Newspaper Page Text
**&w*fc -&ZZ
'* i
THE ATHENS GEORGIAN: OCTOBER, 3«-/)p,7ft
a nr
better people than themselves. You
most positively reconsider this sub
ject before you undertake again to
present the Abolitionists to the world
it. the respectable character of fanatics.
I think you will find that the crew of
the Mayflower brought over and
planted no “ germ of an idea” which
baa flourished with more vigor than
their canting hypocrisy.
Here let me say again, that the
vioe and wickedness of the Plymouth
colonists are not to bo visted on the
heads of their children, according to
the flesh. Among them, in every
part of the country, are great states
men, brave soldiers, true servants of
the church, and virtuous, patriotic
Democrats, who are no more respond
sible for flie crimes of their ancestors
than a peaceable Scotchman is for
the raids and robberies which in past
generations were committed by his
clan upon the English border. But
, you acknowledge that you get your
political ideas from them—you boast
that your party has no doctrines of
public law, and no notions of public
duty which were not planted at Ply
mouth. Therefore, it is not only
proper, but necessary, to show what
those doctrines and ideas were
a fundamental republican lie.
I pass noiv to a later period. You
say that there were two radically dif
ferent theories about the nature of
our Government—“the North be
lieving and holding that wo were a
nation, the South insisting that we
were only a confederation of sover-
eign States” It is not true that any
such theoretical conflict over existed
between the sections. That the Ar
ticles of Confederation first, and the
Constitution afterwards, united the
States together for certain purposes
thereiu enumerated, and thus made
us a nation among nations, was never
denied that I know of by any party.
But this national character was given
to the Gcueral Government by sov
creign States, who confederated to
gether for that purpose. They be
stowed certain powers on the whole
political corporation then created
and called it the United States of
America, and they expressly reserved
to themselves all the sovereign rights
not granted in the charter. Demo
cratic statesmen had no theory about
it. They saw’ their duty written
down in the fundamental law', they
s>vore to perform it, and they kept
their oaths. They executed the pow
ers of the General Government
tlieir whole constitutional vigor, for
that, as Mr. Jefferson said, was “ the
sheet-anchor of our peace at home
and our safety abroad,” and they
carefully guarded the rights of the
States as the only security we could
have for a just administration of our
domestic affairs. This was universal
ly assented to as right and true. No
counter theory was set up. Differ
ence of construction there might be,
but all admitted that when the line
of power was accurately drawn be
tween the Federal Government and
State sovereignty, the rights on one
side were as sacred as those on the
other. But within two or three
years last past the low demagogues
of your party have got to putting in
their platforms the assertion that this
is a nation, and not a confederation.
What do they mean? What do you
mean when you endorse and repro
duce it? Do you deny that the
States were sovereign before they
united ? Do yon affirm Fhat their
sovereignty was wholly merged in
the Federal Government when they
assented to the Constitution ? Is the
Tenth Amendment a mere delusion ?
Do you mean to assert that the States
had not now, aud never had, any
rights at all except what are con
ceded to them at the meroy of the
“ nation ?” No doubt this n$w arti
cle was inserted in tlie creed of the
Abolitionists, because they supposed
it would give a sort of plausibility
for their violent intervention with the
internal affaire of the States. But it
is so false, so shallow, and so desti
tute of all respectable authority that
it imposes upon nobody.
SECESSION A YANKEE PRODUCT.
As a part of this conflict of theories,
and resulting from it, you describe
the South as “masting that each
State had a right, at its own discres
tion, to break the Unign,/and cons
stantly threatening secession, where
the full rights of slavery were not ac
knowledged.* 1 In fact and in truth
secession, like slavery, was first plan
ted in New England. There it grew
and flourished and spread its branches
far ever the land, long before it' was
thought of in tiie South, and long
before “the full rights of slavery”
were called in question by anybody.
The nnti-Dcmocrats of that region*
in former as well as in later times,
totally misunderstood the purposes
for which this Government was made.
They regarded it as a mere com
mcrcial machine, by which they could
make much “gayneful pilladge,’’ if
allow'ed to run it their own way.
