\THE SOUTH ;JUSTIFIED. 


. .1-\_N ADDRESS 

DELIVERED BEFOUi> 

FRANK CHEATHAM BIVOUAC No. 1, 

OF THE 

Associationo1Confederate Soldiers 


·TENNESSEE DIVISION, 
SATURDAY, AUGUST 18th, 1F.!BB. 

BY HON. -PETER TURNEY. 

NASRVILLE,;TENN.; 
ALBERT JI, TAVEL; STATIONER,·PRINTER AND BINDKR•.. 
... . !888•. 

THE SOUTH JUSTIFIED. 



AN ADDRESS 

DELIVERED BEFORE 

FRANK CHEATHAM_ BIVOUAC No. 1, 

QFTHE 

Association otConfederate Soldiers 

TENNESSEE DIVISION, 

SATDRDAY1 AUGUST 18th1 1F.lB8. 

' . /f.27-J'l•..3 
BY HON. PETER TURNEY. 

-;;. 


NASHVILLE, Tl':NN.: 
At.UEBT B. TA'VEL7 STATIONER, PRINTER AND BINDER. 
188S. 



ADDRESS. 


"The objects of this association being social, historical and 
benevolent, and its labors being directed to cultivating the ties 
of friendship between the survivors of the armies and navies of 
the late Confederate States; to keeping fresh the memories of 
our comrades who gave up their lives for the cause they deemed 
right; to the perpetuation of the records of their deeds of heroism; 
to the collection and disposition, in the manner it deems 
best, of all materials," etc., we cannot and must not iri anywise · 
in the least sympathize with that spirit of seeming apology we 
sometimes meet. We retract nothing, and believe the cause for 
which our comrades fell was just; that they and we were not 
traitors or rebels against the authorized action of that government 
from which we seceded ; otherwise it would be unlawful 
and immoral to attempt to keep alive and perpetuate the memories 
of those who fell, or to preserve for history the records of 
their deeds of heroism. Nothing unpatriotic, immoral, unlawful 
or treasonable should be the basis of any association. It would 
be unpardonable iu us to perpetuate, by positive activity, that 
cour5e of ours which would brand us as rebels against law, and 
teach our children that we have violated morals, order and eocial 
and political obligation. ' 

'Ve are proposing to do none of these things. A conviction 
of right and duty impelled us to enter the service of the Confederate 
States as soldiers. Our comrades who gave up their lives 
did so in obedience to love of country and its constitutional 
foundation. The Confederate States were not and are not responsible, 
morally, legally or politically, for any drop of blood 
spilled in the late war between the States. ·Under the principles 

847213 



4 


of the Union as it then existed, the right of secession was clear. 
In support of this right I will say hut little else than cite authority. 
The agitation of the slavery question in its several aspectfl, 
with centralization for its great purpose, was a main cause of 
trouble and separation. 

The words of the Constitution were: ".No person held to service 
or labor in one State, itnder the laws thereof, escaping into another, 
shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged 
from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on 
claim of the party to whom such service or labor may b~ due." * * 

Of this clauEe J"ndge Story, in delivering the opinion of the 

Supreme Court in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, said: It cannot be 

doubted that it constituted a fundamental article, without the 

adoption of which the Union could, not have been formed." 16 

Peters. It must, therefore, -0f course have been a condition of 

the Union's continuance. 

We will see how this provision of the Constitution was. ob


served al)d treated by the abolition or free States. Between the 

years 1810 and 1850, the losses to the South in fugitive slayes 

amounted to $22,000,000 an annual loss for that period of

' 

'

$550,000. The ratio of loss increased as the slave population 

increased. To what it amounted at the date of secession I am 

unable to state just now; the curious however may readily ascer


tain. The census for 1810 gave a slave population of 1,191,400; 

that of 1820, 1,538,100; that of 1830, 2,009,030; that of 1840, 

2,487,500; that of 1850, 3,204,300; that of 1860, 3,979,700. 

Estimating the average value at $300.00, the Sonth lost by the 

emancipation $1,193,910,000.00, exclusive of at least $6,500,000 

in fugitives between the years 1850 and 1861. 

The claim of the party of coercion that morality justified the 

infliction of that loss on the South is met and fully answered by 

their head, President Lincoln, who said in the Hampton Roads 

conference that ".the people of the North were as responsible for 

slavery as the people of the South." History shows the North to 

be equally responsible at the least, and, I undertake to say, roore 

so, and I feel sure that I am able to prove it should ~t ever be


come necessary. 

About the first of May, 1850, the New York State Vigilance 


5 


Anti-slavery Committee, of which the famous Gerritt Smith was 
chairman, held its anniversary met>ting in public in the city of 
New York. I give a single p:ui~age from its official report: 
"The committee have, within the year since the 1st of May, 
1849, assisted one hundred and fifty one fugitives (for that, you 
know, is our business) in esc:1ping from servitmlP." I cite this 
as one of many specimens of the rlc'spect the anti-slavery people 
had for constitutional guarantees and prott>ction. 

