trial and condemned it.
After having enjoyed protection to the
extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon
their entire business for above thirty
years, the act of 1846 was passed. It
avoided sudden change, but the principle
was settled, and free trade, low duties,
and economy in public expenditures was
the verdict of the American people. The
South and the Northwestern States
sustained this policy. There was but
small hope of its reversal; upon the
direct issue, none at all.
All these classes
saw this and felt it and cast about for
new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of
the North offered the best chance for
success. An anti-slavery party must
necessarily look to the North alone for
support, but a united North was now
strong enough to control the Government
in all of its departments, and a
sectional party was therefore determined
upon. Time and issues upon slavery were
necessary to its completion and final
triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery,
which it was well known was very general
among the people of the North, had been
long dormant or passive; it needed only a
question to arouse it into aggressive
activity. This question was before us. We
had acquired a large territory by
successful war with Mexico; Congress had
to govern it; how, in relation to
slavery, was the question then demanding
solution. This state of facts gave form
and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment
throughout the North and the conflict
began. Northern anti-slavery men of all
parties asserted the right to exclude
slavery from the territory by
Congressional legislation and demanded
the prompt and efficient exercise of this
power to that end. This insulting and
unconstitutional demand was met with
great moderation and firmness by the
South. We had shed our blood and paid our
money for its acquisition; we demanded a
division of it on the line of the
Missouri restriction or an equal
participation in the whole of it. These
propositions were refused, the agitation
became general, and the public danger was
great. The case of the South was
impregnable. The price of the acquisition
was the blood and treasure of both
sections-- of all, and, therefore, it
belonged to all upon the principles of
equity and justice.
The Constitution
delegated no power to Congress to
excluded either party from its free
enjoyment; therefore our right was good
under the Constitution. Our rights were
further fortified by the practice of the
Government from the beginning. Slavery
was forbidden in the country northwest of
the Ohio River by what is called the
ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was
adopted under the old confederation and
by the assent of Virginia, who owned and
ceded the country, and therefore this
case must stand on its own special
circumstances. The Government of the
United States claimed territory by virtue
of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain,
acquired territory by cession from
Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty
from France, and by treaty from Spain.
These acquisitions largely exceeded the
original limits of the Republic. In all
of these acquisitions the policy of the
Government was uniform. It opened them to
the settlement of all the citizens of all
the States of the Union. They emigrated
thither with their property of every kind
(including slaves). All were equally
protected by public authority in their
persons and property until the
inhabitants became sufficiently numerous
and otherwise capable of bearing the
burdens and performing the duties of
self-government, when they were admitted
into the Union upon equal terms with the
other States, with whatever republican
constitution they might adopt for
themselves.
Under this
equally just and beneficent policy law
and order, stability and progress, peace
and prosperity marked every step of the
progress of these new communities until
they entered as great and prosperous
commonwealths into the sisterhood of
American States. In 1820 the North
endeavored to overturn this wise and
successful policy and demanded that the
State of Missouri should not be admitted
into the Union unless she first
prohibited slavery within her limits by
her constitution. After a bitter and
protracted struggle the North was
defeated in her special object, but her
policy and position led to the adoption
of a section in the law for the admission
of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all
that portion of the territory acquired
from France lying North of 36 [degrees]
30 [minutes] north latitude and outside
of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the
time of its adoption declared it
unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned
the restriction and foresaw its
consequences and predicted that it would
result in the dissolution of the Union.
His prediction is now history. The North
demanded the application of the principle
of prohibition of slavery to all of the
territory acquired from Mexico and all
other parts of the public domain then and
in all future time. It was the
announcement of her purpose to
appropriate to herself all the public
domain then owned and thereafter to be
acquired by the United States. The claim
itself was less arrogant and insulting
than the reason with which she supported
it. That reason was her fixed purpose to
limit, restrain, and finally abolish
slavery in the States where it exists.
The South with great unanimity declared
her purpose to resist the principle of
prohibition to the last extremity. This
particular question, in connection with a
series of questions affecting the same
subject, was finally disposed of by the
defeat of prohibitory legislation.
The Presidential
election of 1852 resulted in the total
overthrow of the advocates of restriction
and their party friends. Immediately
after this result the anti-slavery
portion of the defeated party resolved to
unite all the elements in the North
opposed to slavery an to stake their
future political fortunes upon their
hostility to slavery everywhere. This is
the party two whom the people of the
North have committed the Government. They
raised their standard in 1856 and were
barely defeated. They entered the
Presidential contest again in 1860 and
succeeded.
The prohibition
of slavery in the Territories, hostility
to it everywhere, the equality of the
black and white races, disregard of all
constitutional guarantees in its favor,
were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and
applauded by its followers.
With these
principles on their banners and these
utterances on their lips the majority of
the people of the North demand that we
shall receive them as our rulers.
The prohibition
of slavery in the Territories is the
cardinal principle of this organization.
For forty years
this question has been considered and
debated in the halls of Congress, before
the people, by the press, and before the
tribunals of justice. The majority of the
people of the North in 1860 decided it in
their own favor. We refuse to submit to
that judgment, and in vindication of our
refusal we offer the Constitution of our
country and point to the total absence of
any express power to exclude us. We offer
the practice of our Government for the
first thirty years of its existence in
complete refutation of the position that
any such power is either necessary or
proper to the execution of any other
power in relation to the Territories. We
offer the judgment of a large minority of
the people of the North, amounting to
more than one-third, who united with the
unanimous voice of the South against this
usurpation; and, finally, we offer the
judgment of the Supreme Court of the
United States, the highest judicial
tribunal of our country, in our favor.
