Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Excerpts from the South Carolina Exposition and Protest
The committee have bestowed on the subjects referred to them the deliberate attention which their importance demands; and the result, on full investigation, is a unanimous opinion that the act of Congress of the last session, with the whole system of legilation imposing duties on imports,-not for revenue, but the protection of one branch of industry at the expense of others,-is unconstitutional, unequal, and oppressive, and calculated to corrupt the public virtue and destroy the liberty of the Country; which propositions they propose to consider in the order stated, and then to conclude their report with the consideration of the important question of the remedy.
The committee do not propose to enter into an elaborate or refined argument on the question of the constitutionality of the Tariff system. The General Government is one of specific powers, and it can rightfully exercise only the powers expressly granted, and those that may be necessary and proper to carry them into effect, all others being reserved expressly to the States or the people. It results, necessarily, that those who claim to exercise power under the Constitution, are bound to show that it is expressly granted, or that it is necessary and proper as a means to some of the granted powers. The advocates of the Tariff have offered no such proof. It is true that the third section of the first article of the Constitution authorizes Congress to lay and collect an impost duty, but it is granted as a tax power for the sole purpose of revenue, -a power in its nature essentially different from that of imposing protective or prohibitory duties. Their objects are incompatible. The prohibitory system must end in destroying the revenue from imports. It has been said that the system is a violation of the spirit, and not the letter of the Constitution. The distinction is not material. The Constitution may be as grossly violated by acting against its meaning as against its letter; but it may be proper to dwell a moment on the point in order to understand more fully the real character of the acts under which the interest of this, and other States similarly situated, has been sacrificed. The facts are few and simple. The Constitution grants to Congress the power of imposing a duty on imports for revenue, which power is abused by being converted into an instrument of rearing up the industry of one section of the country on the ruins of another. The violation, then, consists in using a power granted for one object to advance another, and that by the sacrifice of the original object. It is, in a word, a violation by perversion, -the most dangerous of all because the most insidious and difficult to resist. ...
In the absence of arguments, drawn from the Constitution itself, the advocates of the power have attempted to call in the aid of precedent. The committee will not waste their time in examining the instances quoted. If they were strictly in point, they would be entitled to little weight. Ours is not a Government of precedents, nor can they be admitted, except to a very limited extent, and with great caution, in the interpretation of the Constitution, without changing, in time, the entire character of the instrument. The only safe rule is the Constitution itself, -or, if that be doubtful, the history of the times. In this case, if doubts existed, the journals of the Convention itself-or, if that be doubtful, the history of the times. In this case, if doubts existed, the journals of the Convention itself would remove them. It was moved in that body to confer on Congress the very power in question to encourage manufactures, but it was deliberately withheld, except to the extent of granting patent rights for new and useful inventions. ...But, giving the precedents every weight that may be claimed for them, the committee feel confident that, in this case, there are none in point previous to the adoption of the present Tariff system. Every instance which has been quoted, may fairly be referred to the legitimate power of Congress, to impose duties on imports for revenue. It is a necessary incident of such duties to act as an encouragement to manufactures, whenever imposed on articles which may be manufactured in our country .In this incidental manner, Congress has the power of encouraging manufactures; and the committee readily concede that, in the passage of an impost bill, that body may, in modifying the details, so arrange the provisions of the bill, as far as it may be done consistently with its proper object, as to aid manufactures. To this extent Congress may constitutionally go, and has gone from the commencement of the Government, which will fully explain the precedents cited from the early stages of its operation. Beyond this they never proceeded till the commencement of the present system, the inequality and oppression of which they will next proceed to consider.
On entering on this branch of the subject, the committee feel the painful character of the duty which they must perform. They would desire never to speak of our country , as far as the action of the General Government is concerned, but as one great whole, having a common interest, which all the parts ought zealously to promote. Previously to the adoption of the Tariff system, such was the unanimous feeling of this State; but in speaking of its operation, it will be impossible to avoid the discussion of sectional interest, and the use of the sectional language. On its authors, and not on us, who are compelled to adopt this course in self-defence, by injustice and oppression, be the censure.