· In speaking upon the clause of the Comititution jnst cited, Mr. 
Seward, of New York, said in the Senate of the Unih d StateF, 
on March 11, 1850: "The law of nations disavows such compacts; 
the law of nature, written on the hearts and consciences 
of freemen, repudiates them. I ki1ow that there are Jaws of various 
sorts ·which regulate the conduct of men ; there are constitutions 
and statutes, codes mercantile and codes civil; but when 
we are legislating for States, especially when we are founding 
States, all these lnvs must be brought to the standaTd of the law 
of God; must be tried by that standard, and must stand or fall 
by it. To conclude on this point, we are not slave-holder.:i; we 
cannot, in our judgment, be true Christians or real freemen if we 
impose on others a chain that we defy all human power to fasten 
on ourselves." He also said: "\Vherein do the strength and 
security of slavery.lie? You answer that they lie in the Co~Etitution 
of the United States and the Constitutions and laws of 
the slave-holding States. Not at all. It is in the erroneous 
sentiments of the Americ1n people. Constitutions and laws can 
no more rise above ·the virtue of the people than the limpid 
stream can rise above its spring. Inculcate the love of freedom, 
and the equal rights of man under the paternal roof; see to it 
that they are taught in the schools and in the churches; reform 
your code; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays 
his weary limbs at your door and defend him as you would your 
paternal god; correct your error that slavery has any constitutional 
guaranty which may not be released and ought not to be 
relinq\1ished; say to slavery, when it shows its bond and demands 
the pound of flesh, that if it qraws one drop of blood~ its 
life shall pay the forfeit; inculcate that free States can maintain 
the rights of hospitality and humanity; that e_xecutive authority 


6 


can forbear to favor slavery.". Thus it was urged and attempted 

to be taught that the Constitution was the . embodiment of 

crime, and oaths to support it of no effect or binding force·; that 

we must regard such obligations as baubles, as things to deceive, 

as snares to entrap. 'Ve were asked to make such doctrines a 

part of our education and a controlling feature of our religion; 

to make perjury a pillar of Church anrl State, and the crime of 

larceny a commendable virtue. The seeds 1>0 sown bore fruit. 

Article IV., Section 2, of the United States Constitution or


dains: "A person charged in any State with treason, felony or 

other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another 

State, shall, ou demand of the executive authority of the State 

from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to~ the State 

having jurisdiction of the crime." 

In two instances, Kent and Fairfield, Governors of Maine, 

refused to comply with this provision on requisitions by the Gov


ernor of Geo1·gia for negro thieves. Governor Seward (after


wards Senator), of New York, made a similar refusal to the 

same State, saying it was not against the laws of New York to 

steal a negro. He made a similar refusal to Virginia. Tht!se 

Governors were sworn to support the Constitution of the United 

States, and certainly understood its plain command. . 

In 1793, while Washington was President, an a~t was passed 

to carry out the provision for the return of fugitive slaves. It 

was adopted unanimously in the Senate, and nearly so in the 

House. The Federal and State Courts held it to be constitu


tional, and yet these Governors refused to ·execute it. 

On 7th January, 1861, more than two weeks after South Car· 
olina had passed her ordinance of secession, Mr. Toombs, of 
Georgia, in a speech in the Senate, said : "The Supreme Court 
has decided that by the Constitution we have a right to go· to 
the territories and be prote<lted with our property.' Mr. Lincoln 
says he does not care what the Supreme Court decides, he 
will turn us out anyhow. He says this in his debate with the 
. honorable Senator from Illinois (l\Ir. Douglas); I have it .before 
me. He said he would vot~ against the decision of the Supreme 
Court." This charge upon l\Ir. Lincoln was never denied by 

himself or friends. 


7 


Instances of disregard of the Constitution by those sworn to 
observe it might be readily multiplied; but I only want to make 
prominent the principles moving the South to its course. 

Having seen our rights under and by the Constituticm, I will 
turn attention to that course. The Southern States claimed they 
were sovereign, having all powers except such as were specially 
delegated to Congress. They demanded that property in slaves 
should be entitled to the same protection from the government 
of the United States, in all its departments everywhere, which 
the Constitution confers upon it; the power· to extend to any 
other property, provided nothing shall be construed to limit or 
restrain the right . now belonging to every State to prohibit, 
abolish or establish and protect slavery within its limits; that 
persons cc1mmitting crimes against slave property in one State 
and fleeing to another, shall be delivered up in the same manner 
as persons committing crimes against other property, and that 
the laws of the State from which such person fled shall be the 
test of criminality; that Congress should pass efficient laws for 
the punishment of all persons, in any of the States, who shall 
in any manner aid and abet invasion or insurrection in any other 
State, or commit any other act against the laws of nations tending 
to disturb the tranquility of the people or government of any 
other State; that the people of the United States should have an 
equal right to emigrate to and settle in the present or any future 
acquired territories with whatever property they might possess 
and be protected in its peaceable enjoyment until such territory 
may be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as she 
may determine, on an equality with all existing States,-as the 
Supreme Court had decided, and as the "originally small party" 
now decides in principle, when in its June platform of 1888 it 
declares : "The government by Congress of the territories is 
based upon necessity, only to the ePd that they become States in 
the Union; therefore, whenever the conditions of population, 
material resources, public intelligence and moraljty are anch as 
to insure a stable government therein, the people of such territories 
should be permitted to form for themselves lbnstitutions on 
State government, and be admitted into the Union." Time and 
circumstances work wonderful changes. What howls.were raised 


8 


by that party over euch doctrines a few decades back, and now 
with what deafenincr cheers it greets them! How many of yon,

" 


my friends, ever hoped to live t0 see the day when the party of 
coercion would not only endorse, but actually adopt, a chief article 
of your faith in the right and act. of secession? I answer, 
not one; nevertheless, you have seen it. \Vonder of wonders! 

. All onr demands were reasonable an<l comformable to the Constitution; 
still, they were stubbornly refused by those high in 
authority who had sworn to support the Constitution, and who 
were follo\vt::d in their cour:<e by the people they represeuted. 