When they were disappointed in this
by certain perfectly just and const!
tutional regulations of their trade,
which the common defense and gen
eral welfare made necessary, they
immediately fell to plotting the dis
memberment of the Union. Before
1807, they organized a conspiracy
with the British authorities in Can
ada for the erection of New England
into a separate repnblie under British
protection. (See Carey’s “ Olive
Branch’’ and the Henry correspond
ence.) Not long afterwards, Josiah
Quincy, whose fidelity to the party
which elected him was never doubted,
formally announced in Congress the
intention of his State to leave the
Union, “peaceably if she could,
forcibly if she must.” Their hatred
of the Union deepened, and their de
termination to break it up grew
fiercer, as the resolution of the Demo
crats to maintain the independence of
the country became stronger. When
the war of 1812 began, they were
virtually out of the Union, and re
mained out during.the whole of that
desperate struggle, not only refusing
all assistance to carry it on, but help
ing the enemy in every possible way
It was while England had her tight
est grasp on the throat of the nation
that the Hartford Convention was
called to dismember it; and this, Mr.
Jefferson says they would have ac
complished but for the battle of New
Orleans and the peace of Ghent
John Quincy Adams, in 1839, and
Abraham Lincoln, in 1847, made
elaborate arguments in favor of the
legal right of a State to go out. The
later Abolitionists did not attempt to
conceal their rancorous hostility to
the Union. “No union with slave
holders” was one of their watch
words, and down to the opening of
the war its destruction was the
avowed object of their machinations.
There is one conclusive proof of
your enmity to the Union, and that
is your unwavering opposition to the
Constitution which held the States
together. You know as well as I do
how absurd it is to suppose that any
man or party can support the Union,
and at the same time trample on the
Constitution; and you certainly are
not ignorant that you and your prede
cessors, from the earliest times, have
been anti-constitutional in your pro
clivities. Contemptuous disregard of
constitutional obligations is not now
the mere germ of a doctrine; it is a
part of your creed. Before the war,
and since, yon have trodden under
foot every provision contained in the
great charter of our liberties. I do
not speak at random. I challenge
you to designate a siugle constitu
tional right of the States, or of indi
viduals, which you have not at some
time, or in some way, deliberately
violated.
LAWLE8SNK3S AND “ LOYALTY.’’
This contempt for the Constitution,
milted against their political oppo
nents. In their eyes, theft and mur
der not onlv lost their felonious char
acter, but became meritorious, if^the
victims lived south of Mason and
Dixon’s line. When John Brown
stole horses in the peace of God and
the State of Missouri, he was taking
his lawful booty; when he sneaked in
to a quiet Viiginia village on a Sunday
night aud assassinated defenseless cit
izens, he was a hero; and when he
died a felon’s death on the scaffold, to
which he was justly condemned, he
became a martyr.
THE DEMOCRATS OF THE NORTH.
You persist in misunderstanding the
ante-bellum attitude of the Northern
Democracy.» We stood steadfastly by
the Union against all attempts of the
New England party to break it up by
secession. We sustained the Consti
tution against the ferocious assaults of
the Abolitionists; we labored earnestly
to save Republican institutions from
the destruction with which they were
threatened by you; and as long as the
Southern people acted with us, we
gratefully accepted their aid in the
gpod work.
Your averment that the Democratic
party desired the aggrandizement of
slavery, and “yielded their consci
ences” on that subject to the South, is
gros.-ly unjust, if you mean to charge
them with anything more than a wil
lingness to protect the Southern, as
well as the Northern and Middle
States in the exerefa? of their constitu
tional rights. We had disposed of
slavery within our own jurisdiction ac
cording to our sense of sound policy
and justice. But we had made an ex
press compact with the other States to
leave the entire control of their do
mestic affairs to themselves. We kept
our covenant, simply because it would
have been gross dishonesty to break
The abolitionists took a different view,
and refused to keep faith. They
swore as solemnly as we did to observe
the terms of the bargain, bat accord
ing to their code, it was a sin not to
violate it. The fact is true that we did
not think it right to cut the throats,
or shoot, or strangle the men or women
of the South for believing in negro
slavery; but that is no justification of
your assertion that we yielded your
cousciences to them.
