LETTER to A. B. J., 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE PAMPHLET ENTITLED 
 
 THE UNION AS IT WAS 
 
 CONSTITUTION AS IT IS.' 
 
LETTER to A. B. J.c, -^ 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE PAMPHLET ENTITLED 
 
 "THE UNION AS IT WAS 
 
 CONSTITUTION AS IT IS.' 
 
 jUln fori? : 
 
 FRANCIS & LOUTEEL, PRINTERS AND STATIONERS, 45 MAIDEN LANE. 
 
 L 8 6 3 
 
3 
 
 jJ6 
 
 JO 
 
^ 
 
 *} 
 
 t 
 
 LETTER. 
 
 New York, March 16th, 1863. 
 
 A. B. J , Esq. 
 
 Dear Sir : The pamphlet to which you referred 
 in your note, as containing your political views, 
 readied me sometime since, but unusual em<-a<>e- 
 ments have left me no opportunity to write yon at 
 an earlier day than this. 
 
 You are quite right in saying our views are di- 
 ametrically opposite, I can hardly imagine two 
 stand-points more widely apart, or inferences from 
 facts and history more at variance than yours and 
 mine, Yet each is trying to see the entire truth ; 
 to look it squarely in the face; to make logical 
 deductions and form opinions to live by now and 
 ever. Perhaps religious diversities — strange and 
 manifold doctrines, absurd and rational, drawn 
 from the same fountain-head of spiritual know- 
 
( 1 ) 
 
 ledat — furnish the best iwallel to this con- 
 trariety of political creeds, springing from our 
 comnion history and national institutions. Tins 
 maybe fortunate for the self-esteem of the indi- 
 vidual, however disastrous to truth, patriotism or 
 religion in the community. (July the man who 
 holds his opinions strongly, (whether right or 
 wrong intrinsically,) will ever trouble himself to 
 saturate the world with his thoughts. Thus is 
 sown broadcast, error and truth, wisdom and folly, 
 light and darkness. He is lucky who can winnow 
 out the tares, and "shoot folly as it flies.'" I sin- 
 cerely invoke the spirit of the motto you adopt : 
 
 " O wad some jiower the giftie yie us 
 To see oursels as others see us! 
 It wad frae monie a blunder free us 
 And foolish notion." 
 
 I think, however, I should hardly venture to 
 write to you on this subject if I had not lived 
 with slavery and seen it at Iwme. More than 
 twenty years ago I passed two or three years in 
 Florida. I have therefore seen the institution do- 
 mesticated. I have witnessed it- effects alike on 
 the while and on the black race, and I really 
 believe the more malignant and deteriorating in- 
 fluences <>f slavery are to In- found among the 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 white, brutalizing as they are on the black man. 
 I am tempted, with these convictions, to examine 
 somewhat at length the views set forth in your 
 pamphlet. 
 
 It is hardly worth while, perhaps, to more than 
 allude to your verbal criticism on " causeless war," 
 "beneficent Government," and so on, as yon must 
 be aware that such-like phrases of the newspapers 
 convey a distinct and definite idea to the popular 
 mind. For instance, everybody understands that 
 no justifiable cause for the war was created by 
 the constitutional election of President Lincoln; 
 everybody knows, too, that if the South has not 
 found ours a "beneficent Government" it is its 
 own fault, since Southern men have controled its 
 action four-fifths of the whole time we have been 
 a nation. Passing over the opening of your 
 pamphlet, with these few words, let me try to com- 
 prehend the principle which underlies your subse- 
 quent pages. 
 
 You say, "the true cause of our present troubles 
 dates back to the formation of the Union under its 
 existing Constitution, the States now in revolt de- 
 siring no Constitution unless it should secure all 
 rights of independent sovereignty to each." 
 