A;frr all this, and after South Carolina had seceded, the other 
States of the South were so anxious to continue the Union under. 
the Constitution and to stand hy and perpetuate its principles, a • 
peace congress was called. Virginia taking the lead, called ' 
that congre~s, which met in Washington City, in February, 1861. 
Judge Cbasc, a teacher of the anti-sla.very movement, afterwards 
l\Ir. Lincoln's Secretary of State, and later Chief Justice of the 
United State8, was a delegate to that Cougrefs. As such delegate 
he, ou 6th l\Iarch, made a speech in which he said: "The 
remlt of the national canvass which recently terminated in the 
election of l\Ir. Lincoln, h·1s been spoken of by some as the effect 
of sudden impulse or of some irregular excitement of the pop., 
nlar mind, and it has been somewhat confidently asserted that, 
uiion refleetion and consideration, the hastily formed opinions 

which brought about the election will be changed. It has been; 

s:iicl also, that subordinate questions of local and temporary char


acter h:we augmented the Repuhlican vote and secured a ma


jority which could not have been obtained upon the national 

questions iuvolved in the respective platforms of the partiel:! 

which divide the country. I cannot take this view of the pres


idential election. I believe, and the belief amounts to :absolnte 

conviction, that the election must be regarded as a triumph of. 

principles cherished in the hearts of the people of the free States. 

these principles, it is true, were originally asserted by a small 

party only. But after years of discussion they have, by their: 

own value, their own intrinsic soundness, obtained the deliberate 
and un1lterable sanction of the people's judgment. Chief among 
these principles is the restriction of slavery within State limits,. 


9 

not war upon slavery within those limits, but.fixed opposition to 
its extension beyond them." "Mr. Lineoln was the candidate 
of the people, opposed to the extension of slavery. \Ve have 
elected him. After many years of earnest advocacy and severe 
tl'ial, we have achieved the triumph of that principle. By a fair 
and unquestionable majority we have obtained that triumph. 
Do you think we who represent this majurity will throw it 
away? Do you think the people would sustain us it we undertook 
to throw it away? I mu~t speak to you plainly, gentlemen 
of the South. It is not in my heart to deceive you. I t~refore 
tell you explicitly that if we of the North and West would consent 
to throw. away all that has been gained in the recent triumph 
of our principles, the,:neople1would not sustain us, and so the 
' consent would avail you nothing. And I must tell you further, 

that under no circumstances will we consent to surrender a principle 
which we believe to be sound and so important as that of 
restricting slavery within State limits." 

Here was a po~itive assertion that Lincoln and the party 

, which had elected him· would not reapect the decision of the 
Supreme Court. Then if the Constitution as construed by that 
court, a tribunal constituted for the purpose, was t<> be so emphatically 
disregarded and ignored, what remedy was left for the 
South? If that organic law by the terms and assurances of 
which the States became parts of the Union is repudiated, was 
the South required in morals or good faith to fold its arms and 
quietly submit? I answer no. Mr. Chase proceeds: "Aside from 
the territorial question, the question of slavery outside of the 
slave States, I know of but one serious difficulty. I refer to 
the question concerning fugitives from service. The clause in 
lhe Constitution concerning this class of persom is regarded by 
almost all men North and South as a stipulation /or the surrender 
to their masters of slaves escaping i1do free States. The people of , 
the free Slates, however, who belieue that slave-holding is wrong, cannot 
and will not aid in the reclamation, and the stipulation therefore 
becomes a dead letter. * * * Yon, thinking slavery :right, 
claim the fulfillment of the stipulation; we, thinking slavery 
wrong, cannot fulfill the stipulation without consciousness of participation 
in wrong." · 


IO 

This leaves no room .to question the policy marked out by 
Mr. Lincoln. The speech of 1\Ir. Chase, his chief adviser, di&· 
tinctly announced that in two essentials the Constitution should 
not be observed and executed. He avows that the Constitution 
shall not be the law of the land, but that the will of the party 
'Joming into power shall be that law, a declaration in words that 
the Constitution is a dead letter. The course to be pursued was 
the usurpation of the powers and their absorption in centralization 
of government. It is admitted that that party understood 
the Constitution as we did, but that for years it had been its settled 
and fixed determination not to execute it; that while it 

would solemnly swear to execute it, it would not do so; that it 
had triumphed on its purpose and principle ofdi.."Obediel.lce, and 
it would avail itself of that triumph and subvert and overthrow 
the principles of the government and obliterate the Constitution 
it must swear to maintain, and by virtue of which only it could 
take control and management. 

_Try the questions by the rules laid down by Mr. Chase for his 
party, and who are the rebels, the traitors, the conspirators 
against the government? The assertion that the Southern States 
are, is the cap, the climax of deliberate and criminal impudence 
or inexcusable ignorance. The entire speech of Mr. Chase is 
interesting as part of the history of its time and the spirit of 
the party about to take control of the government. All Southerners, 
especially those of Confederate blood and extraction, 
should read it. They will find in it much to defend us against 
the charges of treason, conspiracy and rebellion, and much to 
shift these charges to the shoulders of others. It proves, as was 
said ,by Hon. C.. J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, in the Home of 

Representatives, on 9th June, 1841, that "the abolition agitation 
is (was) a conspiracy in the true definition of that offeme. 
It is the combination of many to break law, which is the defini· 
tion of conspiracy; none the better that the conspirators are, 
many of them, persons o( fair character and perhaps pious designs." 