So partial are the effects of the system, that its burdens are exclusively on one side and its benefits on the other. It imposes on the agricultural interest of the South, including the South-west, and that portion of the country particularly engaged in commerce and navigation, the burden not only of sustaining the system itself, but that also of the Government. ...
That the manufacturing States, even in their own opinion, bear no share of the burden of the Tariff in reality, we may infer with the greatest certainty from their conduct. The fact that they urgently demand an increase, and consider every addition as a blessing, and a failure to obtain one as a curse, is the strongest confession that, whatever burden it imposes, in reality falls, not on them, but on others. Men ask not for burdens, but benefits.
The assertion, that the encouragement of the industry of the manufacturing States is, in fact, discouragement to ours, was not made without due deliberation. It is susceptible of the clearest proof. We cultivate certain great staples for the supply of the general market of the world: -They manufacture almost exclusively for the home market. Their object in/ the Tariff is to keep down foreign competition, in order to obtain a monopbly of the domestic market. The effect on us is, to compel us to purchase at a higher price, both what we obtain from them and from others, without receiving a correspondent increase in the price of what we sell.
...But this oppression, as great as it is, will not stop at this point. The trade between us and Europe has, heretofore, been a mutual exchange of products. Under the existing duties, the consumption of European fabrics must, in a great measure, cease in our country; and the trade must become, on their part, a cash transaction. He must be ignorant of the principles of commerce, and the policy of Europe, particularly England, who does not see that it is impossible to carryon a trade of such vast extent on any other basis than barter; and that, if it were not so carried on, it would not long be tolerated. We already see indications of the commencement of a commercial warfare, the termination of which no one can conjecture, -though our fate may easily be. The last remains of our great and once flourishing agriculture must be annihilated in the conflict. In the first instance, we will be thrown on the home market, which cannot consume a fourth of our products. ...
The committee having presented its views on the partial and oppressive operation of the system, will proceed to discuss the next position which they proposed, -its tendency to corrupt the Government, and to destroy the liberty of the country.
If there be a political proposition universally true, -one which springs directly from the nature of man, and is independent of circumstances, -it is, that irresponsible power is inconsistent with liberty, and must corrupt those who exercise it. On this great principle our political system rests.
The committee has demonstrated that the present disordered state of our political system originated in the diversity of interests which exists in the country; -a diversity recognized by the Constitution itself, and to which it owes one of its most distinguished and peculiar features, -the division of the delegated powers between the State and General Governments. ...In drawing the line between the powers of the two- the General and State Governments -the great difficulty consisted in determining correctly to which of the two the various political powers ought to belong. This difficult task was, however, performed with so much success that, to this day, there is an almost entire acquiescence in the correctness with which the line was drawn. It would be extraordinary if a system, thus resting with such profound wisdom on the diversity of geographical interests among the States, should make no provision against the dangers to which its very basis might be exposed. The framers of our Constitution have not exposed themselves to the imputation of such weakness. When their work is fairly examined, it will be found that they have provided, with admirable skill, the most effective remedy; and that, if it has not prevented the danger with which the system is now threatened, the fault is not theirs, but ours, in neglecting to make its proper application. In the primary division of the sovereign powers, and in their exact and just classification, as stated, are to be found the first provisions or checks against the abuse of authority on the part of the absolute majority. The powers of the General Government are particularly enumerated and specifically delegated; and all powers not expressly delegated, or which are not necessary and proper to carry into effect those that are so granted, are reserved expressly to the States or the people. The Government is thus positively restricted to the exercise of those general powers that were supposed to act uniformly on all the parts, -leaving the residue to the people of the States, by whom alone, from the very nature of these powers, they can be justly and fairly exercised, as has been stated.