 Now, as I read the history of the adoption of the 
 Constitution of the United States, the States in re- 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 bellion, or rather the people of those States, (with 
 the exception of one State,) readily accepted the 
 Constitution under which we now live, without any 
 such provision of independent sovereignty ; while in 
 several of the Northern States, the people warmly 
 < >pp< )scd its adoption for month s. It was the Nortlt 
 and not the South, which objected to the Consti- 
 tution. Neither did the North oppose the amend- 
 ment of the Constitution by which " the powers not 
 delegated to the United States, are reserved to the 
 States respectively, or to the people." 
 
 Thus it appears, that the Southern States were 
 eager to embrace the original Constitution without 
 suggesting an amendment, much less proposing "all 
 rights of independent sovereignty to each State." 
 An idea, in fact, cpiite absurd on the face of it. 
 How could a State, subject to the Constitutional 
 restrictions of a General Government, be in any 
 sense an it) dependent sovereignty? Yet this is the 
 rock on which the South lias split. Universal con- 
 trol or Independent Sovereignty has been its aim. 
 These are thoughts which have seduced our " way- 
 ward sisters" info habits of habitual intemperance 
 of word and deed, and threaten (heir ultimate ruin. 
 
 Again, you say — "the North, favoring in the 
 General Governmenl a centralization of all powers, 
 and the South favoring in the Governmenl such 
 
( 1 ) 
 
 powers only as the States severally cannot exercise 
 beneficially for themselves; hence the South de- 
 sired a Constitution which could not be enlarged 
 by construction." Yet on the next page, yon ad- 
 mit, that " the purchase of Louisiana from France, 
 in 1803, was opposed by an almost undivided 
 North : and so, also, was opposed the acquisition 
 of Florida, in 1821, and of Texas in 1845/' 
 
 Now, sir, you must remember that Jefferson 
 himself admitted there was no express constitu- 
 tional power authorizing the Government to buy 
 Louisiana. He justified it on the ground of expe- 
 diency alone. It was necessary, he argued, to hold 
 the mouths of the Mississippi, if we would control 
 the trade of" the Father of Waters." But the strict 
 constructionist of the North said, no, not even for 
 a world of gain, will we stretch the Constitution 
 beyond its letter and spirit, The latitudinarians 
 of the South, however, had no doubts, no strict- 
 construction theory to interfere with their urging 
 the purchase. Nor had they any scruples in the 
 case of Florida, much less in that of Texas, from 
 whose Territory, though then free, they insisted 
 on providing for the admission of four Slave 
 States into the Union ! How seriously this state- 
 ment confiicts with your's, is but too evident from 
 the following quotation: "The North," you say. 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 "soon began to interpret the Constitution lati- 
 tudinously, and the South restrictively. Nor 
 are the motives of either section speculative 
 merely; the North is commercial, manut'actural 
 and enterprising, and hence desires a protective 
 tariff, a protective navy, fishing bounties, and the 
 construction or improvement, by the General Gov- 
 ernment, of rivers, roads, canals, and harbors; while 
 the South is agricultural, and hence desires free 
 trade." 
 
 The foregoing paragraph, in my view, contains 
 several fallacies : 
 
 1st. The North did not so construe the Constitu- 
 tion, but endeavored to guard against such con- 
 struction on the part of the South. 
 
 2d. The North and West are vastly more agricul- 
 tural than the South, as to extent, variety, and 
 value of products. It was slavery not agriculture 
 the North aimed to restrict. 
 
 3d. The "protective navy" protected the name 
 and the lame of America the world over: it pro- 
 tected alike Southern and Northern ports; it pro- 
 tected ami supported, also, large numbers of officers 
 from Southern State-. 
 
 4th. The protective tariff originated at the 
 South. It was warmly advocated by John C. 
 Calhoun: it cheapened to the Southern consumer, 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 every article protected : it opened a large North- 
 ern market for Southern cotton : it compelled the 
 South, from economic motives, to buy of the North 
 rather than of Europe— this last was a grave of- 
 fence ! 
 