The South was left without protection of ·constitutional guaranties 
and without hope in the decisions Qf the court of last resort; 
it must therefore resort t_o its only remedy, secession. It 


was outlawed, the Constilution denounced "'a dead letter." The 
evils likely and almost certain to flow from the teachings of 
Judge Chase's "originally small party" were seen and dreadedI1 
by the best and most patriot.ic minds of the North. Daniell Webster, wh.o bad no superior as a statesman, who was regarded 
[ : the best constitutional lawyer in the land, and whose patriotism 

• 

'j embraced the whole country, was alarmed and gave the best 
efforts of his life to check auq paralyze the lawlessness of the 
~ "originally small party." In a reception speech made in New 
' York on 15th l\Iarch, 1837, he said: "We have slavery already 

~ 
amongst us. The Oon1Stitution found it in the Union, recognizer/. 
it and gave it solemn guaranties. To the full extent of these guaranties 
we are bound in honor, in justice and by the Cbnstitution. 

All the stipulations contained in the Constitution in favor of the 
i slave-holding States which are already in the Union ought to be 
! fulfilled, and so far as depends on me, shall be fulfilled in the full1 
ness of their spirit and to the exactness of their letter. Slavery as! it exists in the States, is beyond the reach of CongresR. It is a 
f concern of the States tliemselves; they have never submitted it to Om1 
gress and Congress has no rightful power o~er it. I shall concur, 
· therefore, in no act, no measure, no menace, no indication of pur! 
pose which shall interfere or threaten to interfere with the exclusive 
authority of the States over the subject of slavery as it exists within 
their respective limits. All this appears to me to be matters of plain 
and imperative duty." At Buffalo, on 22d l\Iay, 1851, he said : 
"There is but one question in this country now, or if there be 
others they are but second.iry, or so subordinate that they are all 
absorbed in that great and leading question, and that is nothing 
more nor less than this: Ozn we preserve the Union of the States, 
·not by coercion, not by military power, not by angry controversies, 
but can we of this generation, you aud I, your friends and my 
friends, can we so preserve the Union of these States by such admission 
of the powers of the Cbnstitution as shall give content 
and satisfaction to all who live under it, and draw us together, 
not by military power, but by the silken cords of mutual, fraternal, 
patriotic affection! That is the question and no other. Gentlemen, 
I believe in party distinctions; I am a party man..There 
are questions belonging to, party in which I take an interest, 

11
111


12 

. 

and there are opinions entertained by others which I repudiate, 
but what of all that? If a house be divided against itself it 
will fall and crush everybody in it. We must see that we maintain 
the government which is over us, we must see that we up· 
hold the Constituti<m, and we must do so without regard to party. f 

The question, fellow-citizens (and I put it to you now as the real J 
question), the question is whether you and the rest of the people I 
of the great Stat'e of New Y o:r:k and of all the States will so f 
adhere to the Constitution, will so enact and maintain laws fo i 

preserve. that instrument, that you will not only remain in the J 
Union yourselves, but permit your brethren to remain in it'! That I 
is the qtfestion. 'Vill you concur. in measures necessary to maintain 
the· Union, or will you oppose such measures'! That is the f 

whole point of the case." After giving a history of the formation 
of the Union, Mr. ·Webster pro~eeds: "Now I am aware 
that all these things are well known, that they have been stated 
a thousand times, but in these days of perpetual discontent and 
misrepresentation, to state things a thonsand time·s is not enough, 
for there are persons '."hose consciences, it would seem, lead them 
to consider it their duty to deny, misrepresent and cover up truths. 
Now these are the words of the Constitution, fellow citizens, 
which I have taken the pains to transcribe therefrom, so that he 
who runs may read: 'No person held to service or labor in 
one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into anolher, shall, in 

-0onsequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from 
such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the 
party to whom such service or labor may be due.' Is there any 
mistake about that? Is there any forty shilling attorney here . 

to make a question of it? No, I will not disgrace my profession , 1 
by supposing such a thing. There is not in or out of an attor-j 
ney's office in the county of Erie or elsewhere, one who could 1 · 
raise a doubt or a particle of doubt, about the meaning of this j 
provision of the Constitution. He may act as witnesses do some-I 
times on the stand. He may wriggle and twi>it and say he can-I 
not tell or cannot remember. I have seen many such efforts in 1 
my time on the part of witnesses to falsify and deny the truth. l 

But there is no man who can read these words of the Constitution I 
of the United States and say they are not clear and imperative. ' 


~Ofle: 
~........ Austin 

<No person,' the Constitution s~ys, 'held to labor or service in 
~ne State under the laws thereot~ escaping into another, shall, in 
consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from 
such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the 
party to whom such service or labor may be due.' ·why, you 
may be told by forty conventions in Massachusetts, in Ohio, in 
New York or elsewhere, that if a colored man comes here, he 
comes as a freeman, that is, non sequitur. It is not so. If he 
comes as a fugitive from labor the Constitution says he is not a 
freeman, and that he shall be delivl)red up to those who are en.
titled to his service. Gentlemen, that is the Constitution. Do 
we, or do we not, mean to conform to it, and to execute that part 
of the Coustit11tion as well as the rest of .it? I believe there 
are before me here members of Congress. I suppose there may 
be here members of the State Legislature or executive officers 
under the State government. I suppose there may be judicial 
magistrates of New York, executive officers, 'assessors, supervirnrs, 
justices of the peace, and constables before me. Allow 
me to :my, gentlemen, that there is not, thern cannot be, any one 
of these officers in this assemblage or elsewhere, who has not, ac-
eording to the form of the usual obligation, bound himself by 
solemn oath to support the Constitution. They have taken their 
oaths on the holy evangelists of Almighty God, or by uplifted 
hands, as the case may be, or by' solemn affirmation, as is the 
practice in some cases, but among all of them there is not a 
man who holds, nor is there any man who can hold, any office 
in the gift of the United States, or of this State, or of any other 
State, who does not bind himself by the solemn obligation of an 
oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Well, is 
be to tamper with that? le he to palter? Gentlemen, our political 
duties are as much matters of conscience as any other 
duties. Our sacred domestic duties, our most endearing social 
relations are not more the subjects for conscientious consideration 
and conscientious discharge than the duties we enter npon 
under the Constitution of the United States. The bonds of political 
brotherhood, which hold us together from Maine to Georgia, 
rest upon the same principles of obligation as those of social 
and domestic life." At Capon Springs, in Virginia, June 28, 