In order to have a full and clear conception of our institutions, it will be proper to remark that there is, in our system, a striking distinction between Government and Sovereignty. The separate governments of the several States are vested in their Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Departments; while the sovereignty resides in the people of the States respectively. The powers of the General Government are also vested in its Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Departments, while the sovereignty resides in the people of the several States who created it. But, by an express provision of the Constitution, it may be amended or changed by three fourths of the States; and thus each State, by assenting to the Constitution with this provision, has modified its original right as a sovereign, of making its individual consent necessary to any change in its political condition; and, by becoming a member of the Union, has placed this important power in the hands of three fourths of the States, -in whom the highest power known to the Constitution actually resides. Not the least portion of this high sovereign authority resides in Congress, or any of the departments of the General Government. They are but the creatures of the Constitution, and are appointed but to execute its provisions; and, therefore, any attempt by all, or any of these departments, to exercise any power which, in its consequences, may alter the nature of the instrument, or change the condition of the parties to it, would be an act of usurpation.
If we look to the history and practical operation of the system, we shall find, on the side of the States, no means resorted to in order to protect their reserved rights against the encroachments of the General Government; while the latter has, from the beginning, adopted the most efficient to prevent the States from encroaching on those delegated to them. The 25th section of the Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, -immediately after the Constitution went into operation, -provides for an appeal from the State courts to the Supreme Court of the United States in all cases, in the decision of which, the construction of the Constitution, -the laws of Congress, or treaties of the United States may be involved; thus giving to that high tribunal the right of final interpretation, and the power, in reality, of nullifying the acts of the State Legislatures whenever, in their opinion, they may conflict with the powers delegated to the General Government. A more ample and complete protection against the encroachments of the governments of the several States cannot be imagined; and to this extent the power may be considered as indispensable and constitutional. But, by a strange misconception of the nature of our system, -and, in fact, of the nature of government, -it has been regarded as the ultimate power, not only of protecting the General Government against the encroachments of the governments of the States, but also of the encroachments of the former on the latter; -and as being, in fact, the only means provided by the Constitution of confining all the powers of the system to their proper constitutional spheres; and, consequently, of determining the limits assigned to each. Such a construction of its powers would, in fact, raise one of the departments of the General Government above the parties who created the constitutional compact, and virtually invest it with the authority to alter, at its pleasure, the relative powers of the General and State Governments, on the distribution of which, as established by the Constitution, our whole system rests; -and which, by an express provision of the instrument, can only be altered by three fourths of the States, as has already been shown. It would go ****her. Fairly considered, it would, in effect, divest the people of the States of the sovereign authority, and clothe that department with the robe [ sic] of supreme power. A position more false and fatal cannot be conceived. Fortunately, it has been so ably refuted by Mr. Madison, in his Report to the Virginia Legislature in 1800, on the Alien and Sedition Acts, as to supersede the necessity of further comments on the part of the committee. Speaking of the right of the State to interpret the Constitution for itself, in the last resort, he remarks: -"It has been objected that the Judicial Authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution. On this objection, it might be observed, -first -that there may be instances of usurped power" (the case of the Tariff is a striking illustration of the truth), "which the forms of the Constitution could never draw within the control of the Judicial Department; -secondly, -that if the decision of the Judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decision of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the Judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decision of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases in which the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against the infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and exercised by the other departments, but that the Judicial Department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another; by the Judiciary as well as by the Executive or the Legislative. However true, therefore, it may be that the Judicial Department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be considered the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the Government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the Judicial and all other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with others in usurped powers might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
