« AnteriorContinuar »
the overthrow of your State government and for the subversion of those liberties which the Government has always sought to protect; and they intend to exert their whole power to subjugate you, if possible, to the military despotism which has usurped the powers of the Federal Government.
“Now, therefore, I, C. F. Jackson, Governor of the State of Missouri, do, in view of the foregoing facts, and by virtue of the power vested in me by the constitution and laws of this commonwealth, issue this my proclamation, calling the militia of this State, to the number of 50,000, into active service of the State, for the purpose of repelling such invasion, and for the protection of the lives, liberties, and property of the citizens of this State; and I earnestly exhort all good citizens of Missouri to rally to the flag of their State for the protection of their endangered homes and firesides, and for the defence of their most sacred rights and dearest liberties.
“ In issuing this proclamation I hold it to be my most solemn duty to remind you that Missouri is . still one of the United States, that the executive department of the State Government does not arro
gate to itself the power to disturb that relation. · That power has been wisely vested in the convention, which will, at the proper time, express your sovereign will; and that meanwhile it is your duty to obey all constitutional requirements of the Federal Government. But it is equally my duty to advise you that your first allegiance is due to your own State, and that you are under no obligation whatever to obey the unconstitutional edicts of the military despotism which has introduced itself at Washington, nor submit to the infamous and degrading sway of its wicked minions in this State. No brave-hearted Missourian will obey the one or submit to the other. Rise then, and drive out ignominiously the invaders who have dared to desecrate the soil which your labours have made fruitful, and which is consecrated by your homes — CLAIBORNE F. JACKSON.”
The notion that was cherished for some time after the rupture that some means might be discovered of reconciling the contending sections has utterly and completely failed ; and this from causes which were known and felt on the other side of the water, but have never yet found expression on this — partly from the hope naturally felt that the evil might not be irremediable, and partly from the dishonest way in which the writers in the public press, and the press itself, at least, for some time, have
argued the views of the North, to the exclusion of those of the South, whose rights they have almost totally ignored. The question of abolition has been put forward invariably as the sole cause of disruption, in deference to the known feeling of England and Europe generally — whereas, there are far graver and deeper questions affecting the relations between the Northern and Southern States, which, for the last quarter of a century, have been antagonistic, and which have culminated to the present crisis. These we propose first to examine historically, and then to deduce reasons which preclude the hope of any fair or honourable settlement of the difference. In 1844 the Methodist Episcopal Church divided, the Northern section refusing to recognise the Southern on many grounds beside the question of slavery, and a feeling of bitterness arose which has never been appeased among the members of that community. I need not point out the refusal of admission to the State of Missouri, and the compromise which was ultimately effected -- for its history is too familiar to require discussion — but only notice it in passing as one of the early causes of dissension. It has been uniformly felt by the South that in this, as in other cases, they had been unfairly dealt with by the legislature. In fact, since the compromise, the admission of every State south of Mason and Dixon's line has been systematically resisted by the Northern statesmen, in open disregard of the plain bearing of the constitutional law on this head. This has been the cause of endless strife and bloodshed on all the border questions, when the votes of the settlers became of importance, and involves too deeply-rooted antipathies and prejudices ever to allow of reconciliation.
The systematic interference of the Northern proselytisers in the States south of the line was looked on, and most fairly so, as illegal and unjustifiable, while the manner in which it was conducted was as ruffianly as it was otherwise in defiance of all law and reason. The impression, founded on many years' experience, that so far from repressing or discountenancing such interference with the South, and forcing on them, as it were, a tyranny, the Northern statesmen took every opportunity of justifying what had been done, and sketching in no vague colours plans of subjugation, and further reducing into possession the Southern States, led all thinking men of the latter party to see that unless steps were taken at once to assert their indepen. dence their strength would be undermined. They found emissaries were sent with incendiary papers throughout the whole country — libels on the South were circulated throughout every town and hamlet, and especially in the schools. Not to go too far back, the first struggle for power, which illustrates the position of two sections, was the Fugitive Slave Law passed in 1850.* This was, in fact, a compromise. The state of enmity between the North and South had become so virulent, that such men as Clay, Webster, &c., saw that a disruption was inevitable. They knew that, constitutionally, the South were right in resisting the open aggression of the North, and, morally, in defending their just title to the property which the law of the Union had guaranteed to them. On the other hand, the present secretary of President Lincoln, W. H. Seward, in the debate brought forward what has since been characterised as the Higher Law Pressure, stating as his principle of action the obligation on his conscience from a higher law than that of the law of the land ; a mode of statesmanship more in accordance with the politics of Cromwell's generals than has happily occurred in the annals of history since that day — for no one can possibly prognosticate whither the force of conscience can compel a fanatic. . Although the slave right was the question on