14 

1851, Mr. Webster said: "The leading sentiment 'in the toast 
from the chair is, the Union of the States. The Union of the State~! 
What mind can comprehend the consequences of that Union, 
past, present and to come? The Union of these States is the all~ 
abwrbing topic of the day. On it all men speak, write, think 
and dilate, from the rising of the su~ to the going down thereof. 
And yet, gentlemen, I fear its import:mce has been but insufficiently 
appreciated." "How absurd it is to suppose that when 
different parties rnter into a corripact for certain purposes, either 
can disregard any one provision and (-Xpect., nevertheless, the other 
to obs,erve the rest. I intend for one to regard and maintain and 
carry out to the fullest extent the Constitution of the United 
States which I have sworn to support in all its p:irts and pro-· 
visions. It is written in the Constitution: 'No person held to 
service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping. 
into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation 
therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be 
deliverecl up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor 
may be due.' That is as much a part of the Constitution as any 
olher, and equally binding and obligatory as any other on all men, 
public or private. And who denies this? None but the abolitionists 
ofthe North. And pray, what is it they will not deny f They have 
but the one idea, and it.would seem that these fanatics at the North 
and the seces~ionists at the South are putting their heads together 
to defeat the good designs of honest and patriotic men. They 
act to tbe same end an<l the ~ame object, and the Constitution 
bas to take the fire from both sides. I have not hesitated to say, 
and I i·epeat, that if the Northern Stales refuse wilf'lllly and -deliberately 
lo carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects 
the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provides no 
remedy, the South would no longer be bo'ltnd to observe tlie compact. 

' A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side. 
I say to you, gentlemen, as I said on the shores of Lake Erie 
and in the city of Boston, and as I may say again in that city or 
elsewhere in the North, that you of the South have as much 
right to receive your fugitive slaves as the North has to any of 
its rights and privileges of navigation and commerce. I am as 
rea<ly to fight and to fall for the constitutional rights of Virginia 
as I am for those of Massachusetts." 


15 


.. Now, if Daniel Webster, whose greatness of mind and nobility 
of soul are better and more impressively and significantly 
expressed by the isolated name, "Daniel 'Veboter," than they 
would be by the use of any or all the adjectives of our language 
defining those virtues, apd whose patriotism was as broad as the 
land, who loved the Union for its constitutional ties and guaranties, 
and who hated slavery in every form, and was willing to use 
all l~wful means for its abolition-if he, with his universally 
known character and convictions, was ready to fight and to fall 
for the constitutional rights of the South, where was the wrong, 
or even the sligh.test mistake, on the part of the Southern man 
who had been reared in the education that the institutions of the 
South were sound i~ law and in morals? 

He told us we had the constitutional right to the property; 
that ifthe North disregarded the compact in any one particular 
we were released from all obligation to observe the rest. 

Trying the principles of the "originally small party" of Mr. 
Chase, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward by the plain and incontrovertible 
rules of constitutional law as laid down by Daniel Webster, 
we find they can only exist in the palpable and gross violation 
of the Constitution as it then was. 

Mr. Webster's argument is so full, clear and exhaustive that I 
will not be guilty of the folly ofattempting to add to or elucidate 
it. I commend it to the attention and perusal of all Southern 
men and w.omen. Its teachings should be transferred to our 
school-books to supercede and paralyze the false and poisonous 
manufacture of history that has foun<l its way into so many of 
the books that have been introduced into the schools of the South,. 
with the purpose to mislead and disease the minds of our children 
as to the purpose, policy and good faith of our separation 
from the government of that "originally small party" so much 
contemned if not despised by. Mr. Webster, and to which he administered 
such rebukes as to induce us to believe he could and 
would keep it in check and perhaps obliterate it. 

IfDaniel 'Webster could have been spared to the Union, there 
would not, in my opinion, have arisen cause for separation. His 
death in October, 1852, unbridled the fanaticism of that" originally 
small party," and brought it into power eight ·years later, 


16 


when it proposed to conduct the government on its peculiar sentiments 
of morality, regardless of the constitutional limitations 
and restrictions which had been upholden and enforced by the 
Supreme Court for more thau ~eventy-five years. 

It was" the higher law party"acting wi_thout warrant ofauthority, 
and in violation of that compact of which Mr. Webster said 
one party could not <lisreg.ird any one provision and expec~ the 
other to observe the rest. That great man loved law, system, order; 
had great respect for the ability, pafriotism and integrity of 
the Supreme Court of the United States, and would certainly, I 
think, have acquiesced in its decision made at December term,' 
1856, that Congress had no power to exclude ~lavery from the 
territories. His course through life warrants the conclusion that 
he would have urged it as a ioettlment of that agitation. 

Our affairs having reached the crisis indicated, the work of secession 
began. The question is, Did we have that right, which 
we exercised in the hope that war would not follow? \Ye proposed 
to quit in peace. . 

The first authority I rely on in suppo1·t of the right is a speech· 
of :Mr. Lincoln (the head and leader of coercion), made in the 
House of Representatives on 12th January, 1848. He said: 
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, 
have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government 
and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most val-: 
uable, a sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to 
liberate the world. Nor is it confined to cases in which the whole 
people of an existing government may choose to exercise it• 
.Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize'and make 
their own so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than 
this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, 

putting down a minority, intermingled with or near them, who 
may oppose their movements. Such minority was precisely the 
case of the tories of our own·Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions 
not to go by old lines or old Jaws, but to break up both 
and make new ones." 