If it be conceded, as it must be by every one who is the least conversant with our institutions, that the sovereign powers delegated are divided between the General and State Governments, and that the latter hold their portion by the same tenure as the former, it would seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers, and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction. The right of judging, in such cases, is an essential attribute of sovereignty, -of which the States cannot be divested without losing their sovereignty itself, -and being reduced to a subordinate corporate condition. In fact, to divide power, and to give to one of the parties the exclusive right of judging of the portion allotted to each, is, in reality, not to divide it at all; and to reserve such exclusive right to the General Government (it matters not by what department to be exercised), is to convert it, in fact, into a great consolidated government, with unlimited powers, and to divest the States, in reality, of all their rights. ...But the existence of the right of judging of their powers, so clearly established from the sovereignty of States, as clearly implies a veto or control, within its limits, on the action of the General Government, on contested points of authority; and this very control is the remedy which the Constitution has provided to prevent the encroachments of the General Government on the reserved rights of the States; and by which the distribution of power, between the General and State Governments, may be preserved for ever inviolable, on the basis established by the Constitution. It is thus effectual protection is afforded to the minority, against the oppression of the majority. Nor does this important conclusion stand on the deduction of reason alone. It is sustained by the highest contemporary authority. Mr. Hamilton, in the number of the Federalist already cited, remarks that, -"in a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and usurpations are guarded against, by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." He thus clearly affirms the control of the States over the General Government, which he traces to the division in the exercise of the sovereign powers under our political system; and by comparing this control to the veto, which the departments in most of our constitutions respectively exercise over the acts of each other, clearly indicates it as his opinion, that the control between the General and State Governments is of the same character. Mr. Madison is still more explicit. In his report, already alluded to, in speaking on this subject, he remarks; -"The resolutions, having taken this view of the Federal compact, proceed to infer that, in cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose to arrest the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. ...The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this solid foundation. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, as parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." To these the no less explicit opinions of Mr. Jefferson may be added; who, in the Kentucky resolutions on the same subject, which have always been attributed to him, states that- "The Government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; -but, as in all other cases of compact between parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
The committee have thus arrived, by what they deem conclusive reasoning, and the highest authority, at the constitutional and appropriate remedy against the unconstitutional oppression under which this, in common with the other staple States, labors, -and the menacing danger which now hangs over the liberty and happiness of our country; -and this brings them to the inquiry, -How is the remedy to be applied by the States? In this inquiry a question may be made, -whether a State can interpose its sovereignty through the ordinary Legislature, but which the committee do not deem it necessary to investigate. It is sufficient that plausible reasons may be assigned against this mode of action, if there be one (and there is one) free from all objections. Whatever doubts may be raised as to the question, -whether the respective Legislatures fully represent the sovereignty of the States for this high purpose, there can be none as to the fact that a Convention fully represents them for all purposes whatever. Its authority, therefore, must remove every objection as to form, and leave the question on the single point of the right of the States to interpose at all. When convened, it will belong to the Convention itself to determine, authoritatively, whether the acts of which we complain be unconstitutional; and, if so, whether they constitute a violation so deliberate, palpable, and dangerous, as to justify the interposition of the State to protect its rights. If this question be decided in the affirmative, the Convention will then determine in what manner they ought to be declared null and void within the limits of the State; which solemn declaration, based on her rights as a member of the Union, would be obligatory, not only on her own citizens, but on the General Government itself; and thus place the violated rights of the State under the shield of the Constitution.
I regret that I cannot type out the full text myself, my gout is acting up again.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
My regrets for causing you any discomfort on your above post, but I think I would have been more apt to give it more serious consideration if at the end of the article could have gotten past a propaganda statement that rendered the entire article suspect as it seems to imply an agenda and not history.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Neil,
Like Tommy, I too sincerely hope that you will take good care of yourself and soon return to good health.
As for the article in question, although I agree with you in part about the last paragraph, certainly, you, as a serious history researcher would rely more on the references given and not be "put off" by one paragraph in an entire article.
Facts speak for themselves. I would hardly say that one paragraph "rendered" the entire article suspect. These things actually happened, according to witnesses present.