This evidence ought to be conclusive that
we have never surrendered this right. The
conduct of our adversaries admonishes us
that if we had surrendered it, it is time
to resume it.
The faithless
conduct of our adversaries is not
confined to such acts as might aggrandize
themselves or their section of the Union.
They are content if they can only injure
us. The Constitution declares that
persons charged with crimes in one State
and fleeing to another shall be delivered
up on the demand of the executive
authority of the State from which they
may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction
where the crime was committed. It would
appear difficult to employ language freer
from ambiguity, yet for above twenty
years the non-slave-holding States
generally have wholly refused to deliver
up to us persons charged with crimes
affecting slave property. Our
confederates, with punic faith, shield
and give sanctuary to all criminals who
seek to deprive us of this property or
who use it to destroy us. This clause of
the Constitution has no other sanction
than their good faith; that is withheld
from us; we are remediless in the Union;
out of it we are remitted to the laws of
nations.
A similar
provision of the Constitution requires
them to surrender fugitives from labor.
This provision and the one last referred
to were our main inducements for
confederating with the Northern States.
Without them it is historically true that
we would have rejected the Constitution.
In the fourth year of the Republic
Congress passed a law to give full vigor
and efficiency to this important
provision. This act depended to a
considerable degree upon the local
magistrates in the several States for its
efficiency. The non-slave-holding States
generally repealed all laws intended to
aid the execution of that act, and
imposed penalties upon those citizens
whose loyalty to the Constitution and
their oaths might induce them to
discharge their duty. Congress then
passed the act of 1850, providing for the
complete execution of this duty by
Federal officers. This law, which their
own bad faith rendered absolutely
indispensible for the protection of
constitutional rights, was instantly met
with ferocious revilings and all
conceivable modes of hostility. The
Supreme Court unanimously, and their own
local courts with equal unanimity (with
the single and temporary exception of the
supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained
its constitutionality in all of its
provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead
letter for all practicable purposes in
every non-slave-holding State in the
Union. We have their convenants, we have
their oaths to keep and observe it, but
the unfortunate claimant, even
accompanied by a Federal officer with the
mandate of the highest judicial authority
in his hands, is everywhere met with
fraud, with force, and with legislative
enactments to elude, to resist, and
defeat him. Claimants are murdered with
impunity; officers of the law are beaten
by frantic mobs instigated by
inflammatory appeals from persons holding
the highest public employment in these
States, and supported by legislation in
conflict with the clearest provisions of
the Constitution, and even the ordinary
principles of humanity. In several of our
confederate States a citizen cannot
travel the highway with his servant who
may voluntarily accompany him, without
being declared by law a felon and being
subjected to infamous punishments. It is
difficult to perceive how we could suffer
more by the hostility than by the
fraternity of such brethren.
The public law of
civilized nations requires every State to
restrain its citizens or subjects from
committing acts injurious to the peace
and security of any other State and from
attempting to excite insurrection, or to
lessen the security, or to disturb the
tranquillity of their neighbors, and our
Constitution wisely gives Congress the
power to punish all offenses against the
laws of nations.
These are sound
and just principles which have received
the approbation of just men in all
countries and all centuries; but they are
wholly disregarded by the people of the
Northern States, and the Federal
Government is impotent to maintain them.
For twenty years past the abolitionists
and their allies in the Northern States
have been engaged in constant efforts to
subvert our institutions and to excite
insurrection and servile war among us.
They have sent emissaries among us for
the accomplishment of these purposes.
Some of these efforts have received the
public sanction of a majority of the
leading men of the Republican party in
the national councils, the same men who
are now proposed as our rulers. These
efforts have in one instance led to the
actual invasion of one of the
slave-holding States, and those of the
murderers and incendiaries who escaped
public justice by flight have found
fraternal protection among our Northern
confederates.
These are the
same men who say the Union shall be
preserved.
Such are the
opinions and such are the practices of
the Republican party, who have been
called by their own votes to administer
the Federal Government under the
Constitution of the United States. We
know their treachery; we know the shallow
pretenses under which they daily
disregard its plainest obligations. If we
submit to them it will be our fault and
not theirs. The people of Georgia have
ever been willing to stand by this
bargain, this contract; they have never
sought to evade any of its obligations;
they have never hitherto sought to
establish any new government; they have
struggled to maintain the ancient right
of themselves and the human race through
and by that Constitution. But they know
the value of parchment rights in
treacherous hands, and therefore they
refuse to commit their own to the rulers
whom the North offers us. Why? Because by
their declared principles and policy they
have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our
property in the common territories of the
Union; put it under the ban of the
Republic in the States where it exists
and out of the protection of Federal law
everywhere; because they give sanctuary
to thieves and incendiaries who assail it
to the whole extent of their power, in
spite of their most solemn obligations
and covenants; because their avowed
purpose is to subvert our society and
subject us not only to the loss of our
property but the destruction of
ourselves, our wives, and our children,
and the desolation of our homes, our
altars, and our firesides. To avoid these
evils we resume the powers which our
fathers delegated to the Government of
the United States, and henceforth will
seek new safeguards for our liberty,
equality, security, and tranquillity.
[Approved,
Tuesday, January 29, 1861]
BACK
TO AHGP CIVIL WAR
|