There is no room for enlargement, expansion or extension of 
this view of Mr. Lincoln on the right of revolution in any form 
it may take. 


I 'J 

· Mr. Rawle, of Pennsylvania, an eminent jurist, who had been 
United States District Attorney under President Washington, 
and had been offered by him the Attorney-Generalship of the 
United States, and who was a firm supporter of the administration 
of the elder Adams, wrote in 1825: " Having thus endeavored 
to delineate the general features of this peculiar and invaluable 
form of governmen't, we shall conclude by adverting to the 
principles of its cohesion, and to the provisions it contains for its 
own duration and extension. The subject cannot, perhaps, be 
better introduced than by presenting in its own words an emphatical 
clause in the Constitution: 'The United States shall 
guar,mty to every Stp.te in the Union a republican form of gov· 
ernment, shall protect each of them agai'nst invasion, and on application 
of the legislature, or the executive when the legislature 
cannot be convened, against domestic violence.' The Un.ion is 
an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated 
to depend on the preservation of these republics. The 
principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, 
is not essential to the being of a I'epuhlic, but to continue a member 
of the Union it must be presumed, and therefore the guaranty 
must be so construed. It depends on the State itself to rntain O\' 
abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself 
whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this 
right would he inconsistent with the principles on which our public 
systems are founded, which is that the people have in all cases 
to determine how they will be governed. This right must be considered 
as an ingredient in the original composition of the general 
government which, though not expressed, was understood, • 
and the doctrine heretofore presented. to the reader in regard to 
the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance is so far qualified 
in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed 
that it was competent for a State to make a. compact with its citizens; 
that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance 
might cease on certain events; and it was further ob~erved that 
allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society 
to which it was due." " The secession of a State from the 

Union depends on the will of the people of such State. The people 
alone, as we have seen, bold the power to alter t~ieir Constitution. 


18 


The Constitution of the United States is, to a certai1i extent, incorporated 
into the Constitutions of the several States by the act 
of the people. The State Legislatures havi:i only to perform certain 
org:mical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the 
Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. 
There must be an expressed provision to that effect inserte<
l in the Stare Constitutions. This is not at present the case 
with any of them, and it would, perhaps, be impolitic to confide 
it to them. A matter so momentous ought not to be entrusted 
to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly 
and precipitately, upon sudden dissatisfaction or causeless jealousy, 
perhaps against the interests and wishes of a majority of 
their constituents. In the present Constitution there is no specifications 
of number after the first formation. It was forei;een 
that there would be a natural tendency to increase the number 
of Statfs with the increase of population then anticipated and 
now so iully verified. It was also kn<YWn, though it was not 
avowed that a State might withdraw itself." , 

This comes from one who was an officer under the first administration 
and familiar with the interpretation of the Constitution 
by its framers. , · 
Senator Wade, of Ohio (afterwards Vice ~resident of the 

-United States), in the United States Senate, on 23d February, 
1855, mid: "Who is to be judge, in the last resort, of the violation 
of the Consf.itution of the United States by the enactment of 
a law? Who is the final arbiter, the general government or the 
States in their sovereignty? 'Vhy, sir, to yield that point is to 
yield up all the rights of the States to protect their own citizens 
and to consolidate this government into a miserable despotism. 
I tell you, ~ir, whatever you' may think of it, if this bill pass collision 
will arise betweC'n the State and foderal jnrisdictions-conflicts 
more dangerous than all the wordy wars which are got up 
in Congress, conflicts in which the State will never yield,; for the 
more you undertake to loJd them,with acts like this, the greater 
will be their resistance." "I said there were States in this Union 
whose highest tribunals had adjudged ,that bill to be unconstitutional, 
and I was one of those who believed it unconstitutional, 
and that, under the old resolutions of 1798 and 1799, a Slate must 
not only be the jud!Je oj that but of the remedy in such <;_ase." 


There was no mincing there, no stringing together of words 
for sound's sake, but a solid shot, straight to the mark, from anti-
slavery quarters. 

In his address in 1839, before the Historical Society of New 
York, Mr..John Quincy Adams said: "With these qualifications 
we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every 
State in the Union, with reference to the general government, 
.which was exercised by the people of the united colonies with 
reference to the supreme head of the Briti~h empire, of whieh 
they ·formed a p~rt, and under these limitations have the people 
of each State in the Union a right to secede from the confederate 

Union itself. But the indissoluble Union between the several 
States of this confederate nation is, after all, not in the right but 
in the heart. Ifthe day should .ever come (may Heaven avert it) 
.when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated 
from each other; when the paternal spirit shall give way 
to cold indifference, or collision of interest shall fester into 
hatred, the bonds of political asseveration will not long hold to 
other parties no longer attached by the magnetism of conciliated 
interest and kindly sympathies, and far better will it be for the 
peaple of these dis-United States to part in friendship than to be 
held together by constraint; then will be time .for reverting to the 
preeedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the 
Constitution, to form a more perfect Union by dissolving that 
which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parties to 
·be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.'' 

Acting upon this principle, the Legislature of Massachusetts, the 
home of Mr. A.dams, in 1844, resolved "that the ·project of ~he 
annexation of Texas, unless arrested on the threshold, may 

·drive these States into a dissolution of the Union." On the same 
subject, on 22d February, 1845, it resolved, * * * "and as· 
the powers oflegi.ilation granted in the O:mslitution of the United 
States to Congress, do not embrace the case of the admission of a 
foreign State 01· foreign territory by legislation into the Union, 
such act of admission would have no binding force whatever on 
the people of Massachusetts." 