Your servant, sir.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Thea, the article you posted about the battle of Marianna is... intresting. Union Troops involved were 82nd US Colored, 7th Vermont VI & 2nd Main Cav... The author couldn't even get that correct. Frankly, the article made me sick at heart. Inaccuracies and outright fabrications... gotta love propoganda.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
To Whom it may Concern:
Another report:
That year, President Abraham Lincoln supported an invasion of Florida, the least-populated state in the Confederacy, to cut off the South's supply of beef and salt and to round up black recruits for the federal army. Lincoln planned to make Florida an example by reconstructing the entire state.
To accomplish this goal, Lincoln considered sending an army west from Jacksonville and east from Pensacola. But after the Confederates defeated the Yankees at the Battle of Olustee, 13 miles from Lake City, on Feb. 20, 1864, Lincoln abandoned his attempt to conquer the state.
The Federals listed 203 dead, 1152 wounded, and 506 missing in this largest battle fought in Florida soil. The Confederates counted 93 killed, 847 wounded and six missing.
Col. A.B. Montgomery, commander of Marianna Military District, reported a large raid on St. Andrew Bay by 400 black troops of the 2nd U.S. Colored Infantry and the 2nd Florida Cavalry between July 20-29, 1864. Since Marianna was the governor's home and headquarters of the Confederate troops in Florida, these men threatened an attack on Marianna.
Brig. Gen. A.A. Asboth, a Hungarian refugee and Union Army commander of the District of West Florida, departed Pensacola on Sept. 18, 1864, with such a raid in mind.
Asboth and his 700 soldiers took towns, captured Confederates and collected new recruits along the way. They were involved in a skirmish at Campbellton on Sept. 26, followed by open fighting in Marianna on Sept. 27. Confederates hidden in St. Luke's Episcopal Church blasted Asboth in the face and arm. In retaliation, Asboth ordered the church burned. The Home Guard held the general and his men back from crossing the Chipola River by removing planks on the East Side.
But Marianna suffered great losses, with homes looted and ransacked by Asboth's army. The general left Marianna on Sept. 28 with some 200 horses, 400 head of cattle, 17 wagons and several hundred slaves, along with food supplies and furniture robbed from the homes.
Given the sources: Confederate Military History, [1898] vol. XI, pt. 2, pp. 114-18,The Confederate Veteran, vol. XIX, 1911, pp. 483-84,I conclude that eye witness accounts are reliable. To date I've found no evidence of other Union troops being present, but I would have to look further to be certain of that.
Eye witness accounts do not amount to propaganda or fabrication.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
They are when they have an agenda, they are when the eyewitness accounts are a fabrication. Ask three people who watched a car accident happen what happened and you'll get three different stories.
I was going w/ the OR's, Statistical Record and eyewitness accounts... of coarse I've read of eyewitness accounts that had Shermans Army in Waycross GA too...
I'm reminded of Wade Hamptons claim that he had killed or wounded 4000 of Shermens men in South Carolina alone... in fact according to muster records Sherman lost just about 5000 total through the whole campaign from Atlanta. Wade Hampton or the muster roles. Quite a dilema.
Newspaper articles, eyewitness accounts, letters, diaries, muster roles... all are only part of the puzzle that is history. THe media hasn't changed much since the ACW... fact is secondary to the "story." To look at only one account and say that it is fact is naive. To only look at accounts put forward by one side is worse, it's biased.
Having just finished reading Trudeau's excellent work on the black man in the civil war... I question ANY period source's integrity when it comes to the actions of black men in battle. And when the very first source I pick up contradicts another I really start to question.
"Question everything, believe nothing."
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
I fear the best thread on the board (thank you Thea!) is being undermined by posters' personal views.
I'd respectively suggest that we reserve this thread as a place to share primary source documents, articles, etc. There is plenty of other places for our opinions on any topic.
**********************************************
Tallahassee, February 2, 1861.
GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
The people of the State having declared themselves a sovereign and independent nation, the duty of providing by law proper measures for the defense of that sovereignty and independence is, by the constitution, cast upon the executive and legislative branches of the government of the State, and it is particularly my duty to call your attention to such matters as may seem to me to justify the belief that the State is in danger from any foe, and to call on you to unite with me in defending her from injury. The occurrences of the last two months sufficiently indicate that this State and any others of the slave-holding States which have or yet may decide to separate from any political connection with the non-slave-holding States of the late American Union will not be permitted to accomplish such separation in a peaceable manner, and that they must maintain the independence which they assert and claim to have the right to assume by a show of force, perhaps by an actual resort to arms, however powerful may be the argument on which we rely to justify our separation. However much we may be convinced of our right to adopt the course which as a people we have determined to pursue to avert from us and our posterity the calamities which we feared would befall us and them from the continuance of a Government in a just share of the power of which we could not reasonably expect to enjoy, although the wrong and injuries we had experienced without any adequate redress from the Government of the United States were such as rendered the advantages we derived from it no adequate compensation for the evils to which it left us exposed, and although we as a free, enlightened, and Christian people have, after long suffering and expostulation with those who sought to injure us under the forms of legislation and under the shield of the Union, been driven to the exercise of the right to reassume to our State the powers delegated to the Federal Union of States which existed under the Constitution of the United States, which right is plain and incontestable by any of the principles upon which the independence of the American colonies was placed by the illustrious men who framed and adopted the declaration of the reasons which governed the people of the colonies in their action; yet it manifest that the inhabitants of the non-slave-holding States are hardening their hearts against all signs and evidences which justify our exodus from among them, and that, like Egyptians of old, they are not willing that we should depart in peace from our state of bondage, but, in the spirit of the oppressor, they seek to tighten their grasp upon a people who have been to them an abundant source of profit and advantage, and are preparing their host to follow after and to return us to a captivity the latter end of which must be worse than the first. Whilst President Buchanan has officially declared that he has no power to employ the military and naval forces under his control in hostility against any of the State which have dissolved their connection with the late Federal Union, yet it is apparent that he support officers of the Army under his control in the hostile occupation of portions of the territory of this |State and our sister State of South Carolina, permits his general and members of his Cabinet to set on foot military expeditions against us, re-enforce forts, order men-of-war to hover on our coast in hostile array, and has advised Congress to pass laws for the purpose of collecting revenue from imposts into our State by means of armed vessels. This conduct of President Buchanan, which is totally at war with our claim of independence and sovereignty, is not only recognized to be correct and supported by the representatives of the non-slave-holding States sitting in Congress at Washington, and claiming to be the Congress of the United States, but they have, be speech and votes, manifested a firm resolve to disregard the act of the people, done in convention, dissolving the political ties which united us with the people whom they represent, and declare their purpose, so soon as they attain further power by the inauguration of a President elected by themselves, without the voice and in direct opposition to the will of our people, to use all the military and naval power which they may be enabled to acquire the possession and control of to subjugate our people and those of the States concurring with us, and to compel us to submit to that Government which we resolved to throw off because its further continuance menaced the destruction of our rights and liberties. We have unmistakable evidence of every kind that is significant and reliable that the people of the non-slave-holding States sustain the action and declared purposes of those whom they chose by a large majority of their voices to represent them and rule us. We have seen Legislature of the great States of New York, Ohio, and Massachusetts passing resolutions pledging men and money to aid in fastening upon us again the chains with which they hope to attach us forever to a condition of bondage and vassalage to an unfriendly people. No friendly voice was lifted in the councils of these States to defend our action and to maintain our right to throw off a Government which, in our opinion, no longer conferred on us those blessings of peace and domestic tranquility which it was founded to secure. No one was heard to utter that truth which our ancestors had inserted in their Declaration of Independence, "that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Of all the mighty thousands of Northern men