 Let this brief summary suffice. Your own fair 
 judgment, and ample knowledge, will extend the 
 cases almost indefinitely. I cannot refrain, how- 
 ever, from recurring to a new agricultural pro- 
 duct of Illinois — one of the most prosperous and 
 important of our Western States. During the past 
 year 7,500,000 gallons of sorghum syrup have been 
 produced there ; of which three thousand barrels 
 have been sent from Qnincy, in that State, to Mis- 
 souri and Kentucky. Who can doubt that in five 
 years, or less, Illinois will supply itself with sugar 
 from free labor, and export largely besides \ 
 
 As to the Teheitokies. 
 
 You say, " Congress persistently interdicted the 
 migration into the Territories of any Southern 
 slave, making all free whom their masters should 
 bring; there. 17 
 
 I regard it a work of supererogation, on the 
 part of Congress, to declare negroes free, whom 
 their masters should take from a slave State into 
 
( io ) 
 
 a free Territory. For the simple reason, that it was 
 only by virtue, (or force,) of the law in such State 
 that the negro was held in bondage. Just as soon 
 as be was voluntarily taken beyond the limit of 
 the slave State, and placed on free soil, his fetters 
 dropped off! Do you ask why, ? Simply, because 
 there was no law there to hold them on. 
 
 The Territories belonging to the United States 
 are governed only by laws and rules enacted by 
 the Congress of the United States. The Consti- 
 tution, so far from giving Congress power to en- 
 slave a human being, has not even the word 
 slavery in that instrument. The only indirect 
 reference to the subject being in that portion on 
 which the odious fugitive slave law was founded. 
 A negro, therefore, who was a slave in Louisiana, 
 on being taken to one of our Territories by his 
 master, became instantly free, because neither Con- 
 gress, nor Louisiana had the power to re-shackle 
 the man on free soil. The natural rights of man- 
 hood were thus achieved. God never made a 
 slave ! Man only boasts the hateful prerogative. 
 In the absence of man's law, therefore, a human 
 being, black or white, is a free man, and not a 
 -lave ! 
 
 It has been speciously argued, I know, that we of 
 t li«' Nbrl li deprive the South from taking their pro- 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 perty into our common Territories, while we carry 
 ours there without obstruction or qualification. 
 
 Now, in fact, we extend the same rights and 
 privileges to the South that we claim for the 
 North. The slave is the product of slave laws; 
 of course, enacted in a slave State. The slave is 
 not property by the common, the universal con- 
 sent of mankind. He is only made so by local, 
 special legislation. He can consequently be held 
 and recognized as such only within the legitimate 
 scope of such law. The moment he is taken be- 
 yond the sphere of slave-law he is free. England 
 declared, long ago, the principle that " free soil 
 makes free men !" The Southerner cannot take his 
 "peculiar institution" where there is no peculiar 
 law to guarantee his peculiar claim. In this re- 
 spect he does not differ from the Northerner. 
 Either can take into the free Territoiies what all 
 mankind, by universal consent, admit to be pro- 
 perty. But neither can take more. For instance, 
 the New Yorker cannot take the Free Banking 
 Laws of his State into a Territory of the United 
 States ; nor can the Massachusetts man carry 
 there the laws of his State in regard to manufac- 
 turing, or any other local institution. 
 
 The North and the South stand on precisely the 
 same ground. There is perfect equality if the 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 slave is excluded, but there would not be if he 
 were compelled to wear bis shackles on free soil. 
 Our free Territories are governed, neither by the 
 Laws of South Carolina nor Connecticut, but by 
 rules and regulations adopted by the Congress of 
 the United States, in which free and slave States 
 are duly represented. It is idle to talk, therefore, 
 of any injustice or hardship towards citizens of 
 the South, when they enjoy all the rights and 
 privileges in the Territories which have ever 
 been claimed <>r exercised by citizens of the 
 North. 
 