Again : You charge us (the North
era Democracy) with having given
bad advice to the Southern people.
This consisted, you say, in ossurin
them that if they seceded, we would
take their part against any attempt to
force them back again into the Union
This is a gross error, and you will see
when I recall your attention to the
facts. Iu all our exhortations to
Southern men against secession we
were met by the expression of their
fear that the Abolitionists intended in
any event to invade aud slaughter
them. Some reason for this appre
hension was giveu by the fierce threats
of your leading men, and especially by
your almost universal admiration of
Brown for his raid into Virginia.
Certain Democrats (and very good
men, too) did then declare that a law
less expedition, intended for purposes
of mere pillage, could not and should
not be started iu the North, without
bucK opposition as would effectually
stop it. But this was before secossion,
aud it was intended to prevent that
movement, not to encourage it.
You can not, with any show of jus
tice, deny that devotion to the Union
was one of the strongest feelings in the
heart of the Northern Democracy
We had always deprecated a separa
tion from the Southern States with so
i much earnestness that one of the op.
< - the advjsnt of radicalism. «the whole country ; that this war is
• The Abolitionists were coming into not waged unthtdc port in any spirit of
power. I need not say by what com- oppression, or for any purpose of con-
bination . of imposture and accident i quest or subjugation pr purpose of
they got it. AU the Northern §fctes overthrowing or interfering with the
as well as the Federal Government fell
into their hands. No doubt their dis
like of Southern people was very
great; but .Northern 'Democrats were
of their special malignity.
Long before that time, and evir since,
this sentiment has been expressed in
words and acts too plain to be misun -
derstood. You show how strong it is
in your own heart when you tell the
Southern men (and you do tell them
so in this very speech) that you honor
them ten thousand times more than
Democrats of the North. Remember,
in addition to this, "that the leading
Abolitionists acknowledged no law
which might stand in the way of their
interests or their passions. Against
anybody Alse the Constitution of the
country would have been a protection.
But they’disregarded its limitations,
and had no scruples about swearing to
support it with a predetermination to
violate.it. We had been well warned
by all the men best entitled to our con
fidence—particularly and eloquently
warned by Mr. Clay and Mr, Web
ster—that if ever the Abolitionists got
hold upon the organized physical
force of the country they would govern
without law, staff at the authority of
the Courts and throw down all the de
fenses of civil liberty.
But if the South had not. seceded
We might have made a successful de
fense of our Constitution through the
righto or established institutions of
those States, but to defend and main
tain the supremacy of the Constitu
tion, and to preserve the Union with
all the dignity, equality and righto of.
the several States unimpaired; and
that as soon as these objects are ac
complished the war ought to cease.”
Confiding in this assurance Demo
crats from every Northern State
rushed to the front by the hundred
thousand; border States of the South
gave in their formal adhension to-the
Government; and our great military
leaders drew their swords with alacri
ty in support of the free institutions
to which they had shown their fideli
ty so often before. With what, base
perfidity that solemn pledge was
broken I need not tell you, for .this
speech shows that you know ijt well.
You expressly, declare that so. far
from sustaining the Government .you
revolutionized it. Instead of a . war
for the Union, you claim that it put
the States out of the Uniotvand you
had a. right to keep them-out as .long
as you pleased or admit them,to. their
places on any terms; however degrad
ing, which you choose ,tcM dictate.