whom we were beseeched to trust to as a sufficient means to guard us against the ruin which we foresaw in the impending ascendancy of the Black Republican party, not even a respectable minority in the Legislature alluded to opposed their votes to such foul acts of unfriendly power. No lover of human liberty was heard to exclaim, wherever people calling themselves Republicans were, through their representatives, offering to furnish the means to compel millions of their fellow-men-their equals and lately their fellow-citizens-to submit to a Government under which they honestly believed they could not enjoy their admitted and just rights. No Burke, no Barre, no Fox, declared against acts of tyranny far more odious and cruel than those which a North and a Bute perpetrated under the authority of a Crown, and which found illustrations patriots ready to denounce in the hearing of the mighty monarch who sat on the thrown of Great Britain. We are not only assured that force of arms is to be employed to compel us to pass under the yoke of Black Republican rule by the evidences I have alluded to, derived from legislative proceedings of the State Legislatures and of representative men in Congress from non-slave-holding States, but daily the press and the pulpit pour forth denunciations against our people and earnestly count the days yet to lapse when they fervently hope to see their representative man, Abraham Lincoln, enthroned at Washington in undisputed possession of all the machinery of the Government, supported by the military chieftain, who, like Napoleon at Paris, coolly and deliberately, without remorse or hesitancy, plants the cannon that is to mow down, at his word of command, his fellow-citizens, whom a love of liberty may urge to make an effort to save the tomb of Washington from remaining in the keeping of those who have forgotten his precepts, and have by the organization of a sectional party destroyed the Government and buried the spirit of the Constitution. We are forewarned of coming attacks upon our political and civil liberties, and shall we not be forearmed? We have yet heard but the mutterings of the thunder, but the storm is not afar off. It may pass by us, but let us be prepared to meet it firmly and avert from our people the injury with which it threatens them. Let us remember the voice of that illustrious Southerner whose mortal remains lie entombed on the banks of the Potomac, who counseled us "In time of peace to prepare for war." Let us arm for the contest, and perchance by a show of our force and our readiness of the combat we may escape the realities of war. Already our brethren of the Southern States are arming. We, too, have made some preparation, but much remains undone. We see that even the slave-holding States of Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina, which have not yet cut loose the ties which connect them politically with the non-slave-holding States, are arming for the contest. In Virginia the people are ahead of the Legislature, and have in their county meetings empowered the county authorities to put the militia on a war footing, and have raised funds for the purchase of arms and ammunition. All these signs and tokens warn us to be ready to defend our rights. With the notes of hostile preparation sounding in our ears, with the example of our brethren (whose fate we must share) to stimulate us, is it not our duty to prepare to sustain by our arms what we have determined upon in our counsels?
We who were emulous of being foremost in dissolving the Union should not be laggard in preparing for the contest. We have taken the field. Our flag is unfurled of Pensacola, where our gallant troops stand shoulder to shoulder with the brave volunteers from our sister States, who, with a noble, generous chivalry, stand ready to obey our orders and co-operate with us most cordially in our time of need. Let us make provisions to keep them under arms and to call out and support them by others should they be needed. The State expects us to do our duty; the people will do theirs. I invite you, therefore, to lend me your aid and to unite with me in providing for the calling into service such a number of troops as may be equal to our defense when assisted, as we shall be, by our sister States who are preparing to unite their political fortunes with ours. I also suggest to you that you should make special appropriations for the pay and maintenance of as many troops as may be called into service, and for the purchase of munitions of war, transportation of troops, and other expenses incidental to the defenses of the State. The States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina, which have dissolved their connection with the late Federal Union, have elected delegates to meet with those sent from this State to the convention to be held in Montgomery, Ala., on the 4th day of this month, being the day suggested by a majority of the seceding States.
We may expect, therefore, that the convention will at an early day form a provisional government for the States represented and call for troops and money from the confederates. The quota of Florida will not be large, but we should proceed to organize the force which we are likely to be called on to furnish, and appropriate the means necessary for the maintenance and pay of them and our quota of the expense of the common defense.
I am not able to lay before you an estimate of the amount necessary, but will readily confer with committees of your bodies, with a view to ascertain what sum of money may be required therefor.
Very respectfully,
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