Here we have the unequivocal assertion of the right to secede. 
In 1814, on the call of Massachusetts, several of the New Eng



,.20 

land States ·met in convention in Hartford and promulgated the 
following: "It is as much the duty of State authorities to watch 
over the rights reserved as of the United States to. exercise' the 
powers which are delegated." " In cases of deliberate, dangerous 
and palpable infraction~ of the Constitution affecting the sovereignty 
of a State, and liberties of the people, it is not only the 
right, but the duty of such State to interpose its authority for 
their protection in the manner best calculated tc) secure that end. 

\Vhen emergencies occur, which are either beyond the reach of 
the, judicial tribunals, or too pressicg to admit of the delay incident 
to 1heii:-forms, States which have no common itmpire must be 
their own judges and execute their own decisions." 

\Ve of the South were watching over not only our re8erved 
rights, but also those guarantied to us as well. We had the delib


.erate, dangerous and palpable infraction of the Constitution• 
Emergencies had reached beyond the cure of judicial tribunals, 
for the "originally small party" positively refused to recognize 
and obey the courts, and the time had come when we might, as 
the Hartford convention said we had the right to do, become our 
own judges and execute our own decisions. The principles set 

·forth by that convention were signed by a number of the leading 
men of that.day, and amongst them, Nathan Dane, founder of 
the profe:;sorship of law in the Cambridge University, and who 
was author of the ordinance for the government of the northwestern 
territory in 1787. He, like Rawle, understood what 
was meant by the framers of the Con.stitution. He lived in their 
day and with them, and we may regard his utterances as an authoritative 
constmclion of the instrument. 

On the 9th November, 1860, Horace Greeley wrote: · "The 
telegraph informs us that most of the cotton States are meditating 
a withdrawal:.from the Union became of Lincoln's election. 
Very well ; they have a right to meditate, and meditation is a 
profitable employment of leisure. We have a chronic, invincible 
disbelief in disunion as a remedy for either Northern or Southern 
grievances. \Ve cannot see.any necessary connexion between the 
alleged disease and this ultra heroic remedy. Still we·say, if 

.any one meditates disunion, let him do so unmolested. That 
was a. base and hypocritical row that was raised at Southern die



·ZI 

tation about the eara of John Quincy Adams because he presented 
a petition for the dissolution of the Union. The petitioner had 
a right to make the rfquest; it was the member's duty to nresent 
it. And now, if the cotton States consider the value -of the 
Union debatable, we maintain their perfect right to discuss it• 
. Nay, we hold with ,Jefferson to the.inalienable right of communi-. 
ties lo alter or abolish forms ofgovernment that have become oppress!
ve or injurions; and if the cotton StatPs decide that they can 
.do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them 
go in peace. 1'he rigltt to secede may be a revolutionary one, but 
it exists nevertheless, and we do not see how one party has a right 
to do what another party has a right to prevent. 'Ve must ever 
.resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and . 
nullify or defy the laws thereof. To withdraw from the Union 
is quite another matter. And whene\·er a considerable section 
of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist 
all coercive measures designed to keep it in. 'Ve hope never to 
live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue 
_by bayonets." * * * "Let the people reflect, deliberate, 
then vote, and let the act of secession be the echo of an unmis 
takable popular fiat. A judgment tlms rendered, a demand for 
separation so backed, would either be acquiesced in without the 
effusion o~blood, or those who rushed upon the carnage to defy and 

.defeat i~ would place themselves cleai·ly in the wrong." 

Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, says: 

.."Though obvious deductions which may be an<l, indeed, have 
been drawn from considering the Constitution as a compact between 
the States, are, that it operates as a mere treaty or con-. 
vention between them, and has an ·obligatory force upon each 
State no longer than it suits its pleasure or its consent continues; 
that each State has a right to judge for itself in relation 
to the nature, extent and obligations of the instrument, without 
being at all bound by the interpretation of the federal government, 
or by that of any other State, and that each retains the 
power to withdraw from the confederacy and dissolve the connection, 
when such shall be its choice, and may suspend the 
operations of the federal government and nullify its acts within 
its own territorial limits, whenever in its own opinion the exi



22 

gency of the case may require. These conclusions m'.ly not 
always be avowed, but they flow naturally from t.he doctrine 
which we have under consideration." 

Judge Tucker, professor of law in the Universil.y of William 
and Mary, in Virginia, and one of the earliest commentators 
on the Constitution, iu 1803, wrote: "The Constitution of the 
United States then, .being that instrument by which the federal 
government hath been erea_ted, its powers defined and limited.J 
and the duties and functions of its several departments pre;.. 
scribed, the government thus established may be pronounced to 
be a confederate republic, composed of several independent and 
sovereign democratic states united for their common defense and 
security against foreign nations au<l for purposes of harmony 
and mutual intercomse between each other, each State retaining 

. an entire liberty of exercising as it thinks proper all those parts 
of its sovereignty which are not mentioned in the Constitution 
or act of union as parts that ought to be exercised in common." 
''In bec~ming a member of the federal alliance, esta~lished. between 
the American States by the Articles of Confederation, 
she expressly 1·etained her sovereignty and independence. The 
constraints put upon the exercise of that sovereignty by those 
Articles did not destroy its existence." "The federal government 
then, appears to be the organ through which the ueited repub~ 
lies communicate with foreign nations and with each other. 
Their submission to its operation is voluntary ; ils councils, its 

engagements, its authority are theirs, modified and united. Its 
authority is an emanation from theirs, not a flame in which they . 
have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they m·e swallowed up. j 
Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, sti~l independent, l 
and still capable, should occasion require, to resume the exercise! 
of its functions as such in the most unlimited extent." · t 

In speaking of our separation from Great Britain, Chancellor~ 
Kent says: "The principle of self-preservation and the rightI 
of every community to freedom and happiness gave sanction .to l 
this separation. When the government, established over any peo-} 
pie, becomes i.ncompetent to fulfill its·pm·poses, or destructive to~ 
the essential ends for which it was instituted, it is the .1:ight off 
the people,-fou.nded on the law of nature and the reason of man~t 

·I 

t 


J+ind and supported by the soundest authority and some illustri. 
qus precedents, to throw off such government and provide new 
guards for their future safety." 