Instead of restoring the supremacy
of the Constitution all your politicians
held; and so far as I know from their
declarations still hold, that the vipto-
ry’-of the Federal forces abolished the
( Constitution not only in the South
but in the North, and therefore -they
were not bound to observe its limita-
this practical denial that an oath to I probrious epithets you bestowed on us
support is sacred, implies a disregard | was that of “Union savere.” This
of all laws, human and . divine, and
when adopted, it left nothing to guide
you except the propensities, evil or
good, of, your natural hearts. Many
of you (and notably you yourself) con
tracted no individual guilt, because
you were too proud for petty larceny,
too benevolent for large-handed roBi
bery, and too full of kindness to break
wantonly into the tabernacle of human
life. Bat generally the moral princi
ples of the ultra-Abolitionists (if they
ever had any) Iwearue so wholly per
verted the! tltev saw nothing wrong in
the worst bff&nses that could be com
wos not a mere sentiment of admira
tion or gratitude to the great Southern
men who had led us through the perils
of the Revolution, settled our institu
tions,-and given our country its high
place in the estimation of the world-
We felt all this bat we felt much
more- The preservation of the Union
was to os an absolute necessity. It
was indispensable to the security of our
lives, our personal liberty and our
phSnest right of property. How true
this was at all times, and especially in
1860, you will see if you reflect a mo
ment on our situation at that time. '
the Southern people, if they had been
true to their duty, we could have or
ganized an opposition so formidable in
its moral and political power that you
would scarcely have dared to assault
us. No wonder that we were “Uuion
savers ;** for to us the Union meant
personal liberty, free thought, an in
dependent press, habeas corpus, trial
by jury, the impartial administration
of justice all those great legal insti
tutions which our forefathers had shed
so much * r 8f blood to build up. The
South deserted us at the crisis of our
fate, and left us in our weakness to the
mercy of the most unprincipled ty
rants that ever betrayed a public trust.
Secession was not mere folly and mad
ness; it was something much worse.
We could not but feel that we were
deeply wronged. There was no remedy
for the dire calamities with which we
were threatened except in bringing the
seceded States back to their places in
the Union. Our convictions of legal
duty, our exasperated sense of injury
and a proper care for our best inter
ests, all impelled us to join the new
administration iu the use of such force
as might be found necessary to execute
the laws in every part of the country.
THE WAR OF THE PHARISEE.
But the Abolitionistsjwanted a war
for the destruction of the Union, for
the overthrow of the Constitution, for
the subversion of free government, and
for the subjugation of the whole coun
try to that “ higher law” which im
poses no restraint upon the rapacity
and malice of the ruling power. To
such a war the national conscience was
opposed. The soul of every respec
table officer in the army and navy re
volted at it,’and every virtuous man in
private life felt it to be an unspeaka
ble outrage. To those who doubted
before, the disaster of Bull Ruu made
it plain that the war could not be suc
cessfully carried on unless it was put
upon principles consistent with the
usages of Christendom and the safety
of bur own institutions. Therefore, it
was that on. the 22d of July, 1861,
Congress, with almost perfect unanim
ity, passed a resolution through both
Houses, declaring in the most explicit
words that the war should be conduc
ted to preserve the Constitution, and
not to revolutionize it I give you
here the words of the resolution itself
from the Congressional Globe, p. 233:
Resolved, That the present deplor
able civil war has been forced upon the
country by the disunionists of the
Southern States, now in arms against
the constitutional Government, and in
arms around the capital; that in this
national emergency, Congress, banish
ing all feeling of mere passion or re
sentment, will recollect only its duty to
tions, either in their legislative, judi
cial or executive measures. Instead
of bringing back the States with. their
rights unimpaired, according to yonr
promise, you crippled, enslaved, sub
jugated and disfranchised them. In
stead of using the war power for the
just and lawrful purposes to which
you were pledged, you converted it
into a black Republican job to
put the rights of all the people per
manently under the feet of an un
principled party. I submit this part
of the case to your consideration. I
ask you to say whether you can find
in the whole history of the human
race another" instance of similar per
fidy on a scale so large. The base
ness of the Massachusetts authorities
iu selling the surrendered Pequods
into slavery after a solemn promise
to the contrary was but the “ germ
of an idea,” on which you acted in
the fullness of its growth. Their act
was in its nature and character near
ly as bad as it could be; but only
eight’score of helpless people suffered
by it; the victims of your treachery
are counted by millions.
THE COERUTTION OF TIIE PHARISEE.