 You state, substantially, on page 9, that the 
 South purposely aided in the election of Mr. Lin- 
 coln, yet "resolving that if Northern success should 
 prove that the existence of the South in the Con- 
 federacy could be thus ignored, the South would 
 in turn ignore the Confederacy." What is this 
 but a premeditated, deep-laid conspiracy to destroy 
 the Government if not permitted to rule? Mark 
 the language, too: "The Confederacy!" which not 
 only has a bad odor, but, under the Constitution, 
 do meaning whatever. It is true u The Union" 
 wsls formed under the old confederation; but the 
 Constitution of the United States was formed by 
 the people, and not by ;i Confederation <»!" States. 
 This form of speech, with such motives of action, 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 ignores our nationality, annuls our Constitution, 
 and would blot out more than eighty years of 
 American history. 
 
 General Jackson foretold this Rebellion, when, 
 in 1833, after putting down Nullification, he said, 
 " the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and 
 a Southern Confederacy the real object. The next 
 pretext will be the negro, or the slavery question:* 
 He knew the Southern character, and this remark 
 of his is more a deduction than a prophecy. 
 Yet it is true in either sense. The conflict is be- 
 gun. The deliberate conspiracy which was shad- 
 owed forth at Richmond and Charleston, took 
 form at Sumter. It is interesting, now, to see that 
 those who have played the Jeremiah did behold 
 the shadows of coming events. Indeed, the ag- 
 gressions of the slave power, made it plain to 
 those who were not prophets, that wrong too oft re- 
 peated must lead to blows. The South disregard- 
 ed again and again, all constitutional restraints 
 whenever they stood in the way of acquiring 
 slave-territory by purse or sword. It attempted 
 to thrust on Kansas the hated Lecompton Consti- 
 tution. It repealed the Missouri Compromise 
 against all honor and justice, taking for the 
 South its part of the bargain, and then trying to 
 steal the North's also. What retributive justice 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 may soon be administered by an Act of Emanci- 
 pation in Missouri itself! 
 
 It is true a portion of the North has tried to 
 check and combat this aggressive spirit, It has 
 not disguised its hatred of slavery, its love of free- 
 dom ; while the South has, first of all, loved slavery 
 and despised restraint. Is it surprising that these 
 opposite motives of action should fail to develope 
 1 1 armoniously ? And yet, but for the violent attack 
 on the life of the nation, at Charleston, no doubt 
 the North would have borne and forborne with the 
 insolence of the slave-power for many years to come. 
 Such, however, had been the perversion of the 
 Government of our fathers in favor of slavery, such 
 the domination of slave-holders, that sooner or later 
 the struggle for the mastery between freedom and 
 oppression, must have come. I am thankful to 
 have been permitted l«» see the beginning of it, and 
 hope to see the end. As a just God rules the 
 world, I cannot doubt the final success of the 
 cause of Freedom. 
 
 Y<>ur pamphlet is entitled, "The Union as it 
 was. and the Constitution as it is." 
 
 Perhaps the readiest way of catching a glimpse 
 of "the Union as it was" is to ascertain the opin- 
 ions, feelings, and views of those who formed the 
 basis <>f oiii- Government. I think the history oi 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 that period shows, that the Fathers were impressed 
 with one prevalent feeling and strong desire, viz. : 
 that freedom might be universal in our land. They 
 hoped slavery would gradually, and at no distant 
 day disappear. Witness the Declaration of our In- 
 dependence and the Constitution: they breathe 
 the spirit of universal freedom, without one word 
 in favor of slavery. 
 
 You remember, no doubt, the well known let- 
 ter of Washington to Lafayette, in which he says : 
 "Your jmrchase of an estate in the Colony of 
 Cayenne, with a view of emancipating the slaves, 
 is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. 
 Would to God a like spirit might diffuse itself 
 generally into the minds of the people of this 
 country." Again, in a letter to John F. Mercer, 
 Washington says: "I never mean, unless some 
 particular circumstances compel me to it, to possess 
 another slave by purchase; it being among my 
 first wishes to see some plan adopted l>y which 
 slavery in. this country may he abolished hy law? 
 Washington also directs, in his last will, as follows : 
 " Upon the decease of my wife, it is my will and 
 desire, that all my slaves, which I hold in my 
 own right, shall receive their freedom." Thus 
 emancipating all the slaves which his own act 
 could free. Tt has been pertinently asked: — 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 " Would Washington have hesitated to do for 
 his country, what he deemed it right to do for 
 himself?" 
 