·with a single exception, I have confined my citations of authority 
to the northern anti-slavery States, the home of the 
'.'originally small party." No Southern man, no slave-holder 
ever more clearly announced and advocated the sovereignty of 
the States, 01; that the Constitution was a compact between the 
States, or. that one party could not violate it in one or more 
particulars and require or expect the other to observe the 
residue. No stronger argument can be made that the Constitution 
is a whole, and to be binding on one 8ide must be obeyed 
as a whole by the other. The Constitution was the chain tliat 
linked the States in union; the breaking of one link dissolved 
the tie. 

The authorities all tend to the one inevitable conclusion, that 
the Union exists alone by the Constitution and its observ~nce in 
every particular. Being the terms of union, one party may not 
be permitted to violate it in any particular and insist on its observance 
by the other' as to any of its terms, whatever they may 
be. The right to its enforcement as a whole, or its rejection as 
such, is inalienable and· indestructible. · 

In the investigation of the question, my trouble has not been 
in finding authority of the highest and clearest and most convincing 
character. It has been in avoiding its multiplicity.· I 
have relied on the testimony of those not at all in sympathy 
with the institution of slavery, passing by the opinions and utterances 
of Southern statesmen and jurists.· 

Under the condition of thiugs as slightly, and but slightly, 
portrayed in this address, the Southern States began the work of 
secession and organizing ,a new goverument. They hoped, as 
they rightfully might, that they would not be interfered with ; 
that there would be no war. In this they were mistaken. The 
"originally small party," which had then come into powt\r, or: 
derecl the relief squadron, with eleven ships, carrying two hundred 
and eighty-five guns and twenty-four hundred men, from 
New York and Norfolk to reinforce Fort ,Sumpter-peaceably 
if permitted, forcibly if they must. This was of itself an act 

, 



oJ war.· After several attempts and faifores on the part-of Gen.' 
Beauregard to have some understanding with Maj. Anderson, 
seeing that unless he took action his forces would be exposerl in 
front and rear, and perhaps destroyed for usefulness, he fired 
the first gun of the war. This he did in self-defense. He was 
in command of forces of a government foreign to that of the' 
United States. The harbo1· of Charleston belonged to the Confederate 
States, or rather to the ·independent government of 
South Carolina. Being then the property of another government, 
there was no authority resting with or in the government 
at 'VashiogLon to interfere. with it. It was that government's 
duty to withdraw its troops, at least when demand w.1s made by 
Gen. Beauregard. Failing to do so, it became his imperative 
duty to take the necessary steps to remove them and to resort to 
rnch force, mild or violent, as would bring about that removal. 
It became necessary to strike the first blow. That blow was in 
self-defense. The overt act on the part of the United States 
justified it, Neither nation or inllividual is required to wait until 
stricken after the assailant has assumetl the attitude of offense 
with the present ability to strike. 

The squadron ·was ordered to Fort Sumpter' to attack. The 
order will bear no other interpretation. There can be no authority 
to order the reinfo1·cement of a foreign port ·in times of 
peace and with hostile demonstrations. That was an act of war, 
was the first assault, the inauguration of the war by the United 
States. If ever there was a case of pnre, unmitigated, unmixed 
and positive justification and self-defense, the law and the testimony 
make that case for the Confederate government and Con· 
federate soldier. 

We yielded to the logic of force. The right still lives. A new 
government has been built upon the downfall of the old ones; 
'Ve have promised our allegiance to it. 'Ve will keep the faith 
plighted at all hazards and to the last extremity, so long as the 
Constitution is respected. The element of evil and discord'has 
been removed. Old things have passed away, and there will 
be, we ventm·e to hope, no other sectional jealousy. Our devo"'. 
tion to the Constitution at all times; our conduct as soldiers for 
four years, battling from field to field, from time to time hold


. ' 


ing in check one million five hundred thousand soldiers with 
six hundred thousand, give assurance that we will always be 
worthy citizens of a constitutional Union, and may be confidently 
relied on in times .of need. 

I know that in many things I have repeated an often-told 
story, but, in the language of Mr. \Vebster, "to state things a 
thousand times is not enough in these days of misrepresentation, 
for there are persons whose comciences it would seem lead 
them to consider it their duty to deny, misrepresent and cover 
up truths." 

In this effort my purpose and desire have been to awake the 
Southern mall and woman to the importance of having their 
children study our lost cause from constitutional, legal and historical 
:;tanapoints, that they be not misled. It is time we 
were seeing after their school-books ourselves ,and not trusting 
too much to others. 

Our cause was worth all we rncrificed to it. Though lost it 
deserves vindication. Its defense by our arms at least checked 
centralization. Understanding the principles of self-government, 
for which our comrades battled and died, our children 
will stand at their graves with love, admiration and approval of 
their Ct•urse, and offer up the prayer, "God bless and perpetuate 
their memori~." 

I am thankful for this opportunity and this occasion to defend 
the right.