The offenses which you are now
engaged in committing upon the pub
lie treasury are the natural sequence
of your crimes against popular liber
ty.—Universal experince proves that
power unsurped will alw’ays be dis
honestly used. Seeing that the Abol
itionists were led by men whom n<
oath could hold to the Constitution,
and whom no pledge could bind to
an observance of its principles, we
had no right to expect a decent re
gard for justice in their administra
tion of the national finances. I do
not mean that the masses of your
party were, or are now, destitute of
common interitv. But that was
overruled by the political doctrines
of their leaders. leaving once set
aside the established law of the land
they had uo standard by which they
could measure tbe moral conduct of
themselves or others, and they be
came incapable of seeing the differ
ence between right and wrong
in public affairs. The “ higher law ”
threw the reins loose on the neck of
all evil passlma. It not only abro
gated the Constitution, bnt the Dev
calogue as well, and the eighth com
mandment was nullified with the
rest. Youliavo consequently made
ours the most corrupt Government on
this side of Constantinople. Perhaps
you will say this is a mere general
assertion. But I am ready to main
tain the troth of it against all oppo-
sers. Yon may take the rottenest
monarchy in Europe, go ->ver ,\ts his
tory for a hundred, years, and. pro*
uca the worst act you can flnd of
fraudulent spoliation upon itspeople,
and if Y do not show something
worse committed here under the aus-
picdfdfthe party notjr in-jgbw’er I
willSvilHih '
m speaking of the Government
—of the officials who rule us for their
pleasure and plunder us for their per
sonal profit—and it is no answer to
quote Mr. Lord’s speech before the
Senate on the trial of Belknap. His
eulogy was on the virtue and and in
telligence of the people, and he urged
from the duty of their servants to
behave with integrity. He certainly
did not mean to whitewash the Ad
ministration. If he had meant to do
so he could not have succeeded, for
there was not wash enough in his
bucket to go over the twenty-thous
andth part of the job. While you
were hun ting for certificates of char
ter among the speeches of the im
peachment managers, vvhy did you
overlook that of Mr. Hoar? He
said in effect ( for, 1 citp him from
memory) that tho one production in
which oat* country excels till' others
in the world is corruption ot its Gov
ernment. There was the testimony
of a candid witness belonging to your
own party, who knew whereof he
affirmed and spoke directly to the
point. Bat it is useless to cite the
evidence of individuals upon great
public facts that are felt and seen and
know of all men. Nothing ever was
more notorious than the general dis
regard of all sound principle by this
Administration. No people on earth
are suffering so much from extrava
gant taxation, and nowhere docs so
small a portion of the taxes go to
legitimate public purposes, or so
much of the rulers themselves and
the rings they chose to favor. In
dustry is crushed as it never was
before. Labor no longer works for
itself, since all and more than all of
its surplus profits are exacted and
consumed by the hangers-ou of the
Goverment. Now, although wectll
ourselves freemen or freedmen, we
are, to all intents and purposes^
slaves, so long as yon continue to
make us hand over to you the earn
ings of our labor; for the esence of
slavery consists in compelling one
man, or class of man, to work
fo r another without equiva
lent. We are .determined to relieve
ourselves from this intolerable bond
age, as far as we can legally and pea
ceably, aud, if you do not help us,
you must at least cease to mock us
by pretending to be an an anti-slavery
.man upon principle.
A PHARISEE’S BRAVADO. *
You tell us that the Republican
party “ will punish its own rascals ”
The newspaper report of your speech
says that this was greeted with
laughter from the Republican side of
the House. Certainly it sound? like
the broadest of jokes. If you meant
it in earnest, please to say what you
found this claim of impartial justice
upon. You will hardly prove it by
showing that Bristow and Wilson
succeeded, with much tribulation, iu
convicting certain manufacturers of
crooked whisky, and thereby got
themselves turned out of office. It
is vain to deny that there is and has
been a general system of dishonesty
pervading all ranks of the civil ser
vice, which , so far from being pun
ished, is protected, encouraged and
rewarded by the highest authorities.
You have set your face* like a flint
against all investigations tending to
expose rascality. Proof of that, if
proof were wanting, would be found
in your own denunciation of the pres
ent Congress for, pushing its inquiries
into those regions where venality
and corruption might otherwise have
dwelt in safety.
In all your Southern measures you
have shown a positive abhorrence of
honest government. You forced ins
to all places of power men whose
characters were notoriously bad, and
maintained them while they perpe
trated the most shameless robberies.
Yon resisted every effort of the op
pressed people to throw them off,
and when those efforts were success
ful in some oi _the; States, you
mourned the ; h •>:' ihe fellons with
f CONTINUED ON SIXTH PAGE.]