 Jefferson's testimony against slavery was even 
 still more emphatic, if possible. In a letter to 
 M. Warville, written in 1788, he declares: "The 
 whole commerce between master and slave is a 
 perpetual exercise of the most boisterous pas- 
 sions; the most unremitting despotism on the one 
 part, and degrading submissions on the other. * 
 * -:<- * rpj ie man mnst Y )e a prodigy who can 
 
 retain his manners and morals undepraved by 
 such circumstances. " * * And can the liber- 
 ties of a nation be thought secure when we have 
 removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the 
 minds of the people that these liberties are the 
 gift of God? That they are not to be violated 
 but with his wrath ? Indeed, I tremble for nnj 
 country when I reflect that God is just: that his 
 justice cannot sleep forever; that considering 
 numbers, nature and natural means only, a revo- 
 lution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of 
 situation, is among possible events; that it may 
 become probable by supernatural interference! 
 Tht Almighty lias n<> attribute xdhich can talce sidt 
 
 With US in 8UCll (l rout, -si. * * * But we must 
 
 wait with patience the workings of an overruling 
 
( n ) 
 
 Providence, and hope that that is preparing the 
 deliverance of these our suffering brethren. When 
 the measure of their tears shall be full, doubtless 
 a God of Justice will awaken to their distress, and 
 by diffusing a light among their oppressors, or at 
 length by his exterminating thunder, manifest his 
 attention to things of this world, and that they 
 are not left to the guidance of blind fatality." 
 Behold the opinion of another Southern man, one 
 who knew the force of lamma^e, and understood 
 the subject he discussed. Could words be found 
 more prophetic ( Is not God manifesting "his ex- 
 terminating thunder V 
 
 The last public act of Benjamin Franklin was 
 to sign, as President of an Abolition Society, a 
 petition to Congress, dated 12th February, 1789, 
 praying for the abolition of slavery, in the fol 
 lowing terms: 
 
 "Your memorialists conceive themselves bound 
 to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bonds 
 of slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of 
 the blessings of freedom. Under these impres- 
 sions, they earnestly entreat your serious attention 
 to the subject of slavery; that you will be pleased 
 to countenance the restoration of liberty to those 
 unhappy men who alone, in this land of freedom, 
 are degraded into perpetual bondage, and who, 
 
( 18 ) 
 
 amid the general joy of surrounding freemen, are 
 groaning in servile subjection. That you will de- 
 vise means for removing this inconsistency from the 
 character of the American people. That you will 
 promote mercy and justice towards this distressed 
 race, and that you will step to the very verge of 
 the power vested in you for discouraging every 
 species of traffic in the persons of our fellow 
 men. 11 
 
 James Monroe, too, in the Virginia Convention, 
 denounced slavery as " an evil which has preyed 
 upon the very vitals of the Union, and has been 
 prejudicial to all the States in which it has ex- 
 isted. 11 
 
 The foregoing extracts from throe Southern 
 Presidents, and the wisest philosopher this country 
 lias produced, give us, I think, a clear idea of the 
 spirit which animated the fathers of our Govern- 
 ment, Freedom was the rule, slavery the excep- 
 tion. 
 
 Unluckily for the early extinction of slavery by 
 that gradual decline they anticipated, Massachu- 
 setts, soon after the close of the Revolution, gave 
 to the South the cotton-gin. This simple machine 
 quadrupled the value of slave labor, as applied to 
 cotton-growing. It increased the wealth, and in 
 like measure the arrogance, of the slaveholders. 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 But for the recent unprovoked madness of that 
 people, Whitney would seem to have postponed 
 indefinitely the emancipation of the blacks. The 
 power of that invention is now overcome by a 
 Divine interposition in favor of the bondsman. Com- 
 merce has had her day. God's Justice cries for her's. 
 
 " The Constitution as It Is. 11 
 Your statement under this head must have been 
 indited as the utterance of a South Carolina fanatic. 
 u Rebels," you say, " can be punished for their 
 treason only by civil process, assisted, if necessary, 
 by the militia, as a posse comltatus. The trial for 
 their crimes must, however, be held in the State 
 where the crimes have been committed," &c. 
 
 In other words the Nation has no right to de- 
 fend its life. The Constitution, you make, " a 
 sword in the hands of the Rebels, but a fetter to 
 us" — as Professor Parsons has haj)pily expressed 
 it. Pray what would have been the fate of a 
 Judge and Jury in Charleston, attempting to try 
 the Rebels who stormed and took Fort Sumter, at 
 an odds of 800 to 80 ? " If these means failed, 11 
 you say, " none existed. 1 ' On being summoned, 
 then, by a Rebel army, we had only to vacate 
 Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Bun- 
 ker Hill in turn! and let Jeff. Davis take pos- 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 session of each and all. Is it possible you so 
 interpret the constitutional obligations of our 
 Government \ Is the first law of nature — self-pro- 
 tection — binding on the individual, but not on the 
 nation \ Is that law abrogated by a written Con- 
 stitution \ Does " the Constitution's lack of coer- 
 cive power" leave the people of this country to 
 the tender mercies of disappointed slave-holders? 
 Have we of the North no rights of self-defense 
 even ( Have Ave nothing to do but " let the way- 
 ward sisters go," taking with them what they 
 please? You say, "let them alone, or declare 
 war against them as a foreign enemy." All they 
 say is, " let us alone." So says the burglar who 
 has broken into your house, at midnight, and 
 helped himself to your treasure. " Let me alone," 
 he says, "or I will take your life. I have not 
 only got your family silver, but your pistols and 
 ammunition, also. I will kill you, therefore, un- 
 less you let me go, plunder and all." So the Re- 
 bels say — "All we ask is to be let alone; we 
 trust the whole world knows this; especially we 
 desire that Ensrland and France should understand 
 it !" 
 
 No, sir, that is not the letter or spirit of "the 
 Constitution as it is, 11 or "the Union as it was." 
 The Constitution is not a rope of sand— nor is 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 it freedom's halter. It was made to protect and 
 not to oppress mankind. In that portion of our 
 land, where all men have been secure in the en- 
 joyment of their earnings, labor and enterprize 
 have gone hand in hand, and their fruit has been 
 abundant prosperity, moral, intellectual and ma- 
 terial. While in that other portion, where the 
 few have usurped the rights of the many, where 
 toil was unrequited, aud all manhood crushed out 
 of the heart of the laborer, the standard of civil- 
 ization has gradually sunk lower and lower. Keen- 
 eyed retribution follows close on the oppressor. 
 Slavery in this country has done more harm to 
 the white man than to the black. It has couched 
 the eye of the African and enabled him to catch 
 glimpses of Christian truth and political rights; 
 it has given him some faint notion of his pro- 
 per manhood. On the other hand, unbridled 
 power, lawless ambition, and uncontrolled sway 
 over a subjected race, have lowered and degraded 
 the white man. The slave has unconsciously 
 avenged his wrongs on his w T hite master, in the 
 enslavement of that master to debasing passions, 
 ungoverned will and heartless tyranny. Slavery 
 is a violation of the principle on which free gov- 
 ernments are based. It is no safer for govern- 
 ments, or communities, than for individuals to vio- 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 late principle. The fundamental principle of 
 
 universal justice must be maintained inviolate, or 
 the penalty is sure to Le exacted sooner or later. 
 Our fathers deviated from the exact line of right 
 in their compromise with the evil — slavery. Be- 
 hold the price we pay for that deviation! "All 
 things whatsoever ye would that men should do 
 to you, do ye even so to them." 
 
 Perhaps you will say, "The Southerner thinks 
 he is right — he is conscientious in this warfare." 
 But how can this be ? He has a keen eye Un- 
 political economy, he is educated in politics, he 
 knows "all the tricks of the trade." He knows the 
 South participated in the last presidential elec- 
 tion ; and, as you intimate (for ulterior purposes), 
 was not unwilling; to secure the election of Mr. 
 Lincoln. The South had majorities in both 
 branches of Congress. The Supreme Court of the 
 United States, for years, had exhibited very strong 
 Southern proclivities, not to say great pliability 
 — as in the Dred Scott decision. But the case is 
 most happily stated, and summed up, by Mr. Van 
 Bureii in his recent speech in this city. lie said : 
 "They (the Southern men) assumed to set up a 
 Government under the right which they claimed 
 to destroy the Union. They formed a Congress 
 and elected a Presideut. But they were not con- 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 tent with this. They seized the property of the 
 United States — they seized its forts, its ships, its 
 treasure. They fired upon the flag of the United 
 States at Fort Sumter, and claimed the right to 
 exercise the power of a sovereign Government. 
 Now, you will bear in mind — every fair-minded 
 man in the United States will bear in mind — that 
 up to this time not one hair of their heads had 
 been injured. No right of any Southern man had 
 been invaded. History will record that the world 
 never witnessed a rebellion against a Govermental 
 authority before where the rebels could not lay 
 their finger upon a thing to show that either their 
 property, their liberty, or their rights had been, in 
 the slightest particular, invaded." 
 
 "Still," you may say, "from his stand-point the 
 Southern man felt aggrieved." Then, I say, he 
 not only took a wrong stand, but with his know- 
 ledge of the Constitution and the Government of 
 his country he deliberately chose the wrong. It 
 is possible that slavery had so dimmed the sight 
 within, " that he could not see his own darkness," 
 but he is responsible for that. The darkness is 
 a mere consequence of slavery. A New-Zea- 
 lander roasts a Missionary for breakfast, and docs 
 it conscientiously, from his stand-point, but does 
 that make it any the less barbarous? What ex- 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 ruse, then, to say nothing of justification, can you 
 offer for this attempt to commit a murder, which, 
 however, bids fair to turn out a suicide ! 
 
 I cannot aoree with you that "History is pro- 
 verbial for repeating itself," &c. In any large, 
 comprehensive view of history, this is not true. 
 As well might it be said, sunsets are fond of re- 
 peating themselves. It is true the sun sets daily, 
 but never twice alike. Every sunset sees nature 
 building "some new castle in the sky." History, 
 too, is made and written day by day, but no day 
 is the repetition of any preceding one. Galileo, as 
 he was led to prison, said of the physical world 
 — "Still it moves. 11 So may it with equal truth 
 and propriety be said of the moral world — Still it 
 moves ! Man is being educated constantly. From 
 the earliest gropings of his undeveloped intellect 
 and dim moral preceptions, to the present hour, 
 man has been led upward and onward. With 
 clearer and clearer glimpses of the designs of Pro- 
 vidence in regard to him ; with fuller and higher 
 aspirations after the Infinite and the True. The 
 new of yesterday is the old of to-day. Man, 
 ;is now seen in his religious, intellectual, scientific, 
 social and govermental developments, is quite a 
 different being from the man \vh<> existed with su- 
 perstition for his religion, astrology for liis science. 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 a grand tyrant to rule the State, and a petty 
 tyrant the home. Now what is true of individual 
 man is true of collective manhood. History is not 
 duplicated, but conforms itself to the growth of the 
 world. This is true, however, only of the world 
 of progress, the world of ideas, in a government 
 of freedom and universal justice. The South I 
 fear, with its peculiar institution, was a type of the 
 darker ages. This revolution in that land of op- 
 pression may, and I trust will, introduce the new 
 principles essential to its growth and welfare, 
 while the old destructive elements of society 
 and government shall be forever abolished with 
 slavery. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 J. E. W. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 028 077 6